fresno elections 2008

Public pension costs are a special concern to local governments throughout California, and the economic conditions in the Central Valley make our situation particularly challenging. We must assure that decisions involving the retirement system reflect proper actuarial principles and are based on realistic projections of return on investment, etc. Leadership requires asking tough questions and making tough decisions.

Regarding recruitment and retention of a dependable, satisfied work force, it is important to manage the county’s resources with common sense and balance and make decisions that are affordable and sustainable. As a supervisor, I will protect taxpayers by ensuring that the county can afford any new benefit packages that it offers employees. I will work to balance the interest of taxpayers and employees so that we continue to have a welltrained workforce while offering fair wages and benefits.

During the past few years, the increase in the size of the county’s workforce has increased costs not only in the retirement system, but other areas as well. The current Board has chosen to keep approximately 600 job positions vacant. In a continuing effort to control costs, I would support keeping those positions vacant through at least the next fiscal year. Future hiring decisions must be fully vetted and affordable in the out years.

Consolidating services, cutting costs, and eliminating wasteful spending are ways to increase the amount of money in the county budget.

Recognizing that some programs have little room to cut, I believe it is essential to find ways to grow the economy and provide vital services – without raising taxes. We must implement policies that foster a healthy, vibrant private sector economy.

Business is the backbone of our economy, and our success depends on expanding existing businesses, attracting new businesses to Fresno County, and reducing the regulatory
burdens which will encourage growth and increase our tax base.

It is the responsibility of county supervisors to balance the budget, live within our means, and spend the taxpayers’ dollars wisely, while providing quality, efficient services to the residents of Fresno County. Decisions must be made based on sound economic and budgeting principles. Each department of county government must play a role in solving our budget shortfall. Top to bottom review is important. A budget
should be thought about every day and not just once a year.

County government is charged with the responsibility of providing an array of programs and services funded by higher levels of government. During difficult times, we should
carefully examine and keep a watchful eye on unfunded mandated programs, programs which require matching funds, and “realignment” programs that may put an unreasonable
financial burden on our county. Like businesses and families, our county government should institutionalize a better system that provides for a prudent reserve to carry us through difficult times.

I would bring both a business and common sense approach to the budgeting process. I will not shy away from asking tough questions and making tough decisions. Budget decisions must be made that are affordable, sustainable, and will get Fresno County back
on track.

There is no question that the state’s fiscal turmoil affects all citizens and compounds the difficulties we must tackle in Fresno County. But, county government must live within its means. Because the county delivers so many program services mandated or supported by the state and federal government, everything from education to transportation to social services will surely be adversely affected by choices made in Sacramento.

The duty of a county supervisor is to recognize this reality and approach the situation head-on without making excuses. We must be informed and well-prepared to fight to assure that we are treated equitably and that the budget axe isn’t wielded indiscriminately without regard to important priorities, etc. Our success depends on battling powerful interests in other regions who, left to their own devices, could do harm to our whole region. I will work cooperatively with our state representatives in our common cause for fair treatment and sound policies from Sacramento.

These are tough economic times for our county and we cannot currently afford to take on more long-term debt.

We must thoughtfully evaluate all our needs, but, public safety is the number one role of government, and having an adequate jail system is an essential component of a criminal justice system that protects our residents.

Even in good times, there are competing interests that vie for limited dollars for public infrastructure. Making sound budget decisions and establishing a prudent reserve will begin the process of acquiring funds needed to address our future infrastructure needs. Under recent prison reform, the state is committed to providing matching funds for up to 14,000 local jail beds, and Fresno County may seek such assistance in meeting its public safety obligation and infrastructure needs.

After fulfilling our primary responsibility of protecting public safety, other facility needs can be considered. Each of the projects mentioned has merits and a constituency that
should be heard. Bearing in mind that we are simply not in a financial position to independently fulfill every worthy construction goal, I would give due consideration to the arguments offered for each competing proposal. There are various factors to consider. These include prioritizing facilities involved in delivery of mandated services,
public health and safety concerns, and the availability of grant monies or funds from sources other than the county’s general fund.

Fresno County is the number one agricultural county in the United States. The Williamson Act has been a very important tool in preserving prime ag land and providing some tax relief that serves not only the interest of the farmers and ranchers, but the public as well.

