May 26, 2011

In an editorial in the May 20, 2011 issue of the Scottsdale Republic I was described as “agitated” and “livid” about the budget my City Council colleagues passed on May 18th. The editorial is absolutely correct, and all residents of Scottsdale should be agitated and livid with me about the shabby treatment our taxpayer dollars received that night.

The editorial was also correct about the process at the meeting being “a bad way to run a government.” But the real outrage is that the meeting produced a budget that is unbalanced, unsustainable, and sets the stage for even bigger budget shortfalls in the future.

In the last election the voters made it crystal clear that cutting spending and balancing our budgets was their top priority for officeholders at all levels of government. One way you sent us that message in Scottsdale was by approving a reform that I had long advocated, creating an independent City Treasurer who would give the Council impartial advice about financial issues.

At the May 18th meeting the City Treasurer did exactly that. He pointed out that the budget being proposed by the City Manager for next year was unbalanced because projected revenues are less than projected spending. He pointed out that the budget being proposed by the City Manager was unsustainable because it required depleting reserves and capital funds to make up for revenue shortfalls. And he also pointed out the City Manager is projecting even larger budget shortfalls for the next two budget years after that!

I proposed that we make next year’s budget balanced by lowering the spending limit by the amount of the revenue shortfall rather than authorizing the City Manager to use reserves to cover the shortfall. My plan would have at least made a start at correcting the spending issues that threaten the long-term fiscal health of Scottsdale. I couldn’t even get a second for that motion. Instead, my Council colleagues approved a budget that increased the spending limit and increased the amount of money the City Manager can take out of reserves.

My colleagues did approve one spending reduction, but it was exactly the wrong thing to cut. One other message that you, the voters, sent loud and clear in the last election campaign was that you wanted public safety to be last place we make cuts. Our Police Chief has done his own share of belt-tightening to help balance our budget. But the one thing he asked us not to change (because it would have an extremely negative impact on his ability to recruit and retain officers) was the way we pay police overtime. Despite his advice to the contrary, four of my council colleagues went ahead and voted for that very change.

I admit I could have been more tactful in my comments at the meeting, and I apologize for not doing so. But I make no apology for being angry at both the process and, especially, at the result. If you care about our city’s fiscal health you should be angry too.