County needs a Blaise response

Here’s a fun Tuesday topic: Money.

Specifically, Citrus County government money. It used to be our money and now it’s their money.

The county government says it has enough of our money for the basics, but it needs more to get done the things we really want, and to ensure the people doing that work are fairly compensated.

---

CFO Blaise Ingoglia, meanwhile, says our county government has plenty of money, much more than necessary if only commissioners wouldn’t chug through it like teenagers on cheap wine.

Blaise, being Blaise, turns his announcements into political theater. Immediately, sides are taken and political weapons drawn.

A lot of people did. They laughed at Ingoglia's $39 million estimate of wasteful spending in Citrus County, made some vague comments about our county government being fiscally sound, and went on their way.

And then a friend called.

Numerous people freely offer advice on the blog. However, there are only three or four who truly know me and the blog so thoroughly that I drop what I’m doing when they reach out.

These are rarely pleasure chats. I don’t hear from them unless they see me going off the rails.

It was one of these friends who called me one morning shortly after 7, rather annoyed that I had dismissed the Ingoglia number simply because it was Ingoglia presenting it.

“Maybe it’s more than $39 million. Maybe it’s a lot less,” he said. “But we’re shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.”

My friend is particularly incensed that the new animal shelter went from $12 million tops to $20 million. He’s a car guy, and I’m not, but his example was along the lines of we needed to replace a Ford Escort and let the salesman talk us into a Lamborghini. Something like that.

It is my friend’s belief that the county government is spending money recklessly, which is why we’re constantly crying poor despite an overwhelming influx of residential and commercial development bringing in millions of new tax dollars.

Two thoughts.

— It is true that the county government’s official response to the CFO is, so far, nonexistent. We need a report from the administrator. I’m being specific. This info could be on the county’s nice new website. 

Very simple: What did the CFO request? What did we send him?

— Today’s County Commission agenda includes an item from the administrator entitled “professional services relative to county funds.” Attached is a five-page presentation called “consulting costs.”

I eagerly scanned that report for what I thought would be a list of our consultants and how much we’re paying each. You know…the kind of info citizens who are questioning county spending might want.

It was not a list of consultants, but rather one of those typical government “nothing to see here” reports. Instead of giving us actual information on how much we’re spending on consultants, the administrator only tells citizens it’s such a tiny percentage of the budget that it’s not even worth mentioning.

That’s disingenuous at best and disconnected from reality. There’s a lively conversation in the community about our county’s direction. Few people are happy with the status quo. That’s not to say they’re looking to toss incumbents, but folks are losing patience with business as usual.

The administrator’s non-consultant report, which says the spending is such a small amount we need not even look, is a red flag. It suggests our government leaders are more concerned about appearances than details, and it shows a lack of respect for citizens who only want to know what’s up with their hard-earned tax dollars.

Commissioners, do not make this difficult for us. If you’re disputing the CFO report, explain why. If not, own it. 

It’s County Commission Tuesday! Have a great one, friends.

Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Individual donations are appreciated through Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.