After I looked over the proposed FY2005-2007 budget, I have come to the conclusion that what is good enough for the State of California is good enough for Mission Viejo. In November, the citizens of California will approve limiting spending by the state to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) multiplied by the increase in population. Given that there will be no significant increases in population in Mission Viejo over the next two years, this would mean a maximum spending increase of 2.9 percent in 2005-2006 and 2.4 percent in 2006-2007 (based on the President’s Council of Economic Advisor's Projections). Instead, we are looking at a General Fund Operating Budget increase of 9 percent in 2005-2006 and 4 percent more (12.8 percent total) in 2006-2007. (See page XXV of the proposed budget for details). It is very important to understand that these inflated amounts become the baseline for future budget increases.

When one reviews the 300-plus-page budget document and supporting materials, it is clear that this budget places emphasis on the wrong things and grows the bureaucracy by a great deal more than is warranted. For example, after seeing a 10 percent increase in spending on police services in 2004-2005, the city proposes adding two more officers and the associated vehicles and other costs. Mission Viejo has been rated one of the safest small cities in the United States, and there appear to no problems that would require more police, such as gangs, many more people or large new commercial areas. The officers we employ are generally doing a fine job but can hardly be overwhelmed by the lack of crimes we see in our city. Yet, somehow, we need more and more and more ... .

Another foolish expenditure is more Information Technology (IT) and computer support. I work in the computer industry, and it appears that our city has gone slightly crazy over the years adopting new technologies that only tangentially benefit Mission Viejo citizens. If some city workers need more modern computers, then replace the very few that might be needed and defer other modernization for a few more years. I see no reason whatsoever to increase spending in this area.

Another troubling thing is that in the areas where the “rubber meets the road,” namely programs that directly benefit citizens, we see far smaller increases and in some cases decreases compared to spending for should be called “bureaucratic overhead.”

As for the claimed reductions in capital spending that appear to offset the general fund and other spending, remember that capital expenditures are one-time events and do not become the baseline for future years’ spending. Also, capital projects can and are easily slipped into the budget at the whim of the city council. This makes the capital budget a very poor estimate -- some would call it a fantasy -- of actual spending. Our city has a very poor track record of spending to plan, with most capital projects actually costing from 1.5 to 2 times the budgeted amount. Look at the city hall, the library or the Sierra Recreation Center for examples of poor spending controls.

We need to hold the council members who claim to be fiscal conservatives to account for their continued endorsement of budgets that should really be “dead on arrival.” Our city was created as a “contract city” to make city government less expensive. Unfortunately, out-of-control budgets are dooming the ideals we all voted for when the city was founded. We must limit spending increases to 2.5 percent per year or less.

Dale Tyler