As an Oro Valley citizen, John Musolf has the expertise and knowledge to bring budgetary issues to the Town Council.
Here is John's most recent correspondence to the mayor & council.
We trust John's work will receive the attention it deserves.We hope OV residents will take a few minutes to read John's report below.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Mayor and Council
As an individual taxpayer I would like to question some of the operations and budgets for various Town Departments.
Please review the attached analysis of the new Development & Infrastructure (DIS) Super department.
John Musolf
Oro Valley Taxpayer
In theory, the Building & Safety Department, the Public Works Department, and the Planning & Zoning Departments were combined into a new Super department called Development and Infrastructure (DIS) to streamline some functions and to reduce full time equivalents (FTEs). In my opinion, the FTEs could have been reduced without the creation of a new Super department. In my opinion, the creation of the new super department called Development & Infrastructure (DIS) is nothing more than creating a new super bureaucracy. The workloads in those individual departments had significantly dropped because of lower economic activity and needed some FTE reductions. This could have been accomplished without a super reorganization.
“The Development section is organized into three functional divisions: Planning, Permitting, and Inspection & Compliance. The Infrastructure section is organized into three functional divisions: Engineering, Operations, and Transit (Coyote Run). The number of departmental directors will be reduced from three (3) to one (1)”.
Really?
The Planning & Zoning Director position is eliminated (however, the individual that was in the Planning & Zoning Director position remains and was simply reclassified as Division Manager: Planning & Development with the same salary and benefits).
The former Public Works Director also remains with a reclassification and title change to Town Engineer with the same salary and benefits.
The former Building & Safety Director assumes the new super title of Development & Infrastructure Director.
“The number of divisional managers/administrator remains the same; however, duties are realigned by functional area described in the proposed organization above.”
“A reduction of staffing from 40 full time equivalent (FTE) budgeted in FY10 to 30 FTE budgeted in FY 11 is proposed in the General Fund. The reductions are comprised of the following positions:”
Discussion:
Eliminated Position:
Planning & Zoning Director
(This is true. However, the individual that was in the Planning & Zoning Director position was simply reclassified as Division Manager: Planning & Development with the same salary and benefits). Musical Chairs?
Staff Reassigned:
Civil Engineer, PW Dev Review Division reassigned to Stormwater Division
(Only in government accounting can a reassignment from one group to another group be called a reduction of a FTE. The Public Works Development group has one less Civil Engineer and Stormwater has gained one Civil Engineer. Seems like a net wash to me?).
Unfunded Vacancies:
The five (5) FTE are counted here as reductions in staff because of the formation of the new DIS department. In my opinion, this is argumentative. The reduction is due to decreased workload. The town staff wants to argue these reductions two ways: They want to count them as FTE reductions, yet recommend that a vacant placeholder column be added to the budget because these positions are essential. If they are essential then they should be in the budget, not listed as unfunded vacancies.
In my opinion, when a position is not funded it is not authorized it should not appear in a projected budget. If the workload increases (supported by facts and figures) then an increase in personnel would be justified and added back to the budget. However, even if the workload is justified, these positions cannot be added back without having the associated revenue that would fund them.
Civil Inspection Technician, PW Dev Rev Div
The Civil Inspection Technician, PW Dev Rev Div had 2 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Inspection & Compliance Division in FY 11 it has only 1 funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to the budget to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves? Huh?)
Civil Engineer, PW Dev Review Division
(How many times do we count this Civil Engineer in the FTE reduction analysis? Under the Staff Reassigned section above this Civil Engineer, PW Dev Review Division was already reassigned to the Stormwater Division.)
Development Coordinator, P & Z
(The Development Coordinator, P & Z had 2 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Development Division – Permitting section in FY 11 has 1 funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves?)
Zoning Inspector Technician, P & Z
(The Zoning Inspector Technician, P & Z had 1 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Development Division – Inspection & Compliance section has no funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then, the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves?)
Office Assistant, P & Z
(The Office Assistant, P & Z had 1 positions in FY10 but in the New DIS Super Department - Development Division – Administration section has no funded position. Did we have to create a new super department to gain this reduction? Then the Town staff is saying that one (1) vacant position column should be added to reflect that an added position may become essential to the operation of that department in the future if the economy improves?)
Reduction in Force:
Assistant Building Official, Building Safety
(Was the elimination of this position prompted by reduced development activity or as a result of the formation of the new DIS Super Department.)
Inspector I, Building Safety
(Was the elimination of this position prompted by reduced development activity or as a result of the formation of the new DIS Super Department.)
