Everywhere we turn today, the headlines point to negative impacts of a shrinking economy. The Feds are printing billions of dollars to meet their commitments for the rescue. The State of California is pleading for a bail out. The State of Washington will balance its’ budget, but not without some serious cutting.
It is no surprise that Snohomish County government faces a crisis. The County Executive submitted a budget with a lot of grief. Shortfalls in revenue mean reductions in services and staff. If you are one of those casualties of a reduction of staff, you have a lot of grief.
In addition to a shrinking of the economy, County government suffers from a shrinking tax base every time an annexation is approved by the Boundary Review Board and a City council. Counties have mandates from the state to move urban growth into cities. It makes sense for the cities to be the urban service providers. The mandates don’t include corresponding methods to fund county-wide services after sales tax revenues have migrated to the cities.
I am most familiar with Snohomish County, but the problem is probably the same in most counties.
I have been critical of Snohomish County for aggressively promoting urban development in unincorporated areas. I believe that the Growth Management Act told counties to get out of the urban development business. I still believe that the reason we have a Growth Management Act is because of “out of control” county governments, but I have already beaten that horse in previous blog entries.
The budget crisis we face in our county comes in part from the fact that as the urban areas annex into cities, the sales tax revenue goes with it. Whether I like it or not, County government counts on that sales tax revenue to fund government services. If that revenue goes away, there are problems.
As residents and taxpayers in the county, we all need county-wide services like the Criminal Justice system which includes the Sheriff, the Jail, the Prosecutor and the Courts along with the Assessor, the Auditor, the Treasurer and the Clerk. We still need Public works and transportation departments in rural areas. And even though it is a separate entity, the Health District provides a vital county-wide service. I would include the Planning Department, but I could make an argument against the need for those turkeys.
Regardless of your political persuasion, County-wide services need to be funded. The issue about how the pool of money is divided amongst the departments is the small stuff. That is the politics of government at every level. How large that pool of money should be is the big question. Since the Assessor’s office jacked up our property values in an expanding real estate market to fund huge revenue growth during the past couple years, I hate to see what he will do when market forces tell him our property is not worth those big numbers anymore and at the same time revenue demands remain high.
A downturn in the economy is a good time to develop a budget strategy. If it is developed correctly, it will serve government in prosperous times as well.
All the years I was Mayor in Snohomish, Kelly Robinson was my City Manager. He told me he could prepare a budget regardless of the revenue, but that less revenue meant fewer services. He was keyed into the size of government. Since government services are predominantly personnel costs, he tied the growth in personnel to conservative revenue estimates to prevent big swings in hiring and subsequent layoffs. He was constantly aware of long term revenue commitments from expanding staffing. For many years, he was able to provide revenue for discretionary budget commitments because he was not totally committed to an inflated employee base. As economic cycles change, extra revenue in good times goes to fund projects and not staff.
The foundation of my own philosophy of government management is built on the lessons I learned working with Kelly Robinson. I think our county could put some of those lessons to use today. Where is Kelly when we need him?
In order to balance the budget in our county, we need to look for ways to reduce spending in places where everyone won’t suffer.
I have a couple ideas that would change how our government is run.
The first change. To the degree allowable by the County Charter, I would move control or oversight of the Long Range Planning Department to the Legislative Branch. Anything that has to do with developing the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use regulation would fall into a Council managed area. The Planning Department Director, an appointee of the Executive has too much control. The “policy development” elected officials need to have more control over what the Planning Department does. This would keep the council members engaged with what is happening in their districts.
The permitting and execution of the plan and regulations would stay with the executive department.
The second change. I would suggest that urban growth areas outside city boundaries should be served by city police departments rather than the county sheriff. I would support annexations that move that process along. All the deputies that are currently based within an urban growth area would be reassigned to areas outside urban growth areas. The size of the sheriff’s office could be reduced considerably. If we maintain the ratio of officers to thousands of population but applied in areas away from cities, the number of officers needed would be smaller. Providing police services in a rural environment only could clarify the mission for deputies and the public.
How many of us expect urban police services from the Sheriff today? Everyone should have an understanding about different expected levels of service from a sheriff’s deputy compared to a city police officer. The mission of the Sheriff’s deputy is not the same as an urban police officer.
