FY13 Budget -- We Can Do Better

I oppose this budget. My preference is otherwise. Staff worked long hours making a balanced budget. An actual decrease of $7 million from last year, it includes various user fee increases, but no tax rate increases. The workforce does not expand, and unfortunately for county employees salaries remain flat. I suspect sufficient votes exist for adoption.

Last year’s budget was largely from the previously elected board as 3 newly elected commissioners’ involvement was towards the tail-end. After our initial few months of orientation, we made slight adjustments. This budget is the first completely built by this board.

In the 2010 campaign when I visited over 3200 homes, voters told me they wanted new faces, new blood, new personalities; and new ideas. Sadly, this budget lacks new ideas.

Some may say our efforts are not perfect; improvements could be made; and that we could always do better. Citizens expect that we actually make improvements rather than selecting the status quo.

Some claim our budget is testimony to the county bond ratings; distinguish budget presentation awards, and awards for accounting.

Bond ratings are essentially credit scores indicating our ability and willingness to pay our debts more so than reflecting the quality of the budget.

Presentation awards reflect a document that serves as an operations guide, financial plan, and communications device. This award is less so about the quality of the budget.

Accounting awards indicate we properly document expenditures consistent with the budget. It demonstrates that funds are “accounted for”, not the quality of the budget.

These awards are welcomed, earned, noteworthy, and clearly deserving for our staff; yet even in total do not mean we have the proper budget.

FY13 budget had too little support for new ideas. A continued depressed economy, warning signals, and recklessness in Annapolis did not stop our adherence to the past.

My opposition is more than simply opposing the process. I am not saying “Do it my way, or the highway”, nor “If you don’t play the game the way I want to; I’m taking my toys home.”

Taking a previous year’s budget and aligning expenses to projected income prevents needed detailed examination by elected officials. This approach prevents the level of transparency our citizens deserve.

I disagree that we have a “conservative budget.” I do understand we error on the side of the tax payer when making estimates which is consistent with conservative budgeting practices as described in bond rating agency reports.

A conservative budget is more than making conservative estimates. It starts with the basics by base-lining truly needed activities and functions. Conservative budgets ensure that only required activities and functions are funded. I support building a budget from the basics.

We should articulate genuine guidance at the beginning of the build. Instead, departments do “salami-slicing” to reach the budget bottom line (now for a third year in a row).

The current process lacks detailed prioritizations. We should have greater front-end insight to more objectively determine what specific items should, or not, be funded.

We should seek ways of reducing duplicative costs to include the Sheriff’s Office and Board of Education. We should focus on cost savings for the tax payer by targeting similar functions and services such as procurement, fleet maintenance, and IT services. A transportation expert indicated 25% savings in maintenance if we take a different approach.

Citizens ask why educators request more money while declining student enrollment since 2006, continues downward through 2016. Hiring more deputies and staff over the past years means less money for salary increases.

One citizen’s look at the school budget questions less than explicit expenditures of over half-million dollars, and if $6.6 million is really appropriate for custodial support.

I oppose a budget where I cannot readily see rationale explaining 1. Why we need the number of requested employees, 2. Why we need the identified amount of income, and 3. Why we need the identified resources such as buildings and equipment.

I am not critical of past budgets. During economic expansion, the process created reserves that assisted during economic contraction. Given the prolonged stagnant economy, is it not appropriate to consider relooking our build process?

For the newer commissioners, are we truly comfortable with this budget; have a firm handle on all the items it contains, recognize any impact we made? Can we honestly respond to our constituents and defend this budget to the level of detail they may ask? I cannot.

We need a different process; one with goals of reducing tax rates, identifying and eliminating duplication, ensuring greater transparency for the citizens, and our increased interaction throughout the entire build.

Therefore, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of the FY13 budget; and I end with this one question for our citizens. Are you comfortable with more of the same, or desire improvements? Thank you for listening to my concerns and suggestions.