Planned Retirements:
Plans Examiner I, Building Safety
(If this was a planned retirement why does the formation of the new DIS Super Department claim credit for reducing an FTE?)
Inspector II, Building Safety
(If this was a planned retirement why does the formation of the new DIS Super Department claim credit for reducing an FTE?)
Summary:
Staff Reassignment (1)
Unfunded Vacancies (5) (Civil Engineer already counted in staff reassignment)
Reduction In Force (2)
Planned Retirement (2)
Total FTE (10)
Perhaps the new Mayor and Council would like to revisit the justification for the creation of the DIS Super department?
5 comments:
Here's an excerpt from a comment I made on another thread.
I thought it would be appropriate to place it here.
"Inasmuch as we were forced---yes, forced, to revert back to monitored comments, why don't we all start trying to address the issues and not banter---or attack, counter-attack, back & forth."
"A good start might be John Musolf's latest report on the OV Budget Issues."
"There should be enough there for honest debate, and yet, to date, not even one comment."
John Musolf has done quite a lot of work in documenting the points he raises on this budget issue.
Does anyone care----one way or the other?
this very talented individuals continues to raise question that deserve analysis and answers. How do we get the council and or town managers attention?
Art makes a valid point on discussing issues on the LOVE blog.
The first analysis I did was on the OV subsidy to the Amphitheater School District. I pointed out that School Safety at the Amphitheatre District is Amphitheatre’s budget responsibility for which I pay taxes. I then pointed out that some of the Police Department Oro Valley budget also goes to support the Amphitheatre school safety. I consider that subsidy double taxation. I did suggest that “earmarking” subsidies from OV to Amphitheatre might be better spent saving teacher’s jobs.
Instead of comments on the validity of the content of my analysis I got responses that I was “negative” and “anti-police”.
The second analysis I did was the creation of a new super-department (a super-grab-bag of two disparate departments (Parks & Recreation and Library) and threw in some Cultural Resource project teams) in an attempt to become more efficient in delivery of services and reduce the budget.
Instead of comments on the validity of the content of my analysis I got responses that I was a “part time resident” of Oro Valley (not true) and that I should have sent the analysis to Town Management and Town Finance (which I did).
The third analysis I did was on the Police Department Task Force Drug Enforcement. The citizens of Oro Valley already pay for this form of public safety protection through Federal, State, and County taxes. In my opinion, there is no valid reason for these officers to be part of the local police department budget regardless of any partial reimbursement through grants. They should be direct employees of the Federal. State, and County government agency (who currently supervise them), not the local police department. This is a subsidy that results in double taxation for a resident of Oro Valley.
Instead of comments on the validity of the content of my analysis I got responses that “There are 44000+/- people in Oro Valley. 95%+ of that number are VERY happy with the safety that they experience in Oro Valley.”
I also wrote a letter to the Editor of the Explorer News about adding two more OV holidays with the title of “Why not boost our taxpayer morale by less spending?”
It was also published on the LOVE blog and I got one response on the validity of the letter: “ I think that many taxpayers and some elected officials are starting to wake up to the costs of growing government and employee benefits”.
The fourth analysis I did was on the creation of a new Super department called Development and Infrastructure (DIS) to streamline some functions and to reduce full time equivalents (FTEs). In my opinion, the FTEs could have been reduced without the creation of a new Super department.
I am hoping that there might be some comments on the validity of the content of this latest analysis and any future analyses I may make.
Thanks
John Musolf
John,
I've always enjoyed reading your analyses on varying subjects pertaining to the town. They are always well-thought out and detailed (which is why they are threatening to some folks.) I've never commented on them because, as I always say, "Numbers make my head hurt." I was an "A/B" student, yet I failed bookkeeping twice! Budgeting/accounting always seemed like a shell game to me, so I've never felt qualified in any way to offer any comments on your studies.
I, too, have noticed the "lame" responses you get from certain bloggers. It's always the same bunch...they're very threatened by anyone who has more knowledge or expertise in an area than they do.
The fact that the most they can come up with in response to your well-researched reports is to say that you're negative...anti-police...only a part-time resident...is really just proof that your reports are accurate. Notice they attack the person, not the content of the reports!
I want to say, "Keep up the great work" but sometimes I don't know if the people of Oro Valley are worth it.
Thanks Cowgirl. John Musolf should have the gratitude of all OV taxpayers for the amount of time & effort he puts forth on OUR behalf.
Although we don't receive much in the way of comments, I am hopeful that many of our readers take the time to read John's outstanding analysis, and most realize how much sense John makes.
Is he "banging his head against the wall" for nothing?
I certainly hope not!
Post a Comment