When the 2005 Snohomish County budget is unveiled next month, it will begin weeks of scrutiny by the County Council before adoption in November. An ordinance county Executive Aaron Reardon vetoed last week, which changed the county code regarding fund transfers, shows his tendency to be overly dramatic and heavy-handed when dealing with budget issues.
Reardon previously demonstrated a surprising lack of discretion when discussing a “worst-case scenario” 2005 operating budget deficit of more than $13 million. Claiming the county is “bankrupt,” “has bad credit” and expects “imminent layoffs” is rhetoric the executive needs to tone down if he intends to work well with the council, county employees and taxpayers. We are concerned those perceptions may even negatively affect Snohomish County’s bond rating.
The ordinance, passed unanimously by a bipartisan council following three public hearings, stated specifically that the council would only approve budget transfers from reserve accounts if the executive certified the funds were available. The executive branch would still propose all budget transfers to be considered by the council, including any amount from funds reserved for county operations. But in his veto message, Reardon suggested the ordinance would lead to transfers “initiated by the council” resulting in “back door raids on the county treasury” and “increased spending by the council.”
The vetoed ordinance does not “remove controls that limit spending” as Reardon has suggested. Transfers initiated by the council, all in 2002, include a $140,000 criminal justice efficiency study, a $100,000 audit of the permitting process and $236,000 to the sheriff’s and corrections departments.
Law and justice priorities resulted in a need to access the savings account to pay for operations and personnel – including more deputies and fighting the scourge of methamphetamine – priorities demanded by the public. In spite of those allocations, the council restored more than $3 million into the fund in 2004’s budget. Let’s see: Less than $500,000 out, more than $3 million back in – hardly a “raid” as Reardon might suggest. But the council is happy to provide additional language to the chapter making future access to the reserve account even more explicit.
Mr. Reardon’s fuss over a potential misreading of the code, which could have been calmly discussed at all three public hearings until attorneys on both sides agreed, further revealed the new executive’s frantic approach to budget matters and his unseemly desire to score political points with grandiose acts and large print on fancy letterhead (sent to every media outlet possible).
Three different revenue forecasts presented by the executive in the last nine months show healthy surpluses have turned into millions of dollars in deficits. How did this happen? The executive’s new revenue forecast must receive a line-by-line explanation of its causes and potential effects on the 2005 budget to ensure the prudent spending of our tax dollars.
Instead of carefully inspecting the numbers and their sources, Reardon concentrates his speeches on potential impacts of the “worst-case” scenario. He calls for layoffs and other dramatic cuts to meet his budget priorities and in the process creates a high level of anxiety among county employees – well ahead of actually presenting the 2005 budget. Reardon seems to prefer discussing his view of the budget situation in sound bites and inflammatory rhetoric rather than with thoughtfulness and tact.
Why would Reardon direct Finance to revise budget assumptions so dramatically and outline a grim financial forecast for county taxpayers and employees – not to mention bond underwriters? The executive is supposed to provide a reasonable forecast, not use scare tactics to promote an agenda.
The council is concerned that the forecast accepted last November came from the same source as the new numbers that allow the executive to make these dubious claims. Reardon needs to clearly explain what’s happened since then before he gives his budget address next month, or he will force people to accept his view absent all the facts.
Which is it, Mr. Reardon? Did you actually inherit a budget problem that only you can solve, saving the county’s debt-ridden taxpayers from financial ruin? Or is this overblown “crisis” the precursor to a budget that reflects your priorities rather than the public’s priorities?
If the former finance director and the people who inhabited the executive branch under Bob Drewel less than nine months ago did in fact do their jobs, then the ruse Reardon has contrived is a “sky-is-falling” hoax meant to inspire accolades as bogus as the numbers he is now using.
Reardon’s veto message reveals his lack of experience, limited understanding of factors that contributed to prior budget transfers and his theatrical approach to serious budget issues. We need an honest discussion, not the approach Reardon is using.
John Koster, Gary Nelson and Jeff Sax are Republican members of the Snohomish County Council.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
