Myth vs. reality in the County budget

MYTH: King County hasn’t cut its budget sufficiently.

REALITY:

During the past ten years, King County has cut its General Fund budget by $384 million. Of this amount, $233 million was cut over the past four years. This reduced funding means lower levels of service to county residents, such as fewer Sheriff’s deputies and deputy prosecuting attorneys, reduced support for Public Health and parks & open spaces, and little support for human services.

MYTH: King County is threatening to cut public safety and criminal justice funds first, when they should be the last to be cut.

REALITY:

King County already has cut nearly every expense that is not mandated by state law from the General Fund. Public safety and criminal justice expenses now make up 77 percent of the General Fund, not because we are spending more on them, but because everything else has been cut first. In the year 2000, criminal justice costs were just 61 percent of the General Fund.

Other services that are not mandated are funded by special levies (such as the Parks Levy, Roads Levy, and the Veterans & Human Services Levy) approved by public vote, and by law cannot be used for other purposes.

MYTH: King County is not living within its means.

REALITY:

Cities have more revenue sources than counties. Cities can levy utility and business taxes, while King County’s “means” or revenue sources are limited to these:

1. Property taxes, originally restricted by Initiative 747 and then by the State Legislature to increases of no more than 1 percent per year plus new construction, without voter approval. Previously, governing bodies were able to implement property tax levy increases up to 6 percent per year without voter approval.
2. Sales taxes, which are restricted by state law and are declining significantly – down 15 percent last year – during the economic recession.

Because of the limits on revenue sources, special tax levies are the only other way to make up the difference when revenue does not support the costs of providing services. In November 2010, voters turned down a request for a two-tenths of a cent increase in the sales tax, to be used for criminal justice.

Beyond limitation in revenue sources, the County faces a significant challenge from the 1 percent cap on property tax increases, because the cost of maintaining the same level of services to residents rises each year at a higher rate. It is as if your salary increases very slightly, while inflation drives up the cost of rent, food, and clothing at a greater rate. As this keeps happening year after year, your ability to pay for necessities becomes less and less. This gap between the rising cost of providing services and limited revenue is called the structural gap and affects negatively all counties in Washington State.

By law, King County must operate with a balanced budget. As with a household, if you lose your job, you still have to pay your mortgage and utility bills. You can cut back on discretionary spending, but you still have to pay for necessities.  Without adequate revenue, the county must balance its budget by reducing expenses. King County has been able to do this while also maintaining its AAA bond rating, which is the highest credit rating by Moody’s, providing the County the lowest financing costs. Such responsible money management has kept King County solvent during the worst financial crisis in the county’s history.

MYTH: Government should be run like a business.

REALITY:

If government were run like a business, then it would be able to choose its customers and refuse non-profitable requests. It would be able to exclude people who cannot pay for the services they receive, such as criminals, children, and the poor. Government must serve all residents equally, no matter how much they cost instead of contribute.

Government must conform to laws that don’t apply to private business that can make doing business more costly. Examples are complying with public records requests that take up much staff time and energy and making proceedings open to the public. For instance, two people who serve on a three-member council or committee cannot talk about any public policy issue outside of an official, announced public meeting. These may not be the cheapest ways of doing business, but they are in the best interest of the public.