johnt
================================================================
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Cooke <scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu> writes:
> John, Good point. I was implicitly assuming that cnty gov't was
> currently working at a least cost pace. This is perhaps a heroic
> assumption. The more local gov't can increase productivity, the
> better the services and the lower the cost. Perhaps the 1% is
> intended to encourage the pursuit of this kind of productivity
> increase in the public sector. Steve Cooke
>> 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)