Want defends budget proposal
by dermotcole
 Dermot Cole
May 13, 2010 | 1320 views | 8 8 comments | 8 8 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Assembly member Matt Want responded as follows to my criticism of his proposed 5 percent across-the-board budget cut. I said the borough assembly was correct to reject his approach and that it was a pass-the-buck effort.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain (or defend due to  

Mr. Cole’s interpretation) my position and reasoning for the across  

the board 5% budget reduction.

Mr. Cole has the idea that I was vague in my budget cut to ‘pass the  

buck’ to the Administration or Department Heads. This is not the  

case. I testified that I did not want to turn the budget session into  

a witch-hunt. I felt that it was improper to single out departments  

and prioritize their importance in the community by limiting their  

abilities through financial reductions. By reducing each department  

by 5% this would effectively hold them to the current year budget.

Mr. Cole makes the claim that I have treated ‘every spending  

category … as being of equal importance’. This claim is plainly  

false. I have only treated the bottom line of each department of  

equal importance, not each spending category within each department.  

At no time did I suggest that each line of the budget be cut by 5%,  

only the bottom line of each department.

Each year the Department Heads put together a proposed budget with  

the Mayor. Together they create the approximately 5000 lines in the  

budget. They decide where to allocate the requested resources.  

Department Heads, such as Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Costello, and C.F.O. Mr.  

Lamb, are all experts in their respective fields. It would be naïve  

to assume that anyone outside of their fields could tell them how to  

run their departments. The Assembly is not elected to micro-manage  

departments. Reducing each department by 5% is only a request to  

prioritize their budget. For one department, they may be able to meet  

that by changing their travel expense, professional memberships,  

others by reducing overtime. The point is that the Assembly is not  

elected to make such micro-management decisions.

The Borough Assembly Handbook speaks nothing of line by line budget  

managing in the responsibilities of an Assembly member. This duty is  

however covered in the job descriptions of the Department Heads, and  

Mayor. The Assembly is the legislative branch of the Borough. Perhaps  

Mr. Cole is suggesting we should legislate through line item  

budgeting? At the very least, this line item suggestion by Mr. Cole,  

arguably, reflects little confidence in the abilities of the  

Department Heads.

The FNSB is mandated by the state, and voters, to provide the  

services that it does. Although the Borough may not be able to  

perform the services that it does to their current levels with a 5%  

reduction in funding, they should still be able to provide each of  

the mandated services. We, as a community, have come to enjoy the  

‘quality of life’ provided through Borough services and  

recreation. Unfortunately, we are going through a period of economic  

downturn in the private sector. Paying for this ‘quality of life’  

is becoming more difficult for the private sector with stagnant  

salaries, increased foreclosures and bankruptcies (references  

according to the Fairbanks Economic Research Quarterly). In the  

coming years it is easily foreseeable that our community will  

experience diminished state and federal contributions. It will be  

easier to make small trims now than deep cuts later. It would be  

similar to constant healthy eating, versus crash dieting, or more  

extreme, liposuction.

Finally, Mr. Cole puts into quotations- “Cut whatever you want and  

take the blame”. I never made this statement. Nor did I make this  

suggestion. What I will say though is that the Administration is  

allowing itself wiggle room if the financial finger of blame starts  

looking for a direction to point. The Mayor has proposed this budget.  

If we, the Assembly, pass it as is, the Administration has the  

ability to deflect angst from the community to the Assembly for  

accepting it. If we line item edit this budget, again, the Mayor can  

deflect angst from the departments to the Assembly for reducing it.  

The Assembly represents the voters. Our job is to determine the level  

of funding the Borough gets to provide these mandated services. The  

departments and Mayor decide where to allocate this funding. The  

Borough guide outlining the Assembly’s duties defines this.

I appreciate Mr. Cole’s interpretation of the budgeting events, and  

alleging my desire to pass the buck. Unfortunately, his position on  

the matter is wrong.

 

Comments
(8)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
ADF2
|
May 14, 2010
Well, a 5% decrease in this years budget wouldn't equate to a flat budget when compared with last years budget, it would be a decrease of 5%. While I'm not defending this years budget, it didn't increase by 5%, it increased by about 2.5%. Half again as much as is being claimed by some on here.

Just to put things in perspective, I *think* the Anchorage CPI (inflation) was also 2.5% for 2009. So it appears the Borough budget was increased by the maxiumum allowed by the tax cap.

I was also told the other day (so as of right now this is still rumor) that the Army has started moving the second Stryker Brigade onto Ft. Wainwright. When they're all moved in and settled, that will be an increase in the Borough population of roughly 10k. So in other words the Borough population is increasing, as we speak, by over 10% this year. That's going to put quite an additional demand on all area-wide services. And you thought the area roads were clogged at rush hour now. Ha! Traffic is about to get much worse.

And here's one more rumor for you, and this one kicks me (and probably most of you) in the gut. Apparently those "in-the-know" are expecting the price of fuel oil to double this winter. Yep, that would be $5.00 /gal fuel oil. I seriously hope that's just a nasty rumor and doesn't become our reality.

I'm no fan of run-away Government spending, but I'm not sure I'd equate a 2.5% increase in the budget to run-away Government spending given a 10 % increase in the Borough population.

Is Mr. Wants 5% decrease from last years budget reasonable? I dunno, it could be. I'm not as informed on the Borough budget as I'd like to be. But it also appears to me that there are going to be some extenuating circumstances that justify a 2.5% increase. In either case, I'm glad there are people on both sides of the debate paying close attention.
Fairbanksgas
|
May 14, 2010
I'm sure happy that I voted for Mr. Want. Now we just need a few more like him next election and we will soon have a borough government that works for us instead of against us.
Yota99714
|
May 13, 2010
I see the latest coin box recipient at Fred Meyers is..............

The FNSB School District. I thought my taxes took care of that, even tho' I don't have kids. WTH.
icedberg
|
May 13, 2010
Several of you want to call out Dermot, but it looks like his questions had the desired effect.

Mr. Want has written, and explained why, in term that most of you probably understand.

You may not agree with anything he does, but at least Dermot asks the questions and usually gets the answers. Which is way more than most of you posters can say, since your only good at criticizing!!!
june69
|
May 13, 2010
Or better yet, lets ask some different questions, like how will the state passing a property tax exemption for law enforcement that move into high crime neighborhoods affect the tax structure we have in place?
june69
|
May 13, 2010
5% from the forecast budget is flat from this year, no increase. That doesnt sound like a cut, sounds like maintaining the norm. Well Dermot, what do you have to say about your level of unbiased journalism?
AKseahawk
|
May 13, 2010
Sounds reasonable to me. I seriously doubt that Mr. Cole will retract his opinion piece or the apparently false quotation that was mixed in with the news yesterday.

5% seems like a good place to start seeing as the borough budget has exploded in size over the last decade.

I'd like to see ALL of the social services BS slashed entirely. The borough has no business getting involved in many of the things they have gotten their sticky little fingers in...
Theabowman
|
May 13, 2010
The one problem I see with Mr. Want's reasoning is that his 5% per department cut will barely put a dent in some departments while it will severly limit others--because the biggest part of each department's budget is salaries and those are tied to a collective bargaining agreement and cannot be modified mid-stream. And saying you will slash by attrition is similarly problematic--because some positions are vital to the functioning of the departments and have to be filled. The proposed budget will cost the average homeowner less than $2/week. No one is going to be foreclosed on for that.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.