Again, we know that hard choices must be made to deal with budget crises in Sacramento and some cuts will surely be made. However, it is cynical to attack a program whose direct cost is relatively nominal in the scheme of the entire state budget and the elimination of which can result in harm with implications for proper land use planning, air quality, urban sprawl, and a host of other issues.

For political reasons, the Williamson Act subventions are threatened by elimination or reduction in virtually every budget cycle. Sacramento politicians find it a convenient tool
to hold over the heads of our legislators to make them more compliant. I will strongly advocate for preservation of ag land and open spaces – and the Williamson Act is an important tool in that effort.

We must adopt policies that recognize the essential value of the private sector for creating jobs and growing the economy, promote educational opportunities and innovative programs that attract and encourage the best talent in fields such as business, agriculture and technology, advocate regional cooperation to make us more competitive for existing enterprises and emerging industries, and support growth of clean industries and tourism that can yield great economic rewards.

We should work with civic and business leaders, charitable and community-based organizations, educational leaders and others in an ongoing effort to identify and address underlying demographic circumstances that are impediments to a healthy economy such as crime, teen pregnancy, high dropout rates, drug abuse, etc.

We need to understand how essential it is to increase our tax base and foster a business environment that gives local businesses encouragement to grow and expand their job base, and attracts new, diverse businesses and industries that are compatible with our agricultural foundation and environmental goals.

We should pursue and raise awareness of the attributes of our valley that would appeal to tourists as well as business site selectors. Tourism is one of California’s major industries,
and we should make every effort to expand economic activity based on tourism.

There are a large number of people and organizations dedicated to improving our economic condition. Among these are the San Joaquin Valley Partnership and the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint as well as traditional organizations such as chambers of commerce and the Economic Development Corporation.

There are many possible tools to encourage economic activity. Having a large area available for siting of new enterprises with supporting transportation and communications infrastructure can be of immense value.

Any such proposal would need to be fully vetted for suitability that consider such factors as impact on existing and future transportation systems, adequacy of water supply,
impacts on air quality, competitiveness and sustainability of anticipated enterprises, and respect for property rights. Embracing the concept is simple. Developing the right plan
for the right location is the challenge.

Mental Health services are an important safety net function of counties in partnership with the State of California. The county could not maintain its mental health programs without substantial state and federal support. In fact, because of the nature of mandated services, state government bears substantial responsibility. The way that mental health services are funded is quite complicated.

Past surpluses have withered away. The state’s and county’s fiscal crises present real problems for current service delivery, much less expansion of programs. It’s also important to note that the passage of Proposition 63 – the Mental Health Service Act – in 2004 has resulted in millions of dollars to counties for a range of mental health services and facilities.

While I would thoughtfully evaluate any proposal for expansion of treatment facilities or housing, the current budget climate is not favorable – no matter how one comes down on the merits or shortcomings of the idea. Any evaluation must occur in the context of the overall budget crisis and in consideration of possible funding sources other than the county’s general fund.

The issue of debt and unfunded liabilities is a daunting problem, and the level and growth of such debt is enormously damaging. While areas with healthier, more diversified local economies and reliable revenue streams may be in better position to withstand economic downturns, we are not. This makes it most important to exercise fiscally prudent approaches to the expenditure of our taxpayers’ hard-earned money. The fact that just a few years ago, our county had little long-term debt must not go without notice. This is not to criticize decision makers, but our predicament was avoidable, and prudent policies going forward, painful as they may be in the short-run, can restore our fiscal stability.

Sound planning necessitates careful consideration of the availability of a reliable water supply for new developments. In fact, there are statutory requirements for findings on large scale projects to assure adequate water supply. Overdrawn groundwater supplies, droughts, reduced sources due to state and federal court decisions, and the failure of government leaders to fulfill their responsibilities regarding expansion of accessible water supply through storage in aquifers, off-stream storage, etc. complicate a serious problem.

Public officials must have the judgment and resolve to find practical solutions to our growth challenges. This entails advancing policies that accommodate a growing population and economic expansion while protecting vital resources and property rights, ensuring that inadequacies of reliable sources of water aren’t a burden we impose on future generations, etc. This approach means having the backbone to say “no” where development is not practical but having the foresight to recognize prosperity depends on sustainable communities that can grow over time.

Common sense and balance are essential. Fresno County Supervisors must join with other local and state public officials in pushing for state and federal policies and
infrastructure planning and funding sufficient to meet the needs of the 21st Century. In the meantime, they must not foolishly approve projects that do not have proven water
sources.

