I much prefer the idea of a user fee.

Assuming each department operates within it’s own budget as if it was a completely seperate business entity, who would bail them out when costs can’t be covered? There is no general fund…

That’s how development services was supposed to operate but it was deep in the red. And with a “bailout” from the BOCC, as well as cutting employee numbers, they can continue to operate during the next year.

If the BOCC didn’t bailout DSD, they can’t file CH 11.

Of course, they could continue to cut staff, and that is okay right now since work there is slow (and was slow when I moved along in Dec), especially in the planning department.

Less employees means the work can get stretched and customer service will suffer.

Once the housing market picks up, and it will, you have to hire more and it is costly to hire new employees. And then let them go when the cycle hits again. Can’t be for-profit and save for the future…to keep employees during a downturn.

But the solution would be NO GROWTH, NO DSD. Right?

I’m just writing down some thoughts, someone please re-direct me. Thanks.

Several people have already pointed out flaws with the first page of the “survey”. For example, government efficiency and good customer service should not require specific budget allocations. It should be the duty of every county elected official and employee to look for efficiencies and treat customers properly.

Ada County can cut wasteful spending and save tax dollars by: 1) adopting zero-based budgeting, a system in which justification of every County expenditure is required on a periodic basis, 2) consolidating duplicate services, a proven concept that has been studied repeatedly but never adequately implemented, and, 3) returning to the voters our constitutional right to vote on projects requiring long-term debt.

The county EMS service is only 30% funded by taxpayer contributions — the remaining 70% comes from the actual users of the service. Well, actually their health insurance company — if they have a policy.

A year or so ago the county tried to increase the levy rate for EMS service to have taxpayers pay for the whole operation — this would have resulted in an increase of approximately $10 per property owner (yes, it was based off property taxes). The voters (you, me and everyone else) rejected the proposal and kept the existing funding scenario.

But I agree to the no-no on double-dipping.

As Bikeboy indicates, relying on user fees to pay for services can be the way to go. The Landfill happens to be one of those. It has projected revenues around $15 million for current budget leaving it short $6 million. I believe some added cost are budgeted for the landfill expansion to continue operating at the Hidden Hollow Complex. If you look at previous years, they have been self sufficient.

That’s why this is simply a validation survey and will provide no real input. There is nothing on this list that the county is not supposed to provide and the language is such that it is nice and happy feeling. Ooh yes, please sirs, give us excellent customer service. So if no one puts that in their “basket” we don’t get good customer service?

Also the problem with budgeting by objectives is that the details are always overlooked and that is where you can save the most money.

Why don’t they ask us questions like, should the county support a detox facility? should the county be in the business of parks? should the county develop drug programs to lessen the use of the jail? etc, etc etc.

I wonder who developed this survey, was it in-house or out, if it was out, how much is it costing us?

($^#%^&$*^$^%*(*#

I understand, but the problem is two-fold.

1. Some are budget items (public safety and courts) while others are not (excellent public service when dealing with County employees. It’s an apples and oranges thing.

2. If I recognize that courts and public safety cost a lot more money than teaching people to smile and allot $90 to courts and safety and split the remaining $10 among the rest, does that mean that excellent public service or efficiency are not priorities? Not necessarily. It only recognizes that they can’t be valued in dollars and that they apply across many services. It will be impossible to tell what people intended when they answer the survey.

But just to be fair, I’d suggest our slice of the Sheriff pie is unfairly large. After all, we have our own Boise Police Department that provides the lion’s share of our cop duties.

And another big chunk of County Money goes for Solid Waste Management. Surely most of that is outside Boise’s city limits.

I’m all in favor of ANYTHING that can be done, so the USERS of government services are paying for those services, rather than blanketing the expenses over all county taxpayers. That’s called socialism.

Here are some numbers from the current budget:
Clerk of the court (the operational expenses?) – $8 million
Sheriff – $45.8 million
Solid Waste – $21.6 million

(Taken from numbers that can be seen at http://www.adaweb.net/departments/publicinformation/documents/FY08TentativeBudget.pdf .)