The other services provided by the Sheriff’s office that are not patrol related would be evaluated and future service levels would be determined based upon new assessments of need. Special services provided by the Sheriff’s office might be paid with “fee for service” charges to the jurisdiction that requires the service.
Cities would have to step up to their responsibilities in providing police services in Urban Growth Areas just as the county has had to assume higher costs for jail, prosecution and court services for the whole county.
It could be that the whole issue of Criminal Justice funding should be viewed as a county wide cost and a method of funding the system be based upon population so that as the population percentage in the unincorporated moves into the incorporated, funding shifts from the county to the cities. At the same time, the cities need a seat at the table when developing Criminal Justice policies and budget development.
Snohomish County Tomorrow could become a relevant organization again if it is required that the county and the cities work together to address growth and criminal justice issues rather than giving the county all the power by itself.
It is clear that our county leaders don’t have a corner on smarts.
Can the extra services provided by the Sheriff’s office be tied to a levy? Can the voters decide to tax themselves for higher levels of service not provided by existing tax revenues? Can there be dedicated revenue sources for Criminal Justice? For other government services?
Can we restrict the size of government to some economic factor? Prohibit growth in government spending by law?
Even though I don’t particularly care for Aaron Reardon’s style and approach to government, I cannot fault him for filling in the void of leadership left by the County Council. I think that if council members had their own agendas and campaigned for them like Reardon does during the whole term, the taxpayers in our county would be better served.
Solving our county’s budget problems is not a task for the faint of heart. Our elected officials need to have courage to battle for things rather than against. We need council members that can stand toe to toe with Reardon and give as good as they get.
No Loss for Words 
Leque Island
by Steve DanaIn the scheme of things, Leque Island is not particularly important. It is a small island of mostly farm land at the point where the Stillaguamish River empties into Livingston Bay south of Stanwood. The land is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife. For a number of years, it has been actively farmed by nearby farmers who rent the land from the state.
As I said, this little island is hardly significant; except for the fact that the state wants to remove the dikes that protect the farmland and allow it to be turned back to a salt marsh as it was before it was diked. There is no doubt that the DFW project has merit; that is not the issue in this case. What is important is the failure of the county to enforce County, State and perhaps Federal Laws; and follow the processes set up to regulate public and private lands. It is my understanding that “prior converted farm land” is federally protected and converting it to some other use requires a process. Is there evidence that shows they have been through the rating process?
Government is about processes that create expectations and predictability for everyone. In order for the county to even consider converting this land to some other use, I would presume it would have to go through the appropriate processes to determine whether a change is justified.
Then there is the issue of DFW giving itself a DNS on the environmental review. What is it with these government agencies that give themselves a pass because they have the authority to do it? If anything, we should expect government entities with that authority to meet a higher standard rather than a lesser one.
In light of the fact that the state Growth Management Act requires that counties preserve and protect agriculture resource lands, it seems odd that the state would be advocating the destruction of this land in violation of its own laws. It seems odder yet that Snohomish County is doing nothing to enforce the law and prevent it from happening. For the county and the state, they must believe, the end justifies the means. Would that work for the private sector?
I don’t believe the state statute gives a county elected officials the option to follow the law if they feel like it on a given day. According to the dictionary, “misfeasance” is the act of doing something that is legal in an illegal manner. That same dictionary defines “malfeasance” as “misconduct: conduct by a public official that cannot be legally justified or that conflicts with the law.”
I am disappointed that county elected officials who profess to be protectors of farm land can willfully stand by and do nothing as this farm land is destroyed without due process. I recognize that they do have the power to make these changes if they decide as a council to do so, but they do not have the power to blow off the law without repercussions.
In addition, Snohomish County has a “no net loss of agriculture land” policy which raises a whole different issue. If the state is turning 115 acres of productive farm land into a salt marsh, they need to replace it in some way. Right?
The apparent decision on the part of Snohomish County to choose to not follow the law is distressing to me at a minimum. I cannot imagine a situation where a private sector property owner blatantly ignored the law and did not feel the wrath of the county.
I am looking for county elected officials to explain why they are choosing to ignore their responsibilities under the law. I think the taxpayers and voters in the county are entitled to an explanation. In light of the fact that the county is already facing litigation for failing to follow “due process” requirements, it perplexes me that they could continue being so arrogant.
Taxpayers in Snohomish County have every right to expect their government to follow the rules. What do we have to do to get them to comply?
Posted in Environmental, Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 2 Comments »