The current system was negotiated in good faith by previous supervisors so we really couldn’t change it, even if we wanted to. Going forward, however, we should create a new retirement system for new hires that combines both a defined contribution and a less generous defined benefit. It will take years for the county to grow out of this problem but it can be managed.

Taxpayers are already doing their part. We need elected officials to invest those dollars more efficiently. Investing in business parks would generate tens of millions in property and sales tax to the county without raising taxes.

Public safety is my top priority and I would fight to make sure it was funded at the highest level possible. I would look to consolidate services such as dispatch to create more efficiencies and save money. Currently the sheriffs department relies on fuel from county service stations. In some cases the deputies are paying 20 to 30 cents more per gallon of gas to fill their tanks at these locations. Purchasing fuel from private sources could save tens of thousands of dollars in fuel costs alone. Those are the kinds of practical decisions we need to demand from our elected officials. I also believe cuts need to start at the top. Management positions would be on the table and those positions which are superfluous would be eliminated.

What we need and what we can afford may be different things. I do agree that Fresno County needs a new jail facility, but before we abandon the old jail sites I would look to see if we could rehabilitate and expand the two other jails. If rehabilitation of existing sites was not a cost benefit to the county I would look for a new site. The county currently houses federal prisoners and receives compensation for this. According to the CAO the county receives more money than it costs to house the federal prisoners. One way to help pay off the mortgage of the new jail would be to use some of the excess proceeds garnered from these prisoners.

I would like to see an agriculture, food and safety center built first because our local economy is driven by agriculture. If there are ways to get produce to market quicker I want to invest in these solutions. I would prioritize the morgue next, followed by county departments, but not before we looked at ways to let developers share the cost of those new buildings. Smart growth also means new development needs to pay its fair share of the public services budget.

Currently developers pay fees for sewer and water lines, parks, traffic, and other recreational sites for public benefit. As growth occurs a clear nexus exists between building new facilities and serving a growing population.

There may be opportunities to partner with California State University Fresno on the Ag center and morgue. I would like to see teaching centers built where Ag and criminology students could learn from the happenings at both centers. Grant opportunities would exist for this type of partnership.

Finally as the new business parks are developed and built out the tax revenue would generate another funding source to pay for the new facilities.

As a Supervisor, I will work with local legislators to KEEP the Williamson act. Why? Because elimination of this act would mean an immediate loss of over $6,000,000 to the general fund of the county. If the state does not continue the program it will be difficult for the county to absorb this loss in the short term.

Again, investing in business parks would provide an opportunity for thousands of new jobs to be created. We have great people here in Fresno County. I would work to bring more high paying jobs to match our talent.

I think this is a great idea. Businesses need to have shovel-ready sites when they are looking to locate in a community. They can not wait 2 or 3 years for an environmental impact report. Businesses always look for the path of least resistance. If business parks are in place we have something to market to the rest of the world as well as businesses looking to expand in the county.

Perceived needs outstrip our resources. Counties simply cannot afford to unilaterally fund such programs except in partnership with state and federal sitting.

Absolutely. The county has too much debt and it needs to focus on ways to make the retirement system self-sustaining. The justice campus is a beautiful site and a much-needed improvement over the old juvenile hall but the county will be paying for the facility for years to come.

The County needs a water master plan. I would like to see developing communities all utilizing water reuse facilities. These facilities will clean and purify gray water so communities can get a double use out of water for landscaping. Before I would allow a development I would require the developer to prove that adequate water existed to supply water to the new development without affecting surrounding property owners. I also would work with community members such as Gary Temple who has been working on a foothill water study for several years. I have been a strong supporter of Temperance Flat Dam and as Mayor of Clovis I formally signed the petition and worked with several other Fresno County mayors to urge the Governor to direct resources toward the creation of this dam. As a supervisor I will continue these efforts.

The County needs to model its system on the City of Fresno Retirement System. While the City’s program is not as generous as the County’s program, it is fair, sustainable and wellmanaged. While the incumbent District 2 Supervisor claims the County’s retirement plan is “robust,” I maintain that given the County’s current budget crisis, future retirees may not be able to receive the same retirement benefits as current retirees do.

