Citizens cannot afford everything schools want, only what they need

As a concerned taxpayer of the city of Auburn, I became involved in the city budget process. It is clear to me that the information presented is not giving us a true picture of needs, rather a proposed budget of wants.

There is much talk about the forthcoming financial hardships, but there doesn’t seem to be any proactive discussions going on as to how to prepare for those times. Property values are plunging and energy costs are soaring, along with living expenses. That means there will be less money for capital projects, operation and maintenance, and employee costs – the largest part of the budget.

After the first article about the Barbara Eretzian contract debacle, I also found out about the account named “sundry” which appears to fund a wish list of things such as her contract. After attending a meeting recently, and then reading the Sun Journal editorial April 12, I learned how that contract/stipend was considered for the budget again.

Does the school department need the assistant superintendent position filled? Someone may be needed to do the books and implement the grand plan, but how many people are needed for that? Administration costs take away from the direct services.

There also seems to be a difference between the Auburn City Council and the departments over the budget- trimming process. All departments are asking for increases and should be trying to trim, while maintaining the core value of the services. Auburn taxpayers cannot afford all the bells and whistles that are being proposed.

Taxes have been going up since the revolt three years ago, and will again this year.

Is no one listening to the citizens of Auburn?

Taxpayers don’t want the departments pitted against them. I believe taxpayers are willing to negotiate as long as costs are realistic. For example, social services should be taken out of the school environment and be treated in the appropriate nonschool environment.

We all know there are some people who simply cannot afford increased taxes. City officials should present the facts and figures in a format that would put all the information in front of those who make the budgetary decisions.

After talking with the councilors and committee members, I find the information-gathering process seems to have a common refrain for both citizens and the decision-makers. I have placed many calls and requests for budget information, only to face either unresponsive city employees, or having to jump through many hoops for the possibility of getting information about the budget.

For example, there seems to be nebulous account names, used to hold taxpayer funds from one budget period to the next, without including them in the next budget negotiations. For example: the balance forward account for the school department is, at present, $575,000.

How many of those accounts are out there that could defray our property tax bills? Shouldn’t any leftover taxes be applied to the next budget cycle before a discussion of what is needed for the new budget?

It is disheartening to see the divisiveness in the Auburn government. It is the city officials’ job to come together and create a forum where hard decisions can be made through consensus and debate, for the good of the city. It is the city departments’ job, as employees, to supply the details to the decision-makers and the public, without trying to spin or withhold information for a department’s gain.

The default move to balance the budget by increasing the mill rate should not be used as the only solution. Budgets are presented in a way that establishes the wants of departments, but the elected officials, and the citizens are charged with the responsibility of producing a realistic-needs budget, based on assets at hand.

Those two things will never agree, in reality, but it is through that process that a financial consensus can be reached that taxpayers can live with.

Tim Doughty served on the Auburn Water District board for nine years, from 1985-1994. He has lived in Auburn since 1980.