Marco Island interim city manager eliminates community development director

Community Development Director Steve Olmsted.

File

Community Development Director Steve Olmsted.

— About one week after Marco Island City Council fired their City Manager Steve Thompson and appointed interim City Manager Jim Riviere, Riviere has eliminated one of the next top dogs in City Hall. Community Development Director Steve Olmsted was let go today.

"In the first of several cost-savings measures (Riviere) eliminated the position of the Community Development Director, currently filled by Steve Olmsted," wrote Public Information Coordinator Lisa Douglass in a prepared release this morning.

"Economic times call for reconsideration of how the city’s services are provided," she continued.

The Community Development Director is in charge of the city's building department, code compliance, environmental services, mapping, planning and zoning areas.

The down turn in building construction on Marco Island was a real factor in reviewing cost-savings in the Community Development Department part of the organization, Douglass announced.

The reduction in the demand for services can not support the same staff size, she said.

Olmsted’s position will not be filled, saving the city in excess of $126,000 annually.

The supervisors for the department will be reorganized to report to the city manager at this time.

Olmsted will continue his service for 30 days and receive a three month severance package per his agreement with the city.

Check back here for more on this story.

© 2010 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Related Topics

Related Stories

Comments » 28

ajm3s writes:

Finally, bold action from a City Manager (interim). Now that is change I can believe in.

In an effort to be positive, thank you Dr. Riviere for being bold and decisive.

I will support your efforts for other Directors as well. Begin the process of reviewing accountability. No more fiefdoms or favorites, which includes some deemed as untouchable. Even safety should be fiscally evaluated.

No more politics please, just be fair and balanced and utilize common sense. Professionalism is what we expect from our Directors.

Its all in the details. Those that show good judgement in the past are to be congratulated and allowed to take on more responsibility. Those that do not should be advised and removed, if they continue.

marco97 writes:

Don't stop now, we can make some more cuts, right Lisa.

jwputnam writes:

I know that some of you will find this comment nasty, but I find it odd that this message was put out by our "Public Information Coordinator" (Goebbels). After all, "Economic times call for reconsideration of how the city’s services are provided".

JohninMarco writes:

Next get rid of the code enforcement group and out-source that to the county. That would save us a fortune.

bigdog1970 writes:

AHHHHHHH, Lisa, great coverup story. We all know the truth.
Without embarasing anyone, a person in high places within City Hall made the following comment regarding Mr. Olmstead on Friday after meeting with him.
"Trying to get a decision out of Steve Olmstead, is like trying to nail jello to a wall."
Which brings us to the next person to leave.
Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
Rony Joel's the next to go TOO.

dc5799 writes:

I have been waiting a long time for this.Thank you,Thank you,Thank you. The writing is on the wall.

August8 writes:

?? Instead of Fire-Fire-Fire ??? How about budget cuts within the departments, fringe items and perks that have been growing over the years, they can be itemized and quantified ??People need their jobs, how about a better way like allowing the County to assume some services??

jwputnam writes:

"People need their jobs"? What does that mean? You imply socialism, do you not? Think about that.

sailingalong writes:

Great job! Ronny and Lisa should be the next to go.

happy6 writes:

one down....at least two to go...joel and lisa...that would save another 250k/yr...we do not want the county to take over code enforcement....there would be NO code enforcement if that happens..

blogsmog writes:

Joel and Douglas must be next, Douglas because her position is useless and Joel because he is about to become a legal burden for this city.
Next we have to look at police and fire? I hate this because I respect firefighters and cops immensly, but if we are paying millions for redundent agencies, we have to ask ourselves...

August8 writes:

Yo Putnam--- Socialism-- What??? You must have a screw a little loose---Why not go out and take a little look at the Jolly Bridge??? get it ???

jwputnam writes:

in response to blogsmog:

Joel and Douglas must be next, Douglas because her position is useless and Joel because he is about to become a legal burden for this city.
Next we have to look at police and fire? I hate this because I respect firefighters and cops immensly, but if we are paying millions for redundent agencies, we have to ask ourselves...

Well said.

jwputnam writes:

in response to August8:

Yo Putnam--- Socialism-- What??? You must have a screw a little loose---Why not go out and take a little look at the Jolly Bridge??? get it ???

No, I am afraid that I don't get it.

My point is that jobs are not "created" to employ people. Socialist countries think so though.

JohninMarco writes:

in response to happy6:

one down....at least two to go...joel and lisa...that would save another 250k/yr...we do not want the county to take over code enforcement....there would be NO code enforcement if that happens..

May I remind you of the Dumas case. Not one of our code officers is even certified. Move this to the county, and make the council responsible for better results.

sailingby writes:

Well, well, well....if you can't beat them with a ballot you can always overthrow the government with a coup! Talk about lack of transparency...just who is calling the shots?

Is this about reducing the government until it is so small it can be drowned in a bathtub?

Mob rule...this does not bode well.

Is the tar being boiled and are the chicken feathers being plucked out back?

Marconian writes:

Hey while we are at it how about we eliminate that 33% raise council gave themselves just before the lowest wage earners employed by the city where told for a third year straight a raise was not in the budget for them.
Second of all while we are all calling for cuts lets clarify and request that those hard working employees that make between 42 and 55 thousand dollars a year are not effected they are the ones that keep the city utilities functioning and others that keep our streets clean and the ones that keep are parks fit and enjoyable they are not the white collar political desk jockeys that sponge up the majority of the wage and benefit expenses.