The County and the City should consolidate services where appropriate, freeze raises and freeze hiring until the County
has a balanced budget and services are restored to appropriate levels. Priorities need to be established and adhered to, and Supervisors’ salaries -- currently $106,000 (an increase of $40,000 since 2001 without citizen input)--should be capped.

I have suggested a public safety tax to provide funding for police and fire, to free up money so other essential services can continue to be funded. Right now, health and safety issues are so critical, they have to be funded leaving little or no general fund monies for other services; e.g., library, child protective services, mental health, etc. I believe a public safety tax may be the only way the County can adequately fund protective services while continuing other important services. However, a public safety tax must be predicated on a “scrubbed” county budget, transparent fiscal reporting and a review and recommendation by a citizen commission.

First of all, the County doesn’t get a “bye” because the State may give the County less money. The County should have planned for less State monies. The Mayor and City Council planned for this and have given mid-year fiscal reports to the public, maintained the City’s multi-million dollar reserve, worked closely with employees to negotiate reasonable contracts and will deal with the Governor’s budget. In contrast, it is irresponsible governance on the part of the County Supervisors to grant 10% raises to 60% of County employees when the County is in serious financial straits. During the last County budget cycle, it was surprising to hear our County “leaders” say, “The County is broke,” and it is an “ENRON” budget. Where is the leadership???!!! I refer you to the” 2007/2008 Fresno Chamber County Budget Task Force Recommendations and Findings.” This was an outstanding analysis and excerpts are included below. A common concern of the analysis was that “the fiscal future of Fresno County might be at risk unless there were some major changes in the budgeting process and cost structure.”

General Comments/Budget Process
Findings:
• Structural organization of the County: Not all department heads report to the CAO, resulting in a lack of consistent direction and accountability
• It appears that the current budget process promotes silos rather than a fully integrated process that recognizes the impact a decision in one department has on another; effective two-way communications are missing.
• County budget uses one-time dollars for ongoing projects, a procedure that is not fiscally responsible.
• County budgets are generated in July each year and are not rolled into a five year forecast to determine future costs of current actions.
• Labor costs are the largest component in every department’s budget.
• Current and future retirement costs are a major area that needs to be addressed.
Recommendations:
• Consider investing in an outside consultant to revamp the budget development process.
• Change budget process to zero-based budgeting where all activities must be justified and have appropriate levels of funding; identify real and ongoing revenue for expenses.
o The CAO should recommend budgeting parameters to the Board of Supervisors for their review/approval
o Project revenue and identify expenditures
o Balance budget without using concept of “open” positions
o Require consistent process/format for all departments
• Use benchmarking as a process to improve the budget process and to compare the budget with other counties in California. Determine which counties in California have the best budgeting
process.
• Use benchmarking to identify and establish best-practices by department; department heads should take on that task in an effort to streamline operations and control costs while enhancing services.
• Eliminate the use of one-time monies to fund ongoing programs or positions.
• Combine adult and mental health agencies to enhance services and streamline administration and costs.
• Require a 5-year rolling forecast as part of an annual budget, providing visibility of impact of commitments on future budgets. Report to Board of Supervisors quarterly.
• Use wage and salary survey from the private sector to determine competitive salaries/wages.
• The CAO’s office to project the total revenue for the next budget year and build the budget to that number.
• CAO to make recommendations to Supervisors to review/approve actual dollars available for union negotiations
o Convert to interest-based (principle-based) negotiations, i.e. identify stakeholders, problems, interests, negotiate for mutual gains; eliminates positional bargaining.
Public Safety/Sheriff’s Budget
Findings:
o Personnel costs are 83% of entire budget which is driven by union negotiations
o There is an increase of 20% in personnel costs from 2007 to 2008 budget, increasing the Sheriff’s budget by $20 million
o Applaud Sheriff’s action to hire outside consultant to analyze and audit her department to establish benchmarks compared to other best-practice sheriff organizations.
Recommendations:
o Increase the number of Federal inmates the County can house in jail from current 250. The department is losing $1 million per year in revenues due to a reduction of Federal inmates from 400 to 250 in 2007.
o Consider outsourcing medical services, jail services, hospital guard services and physical services; put out for RFP’s.
o Hire an analyst specifically for contract oversight and RFP’s.
o Develop a 5 year forecast for the Sheriff’s department and update each quarter
o Address issues of salary compaction between management and line employees
o Implement a streamlined hiring process to allow Sheriff to hire Academy graduates
Personnel Department
Findings:
o Wage and salary payroll is 40% of County budget
o Multiple union contracts are negotiated on an annual basis
o Minimum direction from the Board of Supervisors regarding percentage settlement limits for each contract
o Contracts settled in 2006/2007 resulted in cost increases of 10% which is far greater than private industry.
Recommendations:
o Use competitive wage and salary surveys from both 13-County and local private industry
o Consider going to a defined contribution plan vs. defined benefit pension plan to manage future retirement expenses. The majority of the private industry has converted to defined contribution plans to control future costs.
o Define clear reporting lines to CAO to ensure/promote accountability, i.e. Personnel reports to CAO; CAO reports to Board. Direction should be established accordingly
o Streamline the hiring process to fill open positions more timely and to provide opportunity for Sheriff to hire Academy graduates, competing with Clovis and other entities
• Negotiations:
• Include private sector representation in the negotiation process
• Consider a new format for negotiations to provide greater transparency and Supervisor review prior to signing.
• Cost out possible scenarios, showing impact for 5 years
• Implement interest-based negotiations (principle based)
• Negotiate based on actual staffing needs; eliminate approach that you can negotiate higher increase by eliminating planned positions (why are those positions budgeted if not needed?)
• Identify issues of equity between small and large represented groups
• Consider renegotiating contracts to reduce salary and benefits to a level the County can responsibly support.
• Conduct analyses and address annually:

The County certainly does not have the money to build new jail facilities at this time. It is unfortunate that the County did not have the foresight when it built the juvenile facility to allocate some of those monies for a juvenile courthouse or a new jail. The $147 million expenditure for the juvenile facility was an excessive amount to spend with no court facility attached. The County currently pays $900,000/year to transport juveniles to court in the City of Fresno.

Instead of building another expensive jail, I would consider contracting for services for low-risk inmates. I also suggest we look at existing available vacant buildings such as the former Spaghetti Factory on R Street. These buildings could be “rehabbed” for low-risk inmates for considerably less cost than building a new facility.

Construction needs exist because the County Board has failed to do anything about them before there is a crisis. For years the County Board has been a reactive body – never planning for future needs. The only reason the juvenile facility was built was because of the negative publicity (“Hall of Shame”) about the old facility. The County should have prioritized, budgeted and planned for the new construction needs with a dedicated building reserve fund. What we need to do now is establish priorities and start developing a building reserve fund. I believe the ag, food and safety center, as well as the morgue, needs to be co-located. It also should be done in conjunction with the City of Fresno. The offices for County employees are of less importance and can wait out the budget crisis.
Eventually, offices should be co-located with City of Fresno employees for efficiency and better service to the public.

The Williamson Act is a wonderful asset for Fresno County, and we should work to preserve it. Unfortunately, I doubt the County can make up the deficit if the Governor eliminates the reimbursement. I suggest we direct our energies toward the regional 2050 Metro Loop Plan because this visionary plan will help us designate and save essential agricultural land.

I am strongly supportive of the Economic Development Corporation and its new leadership. I also want to continue the Regional Jobs Initiative because it coordinates local resources and then ties those same resources in with the State Legislature and the Federal Government.

The City of Fresno is essentially doing the same thing. The City and County should be working together to share costs and benefits instead of operating at potentially cross purposes. This is a perfect example where consolidation of services would be of great benefit.

I know there is a demand for inpatient psychiatric services for children and a demand for housing for the mentally ill. Again, there is currently no money to build a new facility for these programs. However, I would work with Community Medical Centers that currently operates the adult facility – Community Behavioral Health – to see if they could expand services. While this may have been explored in the past, talks could be renewed to see the viability of such programs.

Debt is acceptable and necessary as long as it can be handled in the worst of economic times. The County’s debt is probably at an acceptable level, but additional debt should not incurred until the budget is stable, a reserve has been created, budget transparency exists, an elected County Executive is in place, and other governance reforms have been enacted.

Development cannot take precedence over adequate water resources. No water, no development.

The County has adopted lower tier retirement plans for new employees. This change will, in the long run, reduce the costs of the retirement system. In addition, the pension obligation bonds were secured at a lower interest rate than would have been paid directly to fund the system. In the long term, this financing will prove to have been a very good investment for the county.

