Letter sent - Siuslaw News chose not to print
12 November 2005
Letters to the Editor (Opinion)
----------------------------------------------
Real versus Looney Budget Dollars
Question; "How much of Lane County's budget covers services to the Siuslaw County area?" We find the County's accounting system is like crossing into Looneytoon Town for the numbers used in public are not Real but Looney Dollars.
FY 05-06 County Budget states; "... Proposed Budget including all funds is $473.4 million." These are the numbers that appear in public. Then it says; "The Net Proposed Budget totals $231.0 million." It explains the same Real Dollar is counted several times resulting in the inflated Looney Dollar figures we are exposed to.
This document states; "Expenses overall are increasing by 3.0 percent or $13.7 million." {That's Looney Dollars.} Our Commissioner, in her roadshow to sell higher and more taxes, is stating the increase is 6 percent. Since total Looneys in "this" county roughly equal twice the Real, it seems our Commissioners are using Looney percentages too.
Ternyik's recent letter, incorporated in a Siuslaw News article, claimed we will need $60 million for the same level of service now enjoyed. It did not define the "type" of dollars nor the basis of this claim. If $60 million were true, then the 6 percent residents in the Siulsaw area would be consuming 1/4 of Lane's total $231 million budget. Let's get Real!
Siuslaw County will transfer 23 percent the landmass, 5 percent the voters, and 6 percent the population. Services are closely related to population though landmass has some influence. Using Lane County's own numbers, 6 percent of 213 yields a budget share of $14 million Real. Since we do not get our fair share of budgeted services now, this number is probably on the high side.
Continuing research will further refine and substantiate those numbers we have put forth on our www.SiuslawCounty.Org web site. The web site also provides further answers, updates, down-loadable petitions, and a means to get into the discussion.
Keith Stanton, Chief Petitioner