HomeMy WebLinkAbout751131.tiff • •
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION
March 11 , 1975
In order to form a Home Rule County that is responsive to the people, and
capable of handling all county requirements efficiently, we do recommend to the
Charter Commission the following :
1. County Commissioner' s.
A. A five man board of County Commissioner' s.
B. All five members full time.
C. Two Commissioner' s elected at large. Three commissioners elected
from the present three Commissioner Districts and elected by the
voters in their District.
II. County Administrator.
In order to seperate the Legislative from the Administrative part of
County Government, we recommend that the County Commissioner' s elect
a Chairman of the Board from the elected County Commissioner' s and
he serve as County Administrator. With the Board of County Commissioner' s
having full policy making and budget controls. The Chairman of the
Board voting to break all tie votes-and veto power with a three
man vote overriding the veto.
We further suggest that the four County Commissioner' s (all but the
Commissioner elected as Chairman of the Board, who is acting
Administrator) be assigned as overseer or supervisors of certain groups
of County Departments (such as Health, Hospital , Welfare, Mental Health,
etc. ) as grouped by the Commissioner' s --- with these Commissioner' s
rotating their duties, to keep cronyism from growing up.
Term of Office
1. No Commissioner can serve for more than two consecutive terms in any one
district, or at-large --- nor serve more than three consecutive terms on
one additional term at large if the two terms were in a District or
vice versa.
2. A term is a period of four years.
-z-
3. Two Commissioners (1 at large and 1 from a District) , to be elected
on Presidential election years and three commissioners ( 1 at Large and two
from District) on even years -- not Presidential election years.
The Governance Committee went on record as approving the Council - Ombudsman
concept, and we recommend this to be discussed and considered by the entire
Home Rule Charter Commission. -
{
Items to be Proposed to the Commission
I think I am expressing the feeling of all the Commission members and
perhaps the basic reason why the Home Rule Charter study was passed by the
voters.
I realize that some of the following recommendations do not fall within
the category of ' Structural' changes, however, they are basic economic
recommendations that I feel should be discussed.
A. Capital Expenditures -
This item has been discussed previously.
B. Maximum mill levy increase per annum -
This item has also been discussed.
C. I would recommend that Federal Revenue Sharing monies be used to reduce
the County mill levy in direct proportion to the amount received.
D. I would recommend that Weld County not implement any additional Federal -
County programs without a minimum of 50% Federal money involved and not
COG with $12,775.00 Federal money and $70,840.00 from Weld County and
$10,840.^0 from Laramie County - or approximately 9%.
E. The County Engineer, Richard Straub, stated that a large percent of the
Weld County bridges are inadequate, outdated and substandard and will
require approximately 11 million dollars to bring these Weld County bridges
up to standard.
I ask by what standards the above Engineer was referring to - County - State
or Federal. I submit that the largest percent of the bridges in question
do, in fact, measure up to 'County Standard. ' I would recommend that
County bridges and roads be evaluated on a County Standard. In the past
ten (10) years there has been a large number of County bridges replaced with
steel or concrete.
F. I would recommend that no more additional County Departments be implemented
if additional County funds are required.
• •
G. Since livestock prices are in the slump that they are, the personal taxes
will be lower in 1976 and there will be a smaller than usual assessed
valuation increase for 1976, which may call for an increase in the 1976
mill levy to arrive at an operation budget; therefore, the above recommendations.
H. I do realize that, due to inflation and the increase in population, that it
requires more money to operate the County Government. However, I would
like to point out that the 1969 total County Budget of $12,896,055 on a
mill levy of 16.00 mills and based on 80,000 county population (Greeley Tribune
figures) to $161.20 per County Capita in contrast to the 1975 County Budget
of $37,642,047, with a population of 110,000 (Greeley Tribune figures) , to
$342.00 per County capita ---- or an increase of $181.20 per capita.
I would also like to point out, that of the population increase of 30,000
in the past six (6) years would be living within the jurisdiction of the
City of Greeley and other incorporated towns of the County, and not in the
County proper. I would submit that the small County population increase
would not require any significant increase of County expenditures.
I. I am not opposed to Federal money coming into the County because of the
benefit to the local economy and because it is our money coming back to
us, however, I am opposed to a small Federal contribution matching a large
local contribution. In some Federal - County joint programs, the Federal
has contributed 90% to County 10% 'in kind' to implement a certain program
when each su:cceedhg year the Federal Government withdraws their funds, with
the expectation that the respective Counties will increase their contribution
annually, and ultimately find themselves funding the major portion or all of
the programs. I am not saying that the programs are not beneficial if the
people can afford them.
J. I am in favor of City - County growth and I realize that growth requires
expenditures, however, extreme discretion must be exercised in a growth
expenditure relationship.
. In summation I would urge and plead with all elected officials to hold the
line on County expenditures or preferably reduce the expenditures. I feel
there are many areas where expenditures can be reduced particularly in the
new programs and Department area.
• • 3_
K. I believe that County Government should gear the expenditures to the County
income instead of the income to the expenditure.
I realize that this philosophy is contrary to good Government, but it certainly
is in harmony with the County economy.
I am certain that with the County economy, unemployment --- possible slow-
down in population growth, also possible slow down in assessed valuation
growth, all local agricultural products reduced from 30% to 50% in Real
Estate taxes will be much more difficult to come up with in 1976.
Larimer County -- Telephone Number -- 1-303 - 482-3844 -- Supplied by:
Warren Wolaver, County Commissioner
Total 1975 budget -- $14,125,308.00 Total Mill Levy -- 17.51 Mills
Open Space levy -- (Included in the Mill Levy) -- .50 mill
1974 County Assessed Valuation - $273,616,600.00
Total Number of County Employees - 500 -- Population for 1973
Population for 1973 (Source: Income Tax Returns) -- 108,000
MI6 (JoO
Population for 1975 (From the State Planning Estimate) -- 1-04)00-
Per Capita cost of County government -- $113.21
Boulder County -- Telephone Number -- 1-303 - 443-2755 -- Supplied by:
Wally Toves, County Commissioner
Total 1975 Budget -- $18,464,720.00 -- Total Mill Levy -- 22.21 Mills
1974 County Assessed Valuation $436,780,910
Population for 1975 -- 171,500
Per Capita cost of County government -- $107.67
Total Number of County Employees -- 676
Weld County
Total Budget $37,642,047
Total Number of County Employees -- 706 -- (Under the County Commissioners)
Total Mill Levy -- (1975) -- 23.48
Population for 1975 -- 110,000 (Greeley Tribune figures)
Hello