It is important to support the blue collar workers they are the backbone of any community,city,state,e.t.c.
This is an area that needs to be addressed and pointed out when shouting to make cuts and save the city some money, because the ones that will be doing this are not the low wage earners and the first place they are going to focus there cost saving attack will not be there pocket or coworkers/friends. they will with out a doubt go after the low men and that's just wrong! they have already indicated about furloughs and wage cuts well that undeniably means hourly wage earners not the big salary/big bonus Bosses.

Concerned66 writes:

Don't forget about new hires with the water department.

happy6 writes:

HEY EDDIE ISSLER...looks like the house of cards is starting to collapse...better run to arceri and figure out what the next move should be...or you can call walduck...he's probably scared to death right now...he's about to lose his whopping council salary...his only source of income.

fondulus writes:

By statute, the Building Official is required to do his job w/o interference from any unlicensed person. Olmstead was not licensed. We will now find out if the building official can actually manage his department is tough economic times, and if not, then he needs to exit stage right as well.

OldMarcoMan writes:

Marconian writes:
Hey while we are at it how about we eliminate that 33% raise council gave themselves just before the lowest wage earners employed by the city where told for a third year straight a raise was not in the budget for them.

What are you talking about?
Council didn't get a raise, Council has never had a raise.

August8 writes:

Putnam

I am no socialist I assure you, Just a little reluctant to accept "Fireing" as the only way to cut back ??
This place is so political that socialism is present, much like the Gov our great President is forcing down our throats.

iHeartBeaches writes:

in response to Concerned66:

Don't forget about new hires with the water department.

The water department is a cash cow for the city. I remember paying under $100 per month for my water bill (including watering my lawn 3 days a week). Since the City of Marco took over my water bill is now $300+ per month. If I water my lawn 3 days a week it is $600-$700 per month.

iHeartBeaches writes:

I hate to see anyone lose their job. This is a terrible job market to be searching for new employment. (Not to mention trying to find a 6-figure job.)

However, the City of Marco needed to cut the fat a long time ago. Rather than raising our water rates every quarter... get rid of some of the unneeded employees and rework the budget.

u2cane writes:

Actually utility departments all over are widely considered revenue producing divisions in government because they do tend to give the cities money rather than just take. It all depends on how well they are managed if they are profitable or not. Several of them across the country are run independently of the city because of this and they take little to no tax dollars away from the city.

Marconian writes:

in response to OldMarcoMan:

Marconian writes:
Hey while we are at it how about we eliminate that 33% raise council gave themselves just before the lowest wage earners employed by the city where told for a third year straight a raise was not in the budget for them.

What are you talking about?
Council didn't get a raise, Council has never had a raise.

correction to my facts or lack of it was included in the voting process but due to it being added in the line with c.o.l.a which once again city employees did not get!
But council definitely wanted a raise but was denied by the people!
Cant help to wonder why?, cola was included with councils raise request it should have been two separate Items! Political motives I would assume.

EdFoster writes:

Love the headline and first paragraph. Sounds like the interim city manager shot a dog and the headline ranks up there with "Dead Man Found in Cemetery!"

Seriously, Marco needs to control its spending and if a position is not properly filled or unnecessary, the person must go and the position eliminated. I can think of several others in City employ who fit that description and should be sent packing. The City of Marco Island was not created to be a Welfare Agency taking money from its residents and giving it to hangers-on. No one has a "right" to a job, only a "right" to seek a job for which they are qualified at a salary mutually agreed upon by the employer and the employee.

The Declaration of Independence upon which this country was founded gives everyone only THREE "rights": the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of happiness. It does not give everyone the "right" to a job, to healthcare, to food, to shelter or anything else as necessary as those items are. Food, healthcare, shelter, etc. are what one works to obtain and obtains them by free negotiation with those who can provide them via the medium of money. To make these necessities "rights" forces someone else to be enslaved to provide them. Doctors must be forced to treat any patient, any time, with little or no recompense if everyone has a "right" to healthcare. Farmers must feed everyone without regard to freely negotiated compensation if everyone has a "right" to food.

Everyonen has the right to BUY healthcare, food, shelter, etc. by negotiating an arms-length relationship between the provider and the consumer. Expandng the "rights" of citizens beyond the three mentioned in the Declaration of Independence enslaves others and denies them their "right" to "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness." Socialism is inherently un-American.

Ed Foster

Fossil writes:

Mr. Foster. If we are able, we all have a responsiblity to work for our essentials. I have never met someone that is free, happy or enjoying liberty when deprived of food (they become dead). I also have never met a sick individual that is able to pursue happiness. Sick people also find it very hard to work or to enjoy their right to liberty. Because we pay taxes for our military to fight in far off places, to educate our children, pay for roads, hospitals, airports and bridges, are we not enslaving the collective of workers throughout our country. Without all those things collectivly paid for, the freedoms and liberties given to us by the Declaration of Independance seem of little value. How can we be free if we can't defend our country, go to a hospital, drive on a road, fly in a plane, cross a river or expect to be protected by the police? Does the "freedom" to negotiate a loan for a house, car or vacation not make the bank a keeper of indentured servants? This freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness thing is tough to follow when applied to the simplistic limited boundries designed to fit your personal view of our nation's most important document. I'm not convinced your view was that of the forefather's.

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features