A Six Percent Hole in the Operating Budget
Your department's $4.2M operating budget assumed $2.1M in property tax receipts. The county has certified a 6% shortfall, and building permit fees are running $40,000 under projection. A settled labor contract adds $85,000 in wages this year. Council has ruled out a tax increase. Your fund balance policy sets a 17% minimum, which equals $714,000; you currently hold $520,000. Program cost recovery ranges from 5% for therapeutic recreation and 12% for the senior center to 112% for adult softball. The aquatic center recovers 88% but needs a $60,000 pump replacement this year, and deferring it risks a shutdown next summer. The council's strategic plan names youth access and older-adult services as priorities.
1. Size the gap, then sequence your options. What do you do first, second, and last, and what do you refuse to do?
Read the worked answer
The gap is $251,000: $126,000 tax shortfall + $40,000 permit shortfall + $85,000 wage settlement.
Sequencing by reversibility and mission impact:
- Non-personnel discretionary (first). Supplies, travel, training, and non-contractual services typically carry 8-12% of slack. A 15% cut here is recoverable next year and harms no participant directly.
- Vacancy savings and a targeted hiring freeze. Hold open non-critical positions; do not eliminate the after-school site staff you are about to hire, because the strategic plan names youth access.
- Revenue actions (often skipped, and a mistake). Non-resident surcharges, tournament and field rental rates, sponsorship and naming packages, and smarter facility scheduling. Adult softball at 112% recovery demonstrates the market will bear price; test a modest increase rather than assuming elasticity.
- Service-level reductions in low-priority, high-subsidy-dollar programs. Look at the dollar subsidy, not the recovery percentage.
- Fund balance (last, and only for one-time costs).
What you refuse to do: cover a recurring structural gap with one-time reserves, and cut therapeutic recreation to demonstrate toughness. Also refuse to defer the pump without a mechanic's written assessment; a summer shutdown costs more than $60,000 in revenue, emergency repair, and credibility.
2. A council member points at the 5% therapeutic program and the 12% senior center and asks why those are not on the table. How do you answer using cost recovery logic?
Read the worked answer
Answer with the pyramid plus a dollar figure, because the percentage is the least useful number in the room.
- Cost recovery is a policy ladder, not a ranking of worth. Programs sit at different rungs by design: most programs should recover a large share, some should recover a little, and a few are subsidized because the public purpose is the point. Therapeutic recreation and older-adult services are deliberately at the bottom rung, and the strategic plan says so explicitly.
- Percentages hide scale. A program at 5% recovery with 200 participants and a $40,000 total subsidy saves almost nothing if you cut it, while destroying the department's most vulnerable-client service and inviting an accessibility complaint. Adult softball at 112% may be generating surplus, but it is also the program with the most price sensitivity and the most vocal constituency.
- Convert to subsidy per participant. That number lets council compare programs honestly and shows that the low-recovery programs are often small in absolute dollars.
- Separate efficiency from philosophy. If the therapeutic program has a scheduling or staffing inefficiency, fix that. Efficiency gains are legitimate; eligibility cuts are a policy decision council must own.
- Offer the legal frame briefly. Programs serving people with disabilities carry accessibility obligations that constrain arbitrary elimination. Say it once, without threatening.
Then hand them the alternative: here is the package that closes $251,000 without touching those two lines, and here is what each remaining option costs in service terms.
3. What is a defensible use of the $520,000 fund balance here, and how do you present the risk to council?
Read the worked answer
Start with the uncomfortable fact: you are already below policy. The 17% minimum is $714,000; you hold $520,000, a $194,000 shortfall before this year's problem. Any draw widens that.
Defensible uses:
- One-time costs only. The $60,000 pump is the textbook case: non-recurring, risk-mitigating, and cheaper than the failure it prevents. Severance or a facility repair would qualify the same way.
- Bridge funding tied to a written restoration plan. If council draws, pair it with a three-year schedule to return to 17%, funded by the revenue actions in the gap-closing package, and show the schedule in the same document.
Indefensible uses: plugging the $251,000 structural gap. A recurring shortfall covered by reserve simply moves the same decision to next year with less cushion and a worse rating conversation.
Presenting the risk: use three numbers, not adjectives. Current balance as a percent of operating, months of operating cash on hand, and the balance after the proposed draw. Then state the trigger: if the balance falls below X, the next lever is service reduction, not another draw. Give council the sequence in advance so the choice is theirs and the consequence is documented.
Close with the honest summary: the pump is affordable, the operating gap is not, and the difference between the two is the entire argument.