|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Nothing much is hidden these days. Two years ago, the state established an oversight authority that documented in clear terms just how close the county was to financial ruin. Still, throughout 2001, Nassau officials did little to change their ways. The county had to write four versions of a budget before the state watchdog, the Nassau Interim Finance Authority, would sign off. NIFA’s threats to turn the county’s finances over to a state control board had little effect, as few believed them. Last fall, when the county finally submitted a mandated four-year plan for financial recovery, it was summarily rejected. The county is now writing a new version of the plan, due in April.
The voters, however, are finally demanding change. The county’s Republican machine, which has dominated Nassau politics since the 1930s, lost control of the legislature in 1999, and then lost the executive’s office in November 2001, after embattled incumbent Thomas A. Gulotta opted to retire. Democrat Thomas Suozzi easily won the contest to succeed Gulotta, and took office on New Year’s Day with a reform agenda and no place to go but up. There are hopes that Suozzi’s reputation for hard work and good communication will move the county in the right direction. But the new executive isn’t naive about the difficulties ahead. After his victory, he promptly recommended a 15 percent property-tax increase and asked for the resignations of more than 140 county employees.
One of the biggest challenges facing the new administration will be a full property-tax reassessment next year, prompted by a lawsuit that charged Nassau’s tax rates were discriminatory. Reassessments are always difficult, but this one will be horrible, because Nassau’s properties haven’t been assessed comprehensively since the Depression, leaving the county with a system that’s wildly out of sync with reality. “Nassau’s assessments are indefensible,” says James Dunne, of New York State’s Office of Real Property Services. County residents — and lawyers — have caught on to that fact. In what’s become almost a ritual, thousands of businesses and homeowners win appeals challenging their tax bills every year. The annual cost: about $100 million.
Positives: Legislative budget office competent, but its recommendations rarely heeded; countywide property reassments planned for 2003 — many assessments date back to 1930s.
Negatives: County on verge of financial takeover by state control board; bond rating just above junk status; inappropriate use of bonding for operating expenses; 2002 budget rejected by finance authority twice before last-minute approval; no multi-year financial projections; no cost accounting; formal bidding threshold too low at $10,000; procurement officials don’t have Internet access.
Positives: Voters approved charter change to require annual development of four-year, prioritized capital plan.
Negatives: Current capital-planning process haphazard and non-binding; projects not prioritized; no comprehensive plan for annual borrowing to support infrastructure; buildings in grave state of disrepair; inventories and condition assessments of infrastructure not compiled; roads maintained through excessive borrowing.
Positives: State Civil Service Commission audit rated Nassau civil service — including tests and other hiring practices — very good in 1999 but recommended that many classifications be updated.
Negatives: Former county executive went along with lucrative union contracts that county could not afford; nearly all grievances go to arbitration, deemed a “time-consuming and cost-ineffective” process by one union; no use of alternative dispute resolution; minimal HR information on Web site; no evidence of workforce planning.
Positives: None, although new administration’s plans unknown.
Negatives: No internal examination of quantity or quality of service delivery; no desire to tackle long-range issues; Interim Finance Authority had to force county to consider budgets with forecasts beyond one year.
Positives: Management of most voice and data communication centralized; integrated financial system implemented for year 2000, although not used to full potential; improved budget for technology training; disaster plan moving forward.
Negatives: Inadequate budget for technology purchases and staff; lack of support in previous administration for needed investment; several departments, including police, run separate tech shops with staff that duplicates central IT office; projects need more analysis, before and after implementation; some procurement standards formalized, but more needed.
|
 |
nly in Nassau.” When that phrase escapes the lips of citizens, watchdog groups and elected officials in New York’s second-biggest suburban county, it’s not meant as a compliment. Only in Nassau, it would appear, could one of the nation’s wealthiest jurisdictions build up nearly $3 billion in debt, driving its bond ratings nearly to junk status. Only in Nassau could county-owned buildings be nearly condemnable after decades of neglect. And only in Nassau, one hopes, could the county executive make outrageous financial decisions for years on end while continuing to win reelection. As the state comptroller put it a few years ago, “The county executive has used budget practices that would leave a third-grader baffled. You can’t spend more than you have, year after year, and expect to hide it forever.”