Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Administration Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinellas County officials outline FY27 administration cuts, decision‑package process for restoring staff
Summary
OMB presented the county administration budget showing multiple one‑time draws, proposed FTE reductions (purchasing, asset management, board appointments) and seven decision packages that departments may use to request restoration of positions; county administrator and commissioners discussed staffing impacts and the mechanics of the flat‑budget and decision‑package process.
County budget staff on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) team presented the county administration FY27 budget and the process that departments will use to request restoration of positions through decision packages.
Chris Rose of OMB introduced Catherine Pazian, who walked commissioners through the county administration materials. She told the board that the FY27 budget spans five funds including the General Fund, an ARPA fund, the Pinellas Recovers/CDBG‑DR fund, the Fleet Management Fund and the Risk Management Fund. Pazian said several divisions would reduce headcount: purchasing will eliminate positions by returning functionality to out‑of‑the‑box ERP features; county administration will absorb the board‑appointments role; and asset management will reallocate the director partially to the fleet fund and eliminate one FTE in asset management.
Pazian listed specific line‑item changes and drivers: the purchasing division’s FY27 budget was reduced roughly $26,000 after a one‑time retirement payout in FY26; asset management was reduced by about $236,000; and the fleet management fund rose primarily because of planned vehicle replacements and related interest earnings and reserve adjustments. She said risk management expects membership credits and resiliency credits from its broker (Pazian noted membership credits of up to 20% and resiliency credits up to 10%, with final amounts to be determined when premiums arrive).
The presentation emphasized the county’s flat‑budget directive. OMB staff described the decision‑package process as the mechanism by which departments can request recurring or one‑time restorations after submitting a constrained baseline budget. Pazian said seven decision packages were submitted for county administration: five were preliminarily recommended by the county administrator and two were not. Examples included a recommended purchasing request to fund three FTE at a recurring cost (~$271,000) and a non‑recommended OMB grants request for two FTE (~$227,000 recurring).
County Administrator Burton said the flat‑budget approach is intended to force transparent tradeoffs and noted organizational moves made since retirements to merge functions under OMB to drive efficiencies. He said the board will receive a summarized list of decision packages to help weigh service impacts rather than re‑opening every line item during later hearings.
Commissioners asked about the operational impact of eliminated positions, the timing of reserve summaries and how decision packages will be prioritized. OMB staff said some reductions reflect prior one‑time payouts and the intent to restore key roles only when justified by service‑level needs.
Next steps: OMB will provide a consolidated list of reserve accounts and decision‑package summaries for commissioners to review as the budget hearings continue. No final personnel restorations or new recurring authorizations were adopted during this session; the presentations framed the questions commissioners must resolve in subsequent hearings.
