Reality Check...or Denial of Reality...who am I going trust the Freeholders or Madore...hmmm it wont be difficult with Madores history as prologue:-) David Madore 17 minutes ago · Edited Clark County staff is correct on stated costs. Charter should account for actual expected costs: Clark County Budget Manager Bob Stevens is above reproach and an excellent source of accurate credible numbers. I stand behind our staff inclu... See More Photo: Clark County staff is correct on stated costs. Charter should account for actual expected costs: Clark County Budget Manager Bob Stevens is above reproach and an excellent source of accurate credible numbers. I stand behind our staff including Mr. Stevens and the numbers that they provide us. None of their numbers are in question. What is in question is the foreseeable annual cost to Clark County taxpayers if we swap our current county county government for the county government proposed by the charter. Perhaps the charter proponents are not aware our recent county history. Clark County has an appointed full time county administrator, Mark McCauley, who does an excellent job running the day to day operations of the county. It’s a full time challenging job and Mr. McCauley is succeeding without the help of a full time deputy county administrator. Until last year, Clark County had a full time deputy county administrator. We eliminated that position last year when Glenn Olson retired to save taxpayers around $200,000 per year. Mr. Olson managed half a dozen departments for our previous county administrator, Bill Barron, before Mr. Barron retired. The management of those departments are now included in McCauley’s work load. There is no question that the proposed county government expands the duties and responsibilities beyond those of our county administrator. In addition to transferring the work that commissioners currently do on behalf of citizens as we work to solve problems and streamline processes, the charter adds a significant list of new duties and responsibilities to a newly proposed county executive director and then transfers to that position, the full executive branch of county government now entrusted to the three county commissioners. It would be unrealistic and unfair to expect that if Mr. McCauley or anyone else was elevated to the new county executive director position with the expanded duties and responsibilities, that he or she would be able to succeed without the help of a deputy like the one that we eliminated and expect that person to do so without receiving a proportional pay increase. The charter proponents do not account for the appropriate pay increase for the elevated county executive position, nor does they account for the added help that the new county executive director position would need. They should. The charter would also eliminate the three full time county commissioner positions and replace them with five council positions that the charter explained in an earlier draft, are presumed to be part time since much of their work would be transferred to the new county executive director. Those five council members are presumed to receive the same benefits that current county commissioners receive. The charter proponents do not account for the costs of those benefits. They should. The charter proponents do not account for the other inherent overhead costs for five council members that taxpayers would need to pay for such as health insurance, retirement benefits, state and federal taxes, vehicle allowance, and other costs. They should. The itemized table that I posted last evening is accurate but understates the extra costs in several areas. That table should have included an extra 20% for the council chair. It should also show higher 2015 retirement benefits. Several other costs are not included. In any case, the stated numbers are conservative. There are other comparable references that would help us to better predict the cost of the staff needed to assist other county or city executive directors in contrast to an county administrator. A reality check that welcomes the cost of actual comparable government executive staff needs elsewhere ought to inform us better than blind assumptions that risks understating the actual costs. Share
Posted on: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:45:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015