> a good list. but a question? The list of services on the list says
> the service is required, but doesn't reflect the level of expendture
> needed to meet the "must be provided" requirement. That is, it is possible
> that a service like "Issue permits and licenses as required by law" might
> be met at a cost of less than current expendture levels (through magic or
> something) and still meet the requirement?
>
> If so, then your implication that the full 25% reduction has to come from
> the non-required things which are done by the county is not quite true. it
> may be that aportion of that can come from optimizations at the "required"
> level as well. If we save 10% in the overall required services, then only
> 15% must come from the rest etc.
>
> johnt
>
> >>>>> "Steve" == Steve Cooke <scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu> writes:
>
> > ....Therefore, the 25% reduction in county
> > revenues (state wide average) would fall disproportionately on
> > services not on this list ...
>
>
Associate Professor
Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc.
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83843
http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent
208-885-7170 (phone)
208-885-5759 (fax)