A Hierarchy of (local government) Values

I used to pound my head against the wall explaining to lay persons in local government that a budget is not a financial document, instead a budget is a POLICY DOCUMENT. This is an extremely timely document because, even as I write, the State of Wisconsin is finalizing its budget which is something like three months overdue, and, on my paltry little, local level, the battle of the budget began in earnest last night and will continue for two more weeks.



To me the distinction is so obvious that it needs no further explanation but, apparently, I'm wired differently than other folks. So let me...for the umpteenth time...espouse my views on budgets and policy documents.



An unfortunate fact in local government is that everything you do, costs something. It costs either money or effort (manpower) which in itself costs somebody, something. Another unfortunate fact is that money is a finite resource. We in local government get most of our money from taxpayers through the property tax and some of it through "user fees" and still some more through "intergovernmental transfers" , which is a nice term for State or Federal Funds.



Contrary to what some citizens believe, local officials do not (and as far as I know, they never have) looked upon taxes as a bottomless pit. Additionally, for as long as I can remember, the State legislature has imposed levy limits on municipalities to keep them from raising taxes at will and for as much as they needed in order to impose some cock-eyed form of "fiscal responsibility" on municipalities. Truthfully we never needed it. The nature of local politics being what it is, raising taxes was (and still is) moderated by the very real fear that it will trigger the dreaded "taxpayers revolt" which will swiftly remove tax and spend local politicians from office.



So the amount of money available is finite, either through self-discipline or state-imposed mandates and that means that you can't fund everything you want to fund and you have to make choices....and it is those choices that will be a direct reflection of POLICY.



What it amounts to is WHAT DO YOU VALUE MOST?



Where will you put your precious resources?



What programs will you fund and which will you let wither on the vine?



When you "get back to the basics" of funding local government, you come down to the primary mission of City Government...which just happens to be the same that the first, ancient, organized tribes held dear:



Protection of Health, Safety and Welfare of the City (tribe)



That means that the first money always goes to Police Protection, Fire Protection and Street Department...the safety of your citizens depends upon these pillars. These shall be the first to be funded and the absolute last to be cut. It is also important to note that when you start "screwing around" with these services - perhaps by consolidating with another jurisdiction (e.g. Central Dispatch, fire districts, private contracting of snow removal, etc., etc.)- you'd better make DAMNED CERTAIN that service levels are maintained and even if you've thought once, or maybe even twice about any of those actions, you'd better think again before you jump.



Almost everything else we do as municipalities is secondary to these services although I've witnessed some making vague, ambiguous ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT activities either on par with or even more important that the public safety issues. This too is a matter of policy, and, in my opinion, an example of BAD POLICY.



Protecting the WELFARE of the city is in my opinion becoming one of the most overlooked policy aspects in local government budgeting. If we are truly concerned about our communities we need to protect the integrity of our neighborhoods and that means to make sure that the housing is decent, safe and sanitary, that roads and sewers are serviceable and safe and that the neighborhoods have local, easily accessible playgrounds and public facilities appropriate to the neighborhood size and character. A good, sound, CODE ENFORCEMENT program is necessary to implement this along with and equally sound Community Development Plan.



It is also important to note that there is a trend in suburban and small town Park and Recreation Departments to build "mega parks" or consolidated community parks. These are usually large complexes with playground equipment, sometimes even camping facilities but almost always with picnic area and ballparks or soccer fields attached to them. They usually have sanitation facilities attached to them.



The problem with these consolidated parks is that they are difficult to access from neighborhoods and are usually crowded gathering spots. We need to "decentralize" those recreation facilities and provide for more simple, less expansive (not to mention expensive) facilities. Hell...........just a big, vacant field where three or four neighborhood kids can play ball within a couple of blocks of their homes would be good.



So what will you fund?



What is your policy?



There's so much more I could write but I'm not sure there's that much more you could read.\\



More later.