Email
The big picture of Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry’s proposed $463 million budget looks good — especially considering the extended economic downturn. No layoffs, no tax increases, the potential for small pay raises for city employees.
This isn’t Washington, thank goodness, where you just keep printing money you don’t have.
Now it’s up to the City Council to ensure that holds up under a close critique.
Yes, residents in the private sector know too well what doing more with less is all about, and watching Berry continue to shrink what some would argue is a workforce that has grown beyond the city’s means and needs can do a taxpayer’s heart good. But it’s important that any budget respect public intent — there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, as well as skewed priorities that go beyond government’s responsibilities.
Penny wise and dog pound foolish could describe the budget and staffing cuts proposed for the Animal Welfare Department. As it faces a lawsuit claiming understaffing at its kennels, the department is opening a $7 million, publicly funded, new-and-improved East Side animal shelter designed to decrease euthanizations via a ramped-up spay and neuter operation while increasing adoptions. When it was designed the expanded facility was projected to add $1.6 million a year to Animal Welfare’s expenses; under Berry’s budget Animal Welfare will not get that money and instead take a $461,000 cut on top of a similar reduction last year.
The mayor’s budget would also eliminate about $275,000 for a high school student retention plan and replace it with $300,000 in funding for a vocational training program for students. Berry’s program, Running Start, would put students in apprenticeships that would keep them engaged with school as well as launch them into the workforce. The mayor says it will also deliver quantifiable results, something he says the student retention program hasn’t.
If the retention program works, it’s time to pony up proof in the competition for public financial support. Yet taxpayers might question if either of these programs should be the responsibility of the city rather that the bureaucracy entrusted with educating their children.
And while the Family and Community Services Department, which operates community centers, is facing a 3 percent reduction from last year’s budgeted levels, there’s no mention of charging anything for the free seven weeks of summer camp the centers offer every year. Next door, Bernalillo County charges a modest $100 for its camp, and the private/nonprofit sector charges at least that much a week.
Snapshots like these make up the big picture of Albuquerque’s fiscal 2012 budget. It’s important city councilors look at them closely and work with the administration on necessary adjustments. Taxpayers deserve a big picture of fiscal responsibility that doesn’t break down upon further examination.
