Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia visited Fort Pierce on Wednesday to address what he considers excessive and wasteful spending by the city government.”I am here today to reveal what I think is excessive and wasteful spending of the city of Fort Pierce,” Ingoglia said.Ingoglia explained that he did not analyze the city budget line by line. Instead, he compared population growth since 2019 to the growth of Fort Pierce’s government.”So, we came up with what the budget should have been, and then compared it to what it actually is,” Ingoglia said.According to Ingoglia, Fort Pierce’s population has grown by approximately 10% over the last six years, while the general fund budget has increased by nearly 60%. He claims the city spends more than $10 million annually than necessary.”This shows that government has grown way too fast, way too quickly, and puts too much strain on the taxpayers who are supporting the government,” Ingoglia said.However, Fort Pierce City Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky disputes Ingoglia’s claims, sending this statement to WPBF 25 News:”I support transparency and responsible government. If there are concerns about public spending, they should always be reviewed. However, the FAFO presentation does not actually prove $10.5 million in waste or excessive taxation in the City of Fort Pierce — it applies a simplified formula and treats the difference as wrongdoing without fully analyzing the real drivers behind the numbers.The FAFO approach, as publicly described, starts with the City’s FY 2019-2020 General Fund budget, adjusts it forward for inflation and population growth, and labels any difference between that calculated number and the current budget as “excessive” spending. That can be a useful screening tool to start a conversation, but it is not an audit and it does not determine whether spending was necessary, mandated, one-time, grant-funded, or the result of delayed obligations coming due.The largest missing factor is the federal COVID recovery funding period. Between 2021 and 2026, local governments across the country received temporary federal fiscal recovery funds that had to be obligated and spent within strict deadlines. Those funds were intended to stabilize services, replace lost revenue, and complete overdue projects. When a model compares a pre-pandemic budget to a federally supported recovery period without separating those dollars, it risks attributing federal stimulus spending to local taxpayers. That leads to conclusions that sound precise but are not economically reliable.Equally important is historical context. Communities like Fort Pierce experienced severe revenue collapse after the Great Recession. Local governments reduced staffing, consolidated departments, and deferred maintenance for years just to maintain basic services. When revenues finally recovered, cities had to replace fleets far beyond their useful life, rebuild deteriorated roads and drainage systems, repair facilities, and modernize operations. Addressing long-postponed needs is not government growth — it is catching up after a fiscal emergency.The presentation also claims excessive hiring. Staffing numbers require operational context. The relevant questions are how many positions replaced vacancies, reduced overtime, were grant-supported, or restored service levels such as police response time, code enforcement workload, sanitation, and stormwater maintenance. A raw employee count alone does not determine efficiency or waste.Budget growth is not the same thing as tax burden. To claim excessive taxation, the analysis must reconcile actual ad-valorem impact on residents — millage rates, taxable values, exemptions, and collections — not just total spending.I welcome oversight and accountability. If the goal is transparency, the underlying spreadsheet and assumptions should be published and reconciled to audited financial statements. That reconciliation must separate federal recovery funds, one-time costs, recurring operating expenses, fund transfers, capital backlog obligations, and measurable service outcomes.Taxpayers deserve context, not conclusions drawn from a single formula. The public discussion should focus on what services were provided, what obligations were unavoidable, and what residents actually paid — not simply whether a spreadsheet projection differs from a real-world budget.”Stay up-to-date: The latest headlines and weather from WPBF 25Get the latest news updates with the WPBF 25 News app. You can download it here. Your neighborhood: Local coverage from WPBF 25 News
FORT PIERCE, Fla. —
Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia visited Fort Pierce on Wednesday to address what he considers excessive and wasteful spending by the city government.
“I am here today to reveal what I think is excessive and wasteful spending of the city of Fort Pierce,” Ingoglia said.
Ingoglia explained that he did not analyze the city budget line by line. Instead, he compared population growth since 2019 to the growth of Fort Pierce’s government.
“So, we came up with what the budget should have been, and then compared it to what it actually is,” Ingoglia said.
According to Ingoglia, Fort Pierce’s population has grown by approximately 10% over the last six years, while the general fund budget has increased by nearly 60%. He claims the city spends more than $10 million annually than necessary.
“This shows that government has grown way too fast, way too quickly, and puts too much strain on the taxpayers who are supporting the government,” Ingoglia said.
However, Fort Pierce City Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky disputes Ingoglia’s claims, sending this statement to WPBF 25 News:
“I support transparency and responsible government. If there are concerns about public spending, they should always be reviewed. However, the FAFO presentation does not actually prove $10.5 million in waste or excessive taxation in the City of Fort Pierce — it applies a simplified formula and treats the difference as wrongdoing without fully analyzing the real drivers behind the numbers.
The FAFO approach, as publicly described, starts with the City’s FY 2019-2020 General Fund budget, adjusts it forward for inflation and population growth, and labels any difference between that calculated number and the current budget as “excessive” spending. That can be a useful screening tool to start a conversation, but it is not an audit and it does not determine whether spending was necessary, mandated, one-time, grant-funded, or the result of delayed obligations coming due.
The largest missing factor is the federal COVID recovery funding period. Between 2021 and 2026, local governments across the country received temporary federal fiscal recovery funds that had to be obligated and spent within strict deadlines. Those funds were intended to stabilize services, replace lost revenue, and complete overdue projects. When a model compares a pre-pandemic budget to a federally supported recovery period without separating those dollars, it risks attributing federal stimulus spending to local taxpayers. That leads to conclusions that sound precise but are not economically reliable.
Equally important is historical context. Communities like Fort Pierce experienced severe revenue collapse after the Great Recession. Local governments reduced staffing, consolidated departments, and deferred maintenance for years just to maintain basic services. When revenues finally recovered, cities had to replace fleets far beyond their useful life, rebuild deteriorated roads and drainage systems, repair facilities, and modernize operations. Addressing long-postponed needs is not government growth — it is catching up after a fiscal emergency.
The presentation also claims excessive hiring. Staffing numbers require operational context. The relevant questions are how many positions replaced vacancies, reduced overtime, were grant-supported, or restored service levels such as police response time, code enforcement workload, sanitation, and stormwater maintenance. A raw employee count alone does not determine efficiency or waste.
Budget growth is not the same thing as tax burden. To claim excessive taxation, the analysis must reconcile actual ad-valorem impact on residents — millage rates, taxable values, exemptions, and collections — not just total spending.
I welcome oversight and accountability. If the goal is transparency, the underlying spreadsheet and assumptions should be published and reconciled to audited financial statements. That reconciliation must separate federal recovery funds, one-time costs, recurring operating expenses, fund transfers, capital backlog obligations, and measurable service outcomes.
Taxpayers deserve context, not conclusions drawn from a single formula. The public discussion should focus on what services were provided, what obligations were unavoidable, and what residents actually paid — not simply whether a spreadsheet projection differs from a real-world budget.”
Stay up-to-date: The latest headlines and weather from WPBF 25
Get the latest news updates with the WPBF 25 News app. You can download it here.
Your neighborhood: Local coverage from WPBF 25 News