Cherry-Picked Budget Screenshots Don't Tell the Whole Story

One of the reasons I founded Livingston GAP was because I believe government works best when citizens have access to the complete story, not just the parts that fit someone's narrative.

That's exactly what's happening with the Fire Department's capital requests.

Over the last several days, I've watched people share screenshots from Appendix A of the budget and add up the dollar amounts as if that tells us everything we need to know.

It doesn't.

Those screenshots don't explain where the requests came from, why they were created, what happened after they were submitted, or how capital planning is actually supposed to work.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess.

The emails and budget documents are public records.

It Started With Finance

On February 2, Finance Director Paige Fetterhoff emailed Chief Chabalowski with very specific instructions:

"I need you to think about all capital you will need to purchase in the next 5 years and include sheets for those purchases that are further out as well."

Read that again.

She didn't ask for this year's shopping list.

She didn't ask for only projects that could realistically fit into the upcoming budget.

She asked the Fire Department to identify everything it anticipated needing over the next five years and even beyond.

That's an important distinction because it changes how these documents should be

viewed.

That's Exactly What the State Says to Do

After reading the Montana Department of Commerce's Capital Improvements Planning Manual, I realized Finance's instructions weren't unusual at all.

In fact, they were exactly what the State recommends.

According to the manual, a Capital Improvements Plan is meant to identify future infrastructure needs, establish priorities, identify funding sources, and create a schedule for implementing projects over multiple years. The end result isn't just a list of requests.

It's a long-term strategy.

The manual also explains why this process matters.

It helps local governments identify needs before they become emergencies, evaluate funding options, pursue grants and loans, and make thoughtful decisions about where limited resources should be invested.

That sounds like exactly what I would expect from a Fire Chief.

I don't want my Fire Department waiting until an ambulance dies on the side of the road or a fire engine reaches the end of its service life before anyone starts talking about replacing it.

Good leaders identify those needs years in advance.

The Requests Were Never the Final Product

This is the part that seems to be getting lost.

Department heads identify needs.

That's their job.

The City Manager's job is different.

According to the Montana Department of Commerce, the next steps are to prioritize projects, evaluate funding options, identify grants and other financing opportunities, develop a funding strategy, and build a Capital Improvements Plan that guides future budgets.

In other words, the request forms are the starting point.

They're not the finished product.

Where Is Livingston's Capital Plan?

This is the question I keep coming back to.

If every department was asked to identify everything they might need over the next five years, where is the document that tells us:

• Which projects were the highest priority?

• Which projects would wait?

• Which projects would be pursued through grants?

• Which projects would be funded through enterprise funds?

• Which projects would require bonds or future levies?

• Which projects simply weren't financially realistic right now?

That's the document commissioners should have been evaluating.

Instead, what many people have seen are the raw request forms.

The Funding Sources Matter

Another thing that gets lost in the screenshots is that the request forms don't all assume taxpayers will pay for everything.

Some identify enterprise funds.

Some identify bonds, grants, donations, or future levies.

Some remained unfunded because a funding source had not yet been identified.

Some of these requests were even being discussed as potential candidates for outside grant opportunities.

Those details matter because they show these weren't simply "buy everything now" requests.

They were planning documents.

One More Thing That Jumped Out at Me

Take a close look at Appendix A.

Many of the Fire Department requests don't even have a project year assigned.

Others are spread across future years.

If these were all immediate demands for this year's budget, why weren't they all assigned to this year's budget?

Again, that's consistent with long-range planning, not an immediate spending spree.

The Question We Should Be Asking

This entire debate has been framed around one question:

"Why did the Fire Department ask for so much?"

I don't think that's the right question.

Here's the question I think taxpayers should be asking instead:

Why wasn't the public shown how those requests were prioritized?

Where is the scoring process?

Where is the explanation for why one project moved forward while another didn't?

Where is the long-term replacement schedule?

Where is the funding strategy?

And perhaps most importantly...

Where are the grants?

The Montana Department of Commerce specifically recommends evaluating grants, loans, and other financing options as part of the capital planning process.

So why does it seem like our first conversation is always about asking local taxpayers to pay for everything?

Wouldn't good financial stewardship start by aggressively pursuing outside funding wherever possible?

Those are the questions I'm interested in answering.

Because that's what good government looks like.