1. SOME BUDGET OBSERVATIONS 1.1 The appetite (requests) for spending is unlimited. However, resources
are not.
1.2 Therefore, someone or some group
ALWAYS imposes a limit on new spending. Defining this limit is called a
Top-Down Budget approach.
1.3 Various boards may impose different limits at different times depending on their perception of needs
and taxpayer tolerance, their personal biases, and, finally, pressures from various interest groups.
1.4 Spending
items invariably represent
desirable things to do (at least to some group). Many represent actual needs.
Others may simply be desirable wants included to meet an
INITIAL spending limit set by someone. However,
once items are included in the proposed budget, they develop
a constituency, and are characterized as important
needs in order to sell the budget. It then requires a major (and often controversial) effort to identify and remove unneeded
items.
1.5 Board members generally
CANNOT successfully debate the legitimacy of items with the experts
requesting them. The expert simply has too many details and is an experienced advocate.
The Board member is ultimately
forced to rely on the expert, on some personal bias, on some philosophy, or on a gut feel when making decisions.
1.6
The purpose of a top down budget is simply to provide
EARLY guidance on how much should reasonably be spent
(i.e. what the supportable limit will be).
2. PERCEIVED CURRENT BUDGET PROCESS 2.1
In early January the Board of Education (BOE)and Town Manager may impose their limits as they prepare budgets for the Board
of Finance (BOF). Historically, these limits have not been publicized.
2.2 In late January Town Council directs the
BOF to Utilize a top down approach. Direction is given to set reasonable and early spending targets (i.e. limits) taking into
consideration Cost of Living and Grand List growth along with other relevant indices. Council policy has two problems. First,
it provides no specific guidance (at least publicly) on what Council considers reasonable. Second, it is late. Unless the
BOF immediately provides targets, there will be no impact on the budgets being prepared. If the BOF has provided such targets,
it has not done so publicly.
2.3. In March the BOF reviews the budgets. The public is led to believe that BOF members
scrutinize each line item for legitimacy. While members may try hard to do so, this is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
Thus, in the end, the BOF falls back on its own philosophic top down limit. For several years now, that limit has been an
(unstated) 1-mill tax increase.
2.4 In April Council reviews the budget. Recently, it has supported the BOF mill related
limit despite Councils policy statement calling for a
SPENDING limit approach.
2.5
Finally,
in May voters may impose their own limit by rejecting the budget. This eleventh-hour rejection is disruptive, is often based
on emotion, and causes dissension.
2.6
Given that some imposed top down limit ultimately governs,
it should be obvious that it is better for the limit to be established early and should be explainable to and accepted by
the Public. Doing so will guide department requests, get the Public on board and should avoid the need for significant (and
controversial) changes later on. 2.7 Several basic questions need to be answered then. What is the
spending increase limit? What is its rationale? And does the public know of and support the approach?
2.8
The Common Sense Group has developed and publicized its top down approach (see Top-Down Budget page). Voters have supported recommendations based on that approach in 10 consecutive referenda.
