Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

State responsibility

Legislators from across the state need to support a budget that affirms the state’s responsibility to fund SRS services rather than handing them off to local taxpayers.

October 25, 2011

Advertisement

It was welcome news to five Kansas communities that the state Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services would include funding for their local SRS offices in its budget proposal for next year.

However, that is just the first step to funds actually being allocated to keep those offices open.

Last summer, SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki Jr. announced that mandated cuts in his department’s budget would require nine local SRS offices across the state to be closed. Subsequently, five of those communities, including Lawrence, were able to reach agreements to save their local offices by agreeing to pick up a substantial portion of the operating costs for those offices.

Those agreements came with a pledge from Siedlecki that he would make a “good-faith effort” to restore funding for the local offices. Although many residents and officials thought that effort would be made for the next fiscal year, Siedlecki said earlier this month he didn’t plan to pursue those funds until 2013, when the two-year agreements with the cities and counties expired. After local officials expressed dismay at that strategy, the SRS chief agreed to include the funding in his budget request for the fiscal year that begins on July 1, 2012.

As noted above, that is the first step. Now it is up to state legislators to follow through and make sure this funding is approved.

This is not just about Lawrence. Officials in Fort Scott, McPherson, Pratt and Marysville also were backed into a corner and had to make quick decisions to commit local tax money to preserve their SRS offices. Spending local tax money to maintain an essential state service in their communities provided a short-term solution, but it should not set a long-term policy for the state.

Certainly in Lawrence, and probably in the other four communities, local officials are willing to start working immediately with state SRS officials to try to reduce the costs of operating their local offices. With good communication and adequate lead time, those efforts can forge a positive partnership between state and local officials.

To set the stage for that partnership, however, legislators must affirm that SRS services are a state responsibility that shouldn’t be handed off selectively to local taxpayers. The legislators from the five affected communities can’t do this alone. They need the support of other legislators throughout the state who understand the importance of setting this important funding precedent not only for the state but also for their taxpaying constituents at home.

Comments

Wadde 3 years, 2 months ago

It cost $400.000.000 a year to run SRS Half has to do with admin costs that $400.000.000

could stimulate low to mid income housing for the east side of lawrence instead of more fast food and natural food stores.Water and Electric is the biggest State drain in our Lawrence Economy.

Keith 3 years, 2 months ago

I see the representatives of the pro-life party are out in force this morning.

Wadde 3 years, 2 months ago

Some of the employees have big salaries ranging from $25,000.000 to $40,000.000 
a year and will not lower their salary for five years merchants and employers are forced 
to pay salaries that drain an overworked economy..

 The Key to this economic plan is (LOWERING COSTS) and a workable budget .
 for all economic levels...

jafs 3 years, 2 months ago

When did $25-45K/year become a "big salary"?

Eride 3 years, 2 months ago

The legislators should want to fix this, If they don't it is only a matter of time until their local communities get reamed as well. It won't stop at this.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.