Commissioner Rader Digest

Staffing Analysis

In the pending budget deliberations, the Board of Commissioners (BOC) has a choice of reducing expenditures, increasing revenue, or some combination of both. In this economic climate, I am opposed to property tax increases.

If the commissioners decide to reduce expenditures, the logical place to start is the size of the county workforce. Staffing costs (wages and benefits) account for approximately 80 percent of the county's budget.

In order to make informed decisions with regards to the county's staffing level, the BOC hired a group from Georgia State University to conduct an organizational analysis of the county government. The report, approved at a maximum cost of $48,000, will identify opportunities to improve operational efficiency and evaluate the likely impact of staff reductions on the county's level of service. The concept of an organizational review is one I discussed at length in an October update.

This review was originally introduced by the BOC in January 2009, but the administration, with its new CEO, persuaded the BOC to withdraw such proposal. The administration, it said, was going to conduct an in-house review. To date, the BOC has not received any information from such review, nor anything to suggest such review was ever performed.

The BOC's review, to be performed by Georgia State's Public Performance and Management Group, focuses on 10 departments, which account for about 5,100 employees [The county has about 8,600 full-time employees.]. Roughly half of those are in police, fire and rescue.

I am opposed to reducing police and fire protection for fellow citizens, but given the county's precipitous financial position, it is going to be difficult to balance the budget without combing through those public safety departments. The new public safety director will be a valuable guide to decisions regarding resources allocated for those departments.

While the report will be presented throughout the next three months, its work will be part of an ongoing process. The county needs to subject itself to annual, year-round reviews to ensure it is operating efficiently and fulfilling the needs of its citizens.

Calibrating Work Force Size (October 2009 Archives)

Standing Rules

In November 2008, voters of DeKalb County approved a referendum that modified the way county government operates. The legislation transferred some power from the county Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to the Board of Commissioners (BOC).

Specifically, the legislation granted the BOC full authority in setting the agenda for its meetings and to appoint a commissioner to conduct its meetings. As a result, the BOC has formally approved changes to its standing rules governing the conduct of its meetings and the creation of formal committees to review proposed county legislation.

This change does not preclude the county administration from introducing its own legislation. It is up to the BOC whether to accept such items for the agenda of BOC meetings and subsequent committee review.

The BOC remains an oversight board, a check-and-balance counterpart to the county administration. The BOC has minimal authority in the daily operation of county government. The BOC controls the budget for the administration, but no control of, or actionable information about, how each department spends its allocated money.

The administration staff is responsible to the CEO, who in turn is accountable to the county citizens every four years. The BOC has no authority to fire county employees who behave in unethical, criminal, negligent or unsatisfactory manner.

This is one reason the BOC is discussing the concept of a county manager, responsible for daily operations, who would be accountable to the BOC. Without a stronger chain of command, the BOC is limited in its ability to implement sound policies to serve its fellow citizens.

Town Brookhaven

Recently, I withdrew a resolution opposing a proposed tax abatement for the Town Brookhaven development. While I remain opposed to the specific proposal, the resolution no longer served a useful purpose.

Since my resolution was introduced this summer, the DeKalb Development Authority chose not to proceed with active consideration of the proposed tax abatement.

Further, the authority suspended discussion on all development incentives until the county administration develops a formal, written policy on the best use of taxpayer money for tax abatements. To date, the county has not announced such policy.

In my June update (see link below), I explain that financial incentives can be an effective tool to attract new business into the county, businesses that otherwise might not consider DeKalb County. But it would be fiscally irresponsible to retroactively award incentives to a development that has already broken ground or does not substantially increase the county's tax base because it siphons business from elsewhere in the county.

Presumably, the county's new policy will incorporate the principles I just outlined. If that does not happen, or the development authority chooses to consider tax incentives for Town Brookhaven, I will publicly renew my objections.

Transportation Goals

The challenges facing DeKalb County are not unique in this region. When dealing with transportation and health care, DeKalb and Fulton counties share a lot of common ground because of their respective investments in MARTA and Grady Hospital.

For quite some time, the consensus has been that region-wide financing is needed for the long-term viability of MARTA and Grady. The Georgia state legislature is again challenged to tackle these two funding issues.

In anticipation, commissioners from DeKalb and Fulton counties have been meeting to develop general guidelines to articulate what is needed in any such legislation on the aforementioned issues. The objective is for the two counties to speak with one voice in order to facilitate and enhance their lobbying efforts.

DeKalb commissioners formally approved a resolution incorporating the transportation guidelines agreed upon by both counties. The six points in the resolution address the regional oversight board, allocation of MARTA funding, long-term maintenance, transportation funding for the two counties, equitable sales-tax funding, and MARTA governance. [For details, follow the link below to the full text of the resolution.]

It is imperative that any transportation legislation create sufficient funding to maintain MARTA, expands the state's financial support of MARTA, and allows MARTA further flexibility in spending its capital and operational dollars.

Next, such legislation should acknowledge that the two counties already pay a penny sales tax for MARTA. Therefore, if a region-wide penny sales tax is proposed, the two counties should not have to pay an extra penny.

Transportation Resolution:
http://www.commissionerrader.com/issues/issue47_files/Transportation_Resolution.pdf