The Bottom Line Report

Mike,

I'm glad you followed up on this because it was a very interesting question to task the Commission Auditor of his investigative abilities. I'm sure there are many who'd like a cut-and-dried answer  - something that looks neat and tidy in one swell package and is a blueprint for success. But it doesn't come as a surprise to me that Mr. Prices's responses came back in shades of gray.

Is that a good thing? I believe that has to be a good thing in order to give those running the County - both the legislative and administrative branches - latitude to establish the services the county needs.

Now that we know, it's as Mr. Behring has suggested: It helps at budget time. No one service can claim to be of a higher priority than any other service except in how the commissioners (defined as you and me) rank and determine how tax dollars should be spent.

It sounds like the investigation proved the premise: services perpetuate their own requirements.

Was there a next step, Mike?

LOS level of service. While they are mandated to provide certain things for the public. The level of service is not mandated. So what will suffer? The level of service in the areas of what the government provides to the citizens.

That's why I am a big supporter of doing away with the 2 additional positions.

Because when it comes to the level of service provided to the citizens that's where the cuts will come from. Do you want additional police and fire. Or what other services are you willing to do without or less of in the county?

When the legislature returns next week the first order of business it to cut 542 million from this years budget crisis. Then they will will go to work on cutting 2 billion out of the next fiscal year's budget. I'm sure Tallahassee will NOT be hearing us I don't care who we send up there.

We pay to be a member of the Fl Association of Counties which is a legal lobbyist group that works in Tallahassee to protect the county's interest. That's their job and that's what we pay them for. They present a united front and lobby for all the counties to support legislation that benefits counties and opposes legislation that takes home rule away from the counties. They are in constant contact with the county. They are professionals at what they do.

We have seen the power of a lobbyist in Tallahassee. As a matter of fact Commissioner Bush said our favorite one got us a red light on Hwy 17 because the State did not hear us over here. Always put your money on the lobbyist.

Now we have about 9 million dollars to cut from the budget. LOS is going to go down in some areas. It's gonna be what the citizens are willing to accept for that lower level of service and in what areas.

My bottom line would be much different, Angela.

My bottom line would dictate because of the LOS (or changes occuring to the future LOS), the county needs as many faces and voices in Tallahassee as we can possibly field.

On a larger scale, Florida counties need to present a united front in Tallahassee in order reverse the onslaught against home rule and taking away our ability to generate our own revenue to establish our LOS.

Holistically speaking, I do not believe we can deal with projected budget cuts unless we have the ability to control our own destiny. Preserving home rule would be my first order of business.

Bottom line.

We pay a lot of money for representation in Tallahassee. We don't have to pay for travel because they are already there. Working with the legislators on a personal level daily. They are there in force and professionals at what they do.

The attorney from the Fl Association of Counties appeared before the CRC she's very knowledgeable and on the ball. Our attorney has consulted with her before on certain matters. The CRC consulted with her about a Charter County. This isn't her part time job but her full time job and this is her field of expertise.

They are there and we pay them to protect and uphold home rules and are Charter experts, they present a united force, and represent the counties. As a matter of fact when the legislators attempt to attack the home rule we are better represented by them for all the counties because numbers count. Not a lone single county with a representative up there asking for what we want.

Bottom Line what services are we willing to cut in order to have a balanced budget. But then I would say cutting those 2 additional position would lessen the amount of services that would be required to be cut. That's what the people need to decide when it comes up for a vote.

It's warm and fuzzy to say I have more votes which doesn't always result in representation. However, I would rather have the services that protect the community and offer a quality of life in the county.

Part Two of the Bottom Line Report suggested replacing that line when evaluating local government services. Instead, think of two lines. One represents the least and the other represents the most. In between those two extremes is the level of service provided, and that's where any true debate about government services will be waged.

Level of Service (LOS) is what local citizens will hear when they listen to the County Commission deal with budget cuts. Currently, the LOS is established through the County's Comprehensive Plan. Here's a simple way to explain it, with the example courtesy of Mike Price.

Clay County government includes the Constitutionally-mandated Sheriff, whose office is funded by the County Commission and whose job entails keeping local folks safe. Price said government could ensure everyone's safety in their own homes by stationing two deputies at each house, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It'd "only cost about $3 trillion." The opposite extreme would be to give the Sheriff a car and box of bullets.

It's in between the opposite extreme Levels of Service that the debate will be waged when evaluating government services and funding. Trimming government expenditures won't be as easy as debating the Level of Service for each individual program, because each individual program decision will have a domino effect on other programs and services. To quote from the Bottom Line Report:

Is it better in the long run to maintain a huge capacity to respond to a traffic accident with police, fire and rescue support, or is it a better expenditure of public safety dollars to repair and maintain the roads on which these accidents most often occur and whose condition may contribute to the accident to begin with?

The auditor's report pointed out that, with expected cuts in state revenue, this is an opportunity for local government to re-examine itself and start thinking "outside the box" when considering services offered by the county.

In the past, thinking outside the box most often led to ridicule. Hopefully, our government will see the value in discussing ideas that originate from outside the tight circle of local political bigwigs. If not, we'll miss yet another opportunity for meaningful changes and improvements in Clay County government.

Michael S. Mann

Key2Life - you said (and I quote): "No one service can claim to be of a higher priority than any other service except in how the commissioners (defined as you and me) rank and determine how tax dollars should be spent."  I'm puzzled by your claim that no one [governmental] service can claim to be of a higher priority than any other service......"  Not sure what you mean; but, the county tree ordinance requires at least one county employee to run around all over Clay county with a set of calipers in hand to measure the diameter of saplings planted on private property.  I don't see how that service rises to the level of priority of Emergency Medical Technicians rushing in an ambulance to transport a heart-attack victim to an emergency room to save a life. Or firemen rushing to put out a structural fire; or deputies responding to a home break-in.  Do you really mean that no one service can claim to be of a higher priority than any other service?  With draconian budget cuts, it seems to me that priorities can and must be established in Clay county to keep expenditures in line with revenues. 

Just thinkin'............. 

Thinker,

Thanks for pulling me up and making me think about what I meant when I said what I said. I stand by it because I was talking "theoretically." Perhaps not practically or realistically but more as in "all things being equal" every service starts from the same point and makes a case for itself.

Have a great Saturday.

Karen Lake