Economic development is the long range solution to increasing the county budget. In addition, if and when additional land is included in city spheres, the tax sharing agreements should be adjusted to provide a greater percentage to the county. I am in favor of exploring a plan for a public safety tax. However, unless all public safety related entities agree on how the funds would be divided, it is unlikely that voters would approve a county wide public safety tax.

I am serving on the budget committee currently. The county budget committee is in the process of examining all programs and preparing to make necessary cuts to balance the budget. All fees for services must be carefully examined to be sure that all potential revenues are captured. There should be some reorganization in departments to create the most efficient operations. Eliminating vacant positions and reducing overtime and extra help should be the first cuts. If necessary, there may be a small number of filled permanent staff positions that will have to be eliminated.

Long range plans should be made to replace the older facilities to create efficiency in staffing, utilities and maintenance. As these facilities are replaced, there should be a modest increase in the total number of beds. The county should seek grants and issue bonds to pay for new facilities when plans are finalized. I believe that an increased level of efficiency in the court operations drastically reduces the need to greatly expand the number of jail beds. Continued funding of new district attorney, public defender and probation positions is needed to best utilize the jail beds that we now have.

The new morgue is the highest priority. The county has tobacco securitization funds to pay for the majority of this facility. This project is coming to the board for approval this year. The ag center concept is being considered now. It appears that there is a good possibility of a private/public partnership that could have economic development advantages for the county.

I lead the effort to establish our county facility committee that is reviewing facility needs and advising the board on priorities related to facilities.

No. If the subvention funds are eliminated from the state budget, the county should not continue the program.

The enterprise zone will generate more jobs. I will continue to support a reorganization of the county’s economic development related functions to maximize our efforts related to economic development including tourism.

I have supported this effort and believe this is a key factor for our economic development efforts for the unincorporated areas.

Yes. I have supported efforts to create an inpatient facility for children and believe that our efforts will result in a facility in the near future. I lead an effort to bring the valley counties together to create a joint project for inpatient services and I support the current plan to issue an RFP for these services. Housing for the mentally ill is badly needed. The County has recently joined with the Housing Authority to address these issues. With new leadership at the Housing Authority, I am optimistic about this effort.

The county issued pension obligation bonds at a lower interest rate than would have been paid to the retirement system for required funding levels. In the long term, this type of financing will reduce the costs to the taxpayers for the pension system.

The juvenile justice campus was a badly needed facility to replace the “Hall of Shame” that was being threatened by the state for closure. The County received a large state grant and used tobacco securitization funds to build the majority of the facility. Only about 20% of the first phase was financed, which is very conservative. The court facility includes a unique financing plan whereby the state will pay their share of the costs.

Overall, the county’s debt is estimated to be at less then 30% of its debt capacity. In addition to the Pension Obligation Bonds issued to replace the shortfall in the pension system, the only debt that has been issued is for capital projects. The county has never borrowed for ongoing operations. The county has an excellent credit rating due to the careful management of its resources.

Water storage should be a priority for the region. In addition, conservation efforts and ground water recharge must be encouraged. Water must be a major consideration as we plan for future growth. Future developments must be required to deal with the related water demands before they are approved. As the county updates its general plan and identifies areas for future growth, water availability and impacts to ground water levels must be a major consideration.

A correction must be negotiated between the Board of Supervisors and the Retirement Board.

The Fresno County Retirees’ Association (FCERA) does indeed enjoy the highest benefits in the state of California. At the same time, Fresno County ranks 50th in per capita median income in the state. This is an anomaly. Retirement system costs are out of control compared to contributions because the employer (Fresno County) has not paid its fair share. The average return on money invested in the market has been 5% over the past 100 years. Yet the retirement board is making payouts on an “estimated” investment return of 8.2% and the Board of Supervisors tied its contributions to this fantasy rate of 8.2%. High “estimated” rates translate to lower employer contributions, while lower “estimated” rates require higher contributions. The County chose the former and balanced its budgets on the backs of the 7,000 employees and 4,000 retirees.

The huge double digit multi-year salary increases the current Board gave to the rank and file, under the guise of employee retention, is a plain and simple pay back to the unions for their support. As an accountant, I consider this a dereliction of duty which will eventually translate into layoffs, program cuts and service reductions. There is some possibility of reduced tax returns from the slowing housing market, plus future property tax reversals, but the CAO suggested tax receipts from the state had grown, so what is left? Salaries, position expansions, and added programs, all unfunded thanks to an out of control Board.