Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lee County Commissioner of the Revenue urges board to reverse staff cuts, warns of lost services
Summary
The county’s Commissioner of the Revenue said recent personnel reductions will force cuts to tax‑preparation assistance and other services, citing 13,091 returns filed over nine years and an estimated $2.6 million in taxpayer savings from free filing. He asked supervisors to reconsider the reduction.
The Commissioner of the Revenue told the Lee County Board of Supervisors on July 15 that a recent personnel reduction has left his office short‑staffed and will cut services that residents rely on.
The commissioner, speaking during reports and recommendations, said his office has dropped from four deputies to three and warned the board that the change will force the office to end its late‑Thursday hours and reduce other services. "Over the last 9 years, we've done over 13,000 federal income tax returns. 13,091 to be exact," he said, adding that the Internal Revenue Service estimates the effort saved residents about $200 per return. "Over that period of time, that comes to $2,600,000," he said.
He provided additional program figures: grants tied to the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program totaled roughly $31,003.34 over the same period, and the office handled 1,738 property transfers, processed 812 elderly/disabled tax relief applications, and maintained records for nearly 21,000 real estate parcels in 2024.
The commissioner described operational consequences: losing the late‑Thursday service that allowed working constituents to have taxes prepared after normal business hours; delays entering assessor appeals into the system; and potentially later financial closings for the office. He said some tasks — including tax‑relief correspondence normally mailed by the end of the month — will be delayed because the office is now "one person short." He asked the board to "consider what all this is going to affect" and to reconsider the staffing decision.
Supervisors asked questions about workload comparisons with neighboring counties and the extent to which state (Comp Board) funding offsets county payroll costs. The commissioner said historical funding changes and workload formulas explain some county‑to‑county differences and that mineral accounts and other local workload drivers affect staffing formulas.
The board did not vote on personnel action during that discussion. The commissioner said he had submitted a pay range for a comp‑board funded deputy should the board choose to re‑appropriate funds.
The board’s subsequent business included several routine approvals and appointments and a separate presentation on a proposed substance use disorder facility.
