King County Local Voters PamphletNov. 4, 2003 Special Elections KING COUNTY
|
STATEMENT FOR |
STATEMENT AGAINST |
This charter amendment to allow biennial budgeting would give the county the option to shift to a two-year budget cycle, instead of the current one-year cycle. This proposal will provide the King County Council and the Executive the opportunity, over time, to thoroughly examine every county department in the budget in the off-year. This charter amendment does not require this change to our budget process; if the amendment is approved by a vote of the people, then the Council and Executive will examine this issue further and decide if a biennial budget is the best option, and if so, how best to implement it. This option will help us meet the tremendous fiscal crisis facing the county, and make the best decisions on behalf of taxpayers in the delivery of services that are key to our quality of life. The County Council and the County Executive strongly support this amendment. REBUTTAL OF STATEMENT FOR This proposal won’t save taxpayers money, won’t
improve services, and won’t ensure responsible budgeting. STATEMENT PREPARED BY: Brian Derdowski, Maralyn Chase, Hank Thomas |
Adopting budgets every two years instead of once a year will reduce accountability to taxpayers. Two-year budgets will require more mid-term adjustments to deal with changing circumstances. These tend to be ‘piece-meal,’ and receive less public scrutiny. Biennial budgeting requires forecasting revenues thirty months in advance. This is impossible to do accurately, especially in King County which relies on Federal and State funds. The result will likely be overspending and periodic fiscal emergencies. This proposal will not solve King County’s budget problems, and may make them worse. The current proposal may be motivated by the political desire to extend the current budget time frame into 2006, a year in which some economists predict an upturn in the economy. While tempting, this is an extremely risky fiscal policy. There is no assurance that the Council and Executive will use the promised savings in staff time to do detailed budget analysis. It is more likely that the effort expended on budgetary matters will be reduced, to the detriment of public accountability. The framers of the County Charter wisely required annual budgets. Annual budgeting works best in fluctuating economic times and changing political circumstances. We need to keep this fiscally prudent practice. REBUTTAL OF STATEMENT AGAINSTThe opponents could not be more wrong! Biennial budgeting enhances accountability, promotes greater scrutiny of spending and bureaucracy, and prevents fiscal emergencies. The “risky fiscal policy” is to continue doing things the same way. The council and executive heard clearly from our citizens that we must
restructure county government. Other state and local jurisdictions
successfully use this
system, which allows better long-term planning and fiscal stability.
|
Ordinance 14758
Proposed No. 2002-0603.2
Sponsors: Irons, Phillips, Patterson, Lambert, McKenna, Hague, von Reichbauer and Sullivan
AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to Article 4 of the King County Charter; authorizing the council to adopt ordinances providing for biennial budgeting, and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the November 2003 general election.
PREAMBLE:
King County’s total 2003 budget is proposed at $3.1 billion.
The county’s proposed 2003 current expense (CX) fund budget is $495 million.
The CX fund is experiencing a fiscal shortfall that is the result of declining
revenue growth and increasing governmental expenses.
King County is aggressively reviewing CX expenditures for reductions. King County reduced the CX fund budget by $41 million in 2002 and faces continuing general fund deficits of $52 million for 2003 and additional reductions of $24 million in 2004 and another $24 million in 2005, for a total of $141 million over four years.
The citizens of King County have requested the council and the executive to improve county processes and programs so that there are efficiencies and economies realized in the funding and provision of county services. Solutions to the fiscal crisis and the general fund structural deficit require consistent planning and effort over more than one calendar year.
The citizens of King County have requested the council and the executive
to improve county processes and programs so efficiencies and economies
are realized
in the funding and provision of county services.
In response to the budget crisis, the council has formed the King County commission on governance and the executive formed the King County general government budget advisory task force advisory bodies to review the budget crisis and make recommendations to address the county’s general fund revenues and efficiency and accountability of services and programs funded by the general fund.
The council and executive desire to respond quickly to the recommendations of both advisory groups and have identified the potential use of biennial budgets as a tool to respond to these recommendations which currently can not be used based upon wording in the King County Charter.
The King County Charter specifies preparation and administration of an annual county budget, and to authorize enactment of biennial budget procedures in King County requires amendment of the charter.
The state legislature authorized the use of biennial budgets for counties in 1995 and in 1997 for individual funds. Biennial budgeting can provide significant benefits to the public, and government policy makers, managers, and employees, including promoting longer-term strategic planning, increasing the time available for detailed review of funds presenting significant fiscal and policy issues, and reducing the routine tasks associated with annual budget preparation and adoption.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. There shall be submitted to the qualified voters of King County for their approval and ratification or rejection, at the next general election to be held in this county occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance, an amendment to Article 4 of the King County Charter as set forth herein.
NEW SECTION. SECTION 2. There is hereby added to the King County Charter a new section to read as follows:
Section 405. Biennial budgets.
The county council may, subject to the provisions of section 230
of this charter, adopt an ordinance providing for a biennial budget
cycle for
any or all county
funds, with a midbiennium review and modification for the second year
of the biennium, including specifying the process and timeline for major
tasks
in
the biennial budget process. References in this charter to the fiscal
year or to specific dates shall apply to the corresponding annual or
biennial
period or date for any such fund or funds. Any references to a “quarter of a
fiscal year” mean three months. The county council may adopt additional
and emergency appropriations ordinances for such fund or funds in the same
manner and subject to the same conditions as otherwise provided in this charter.
The county council may repeal such an ordinance and revert to adopting annual
budgets for any fund or funds, commencing after the end of any biennial budget
cycle.
SECTION 3. The clerk of the council shall certify the proposition to the manager of the records, elections, and licensing services division, in substantially the following form, with such additions, deletions or modifications as may be required for the proposition listed below by the prosecuting attorney:
Shall the King County Charter be amended to authorize the King County Council to adopt an ordinance to provide for a biennial budget cycle for any or all county funds with a midbiennium review and modification for the second year of the biennium, and to authorize the King County Council to repeal such a biennial budget ordinance and revert to an annual budget cycle, all as provided in Ordinance No. 14758?
Ordinance 14758 was introduced on 12/9/2002 and passed as amended by the Metropolitan
King County Council on 9/18/2003, by the following vote:
Yes: 10 – Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Edmonds, Mr. von Reichbauer, Ms. Lambert,
Mr. Phillips, Mr. Pelz, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Constantine, Mr. Hammond and Mr. Irons
No: 1 – Mr. Gossett
Excused: 2 – Ms. Hague and Ms. Patterson
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Cynthia Sullivan, Chair (signed)
Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
By visiting this and other King County web pages,
you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site.
The details.