There's a partial way out of our predicament. At best, we can't do necessary improvements, but with adjusting, we can stop losing money, if only for now. And we don't have to raise taxes or annex any other tracts to do it.
We've lost about $1M in reserves since 2001, or about 12 years. That's an average of just over $80K per year. Our Manager costs us a little more than that. And the Assistant to the Manager costs about 50% more. If we scrap them both, we stop losing money, and we actually build slowly. And we can even keep our Clerk and all of our other office staff. I mention this, because this is an idea floated by some BP residents: go back to a time without professional management, or at least get rid of the assistant to the manager. There may even be some who observed that for about two months, between managers, the Village Clerk was Acting Interim Manager, suggesting to those people that perhaps a Village Clerk has the same capability as a Manager. And can hold down several responsibilities, and the full time jobs of two people, at the same time and single-handedly. Yikes. Those people would have to explain, of course, why we went to such trouble to choose the best Manager we could find from a list of applicants, if it really didn't matter, and just any responsible person could have done it, in her spare time. I mean, there's nothing wrong with this picture, is there?
I always have the same reaction to suggestions to get rid of things: why were they put there in the first place? It always feels to me like deciding the chewing gum in the dike doesn't need to be there, or that the loose thread should be pulled out, or that some regulation seems on the surface to be just a problem.
Dan Keys says the suggestion was initially his. He made his suggestion up to a decade or more ago. Finally, a Charter Review Committee considered the matter, among other Charter matters, and decided to agree with Dan. We need professional management. I don't know of any municipalities that don't have professional managers. So the Charter Review Committee agreed with Dan, the then Commission agreed with the Charter Review Committee, and the general residents of the Park agreed with the Commission. The December, 2005, election resulted in universal agreement that we need a manager. That's equal to concluding that our previous form of management, having lay Commissioners manage professional departments, wasn't working. It appears there was unanimous agreement about that.
So here's the hard part. It becomes difficult for us now to try to address our fiscal problem by dismantling a management system upon which we all agreed and which has helped us greatly. Some have wondered if we could compromise by using professional management, but not paying them very much. Presumably, our own bosses, clientele, or customers would like it if we would work cheap or free, too, but that doesn't appear to be how it goes. People who work, and who do a good job, expect reasonable compensation. They deserve it, too.
There's another problem with trying to reduce expenses. It's related to the problem of trying to raise taxes. We have a fiscal system that is not contained. Expenses increase faster than revenues do, so in the end, we will lose the race against an unbalanced budget. We can try to reset our deficit by lowering expenses some, or by increasing ad valorem residential tax revenue some, but expenses will still increase over time faster than revenues do, so it will just take a little longer for us to lose. And we can't reduce our expenses to nothing, or have vendors and employees pay us, or increase taxes indefinitely, so sooner or later, the "game" will be over.
We're left with two choices. Either have a neighborhood where property values, and taxes, are so exaggerated that they will forever exceed expenses, like Golden Beach, or take on a commercial component, as all other municipalities, except Golden Beach, do. We simply have no place else to turn.
The reason I bring this up, again, is that we are about to try to solve some of our functional problems. And solving our problems is the right thing to do. To do it, we have to spend money. But we don't have any. Right now, that's our biggest problem.
I am not only available, but frankly eager, as always, to be shown the error of my thinking here. What did I miss?
Why are some residents so afraid of Biscayne Park growing, and developing into a better community? Growing revenue means better streets, better lighting, a well funded government, public activities, and art in our parks.... ? Being complacent and watching Biscayne Park's slow financial death isn't going to win the village an honor badge, or save us from extinction. We are not honoring Biscayne Park's founders by letting our community suffer through our lack ambition and fear of change. Explore annexation, talk with our new manager Heidi, who presented some excellent ideas during her public interview.
ReplyDeleteOne reader has asked me to consider that I have a made a case for jettisoning the Manager. Another was reminded of her own opinion that we do not need an Assistant to the Manager. Neither interpretation is remotely a reflection of what I believe. We needed a manager,and we hired one (now three). One did little for us, one worked magic, and the last shows every sign of being a dramatic credit to the Village. We needed a manager when we decided we did, and we still do. In my opinion, we always will. And compared to the big, bad world out there, we have gotten some dramatically high quality managers for relatively little money.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Assistant to the Manager, we're not talking about someone who gets coffee. We're talking about someone who works very hard, has plenty to do, and manages at least two departments himself. He saves us the cost of some other department head. He is resourceful, and everyone likes him. He does not work "by the hour." He puts in plenty of time, because there's that much for him to do. He costs us money, and he saves us money. He also adds value.
The other suggestion made by one reader is that I seem to have left room for a conclusion that our Clerk, because of her particular talents, could do the job of the Manager, and save us the money for the extra person. Our Clerk, who is amazing, has never suggested such a thing. She was also very much overworked for the brief time between the leaving of one Manager and the arrival of the next. And all she had to do was maintain. So not a viable suggestion.
My other point, however, and the main point, is that even if we did something foolish and changed the Charter again to eliminate the entire expense of professional management, surrendering also the tremendous value of professional management, we would only reset our expenses to a lower level. In time, those expenses would again gradually outstrip revenues.
Imagine running a race against someone who is faster than you are. You will lose the race. If you have a head start, you will still lose the race, if the distance is long enough. That's what we're talking about.
Fred