|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
There are other fiscal problems: Last year, the state’s electorate approved a new initiative that caps local property-tax increases at 1 percent a year, unless voters in a county explicitly approve a higher percentage. Similar tax-cap initiatives have been declared unconstitutional in the past, but this one will likely survive, reducing county revenues by increasing amounts over the course of the decade.
Even so, the county’s current financial problems can’t be blamed entirely on outside forces. Spending was generous throughout the 1990s, perhaps more generous than prudence would have dictated. Aggressive cost-cutting closed a gap of $42 million this year, but it’s likely that significant shortfalls will occur in years to come. “Our economy has been booming, and cost of living has grown in the 4- to 5-percent range,” says Budget Director Steve Call. “There’s been pressure on the expenditure side and not much to keep pace with it. It’s a structural imbalance.”
County Executive Ron Sims saved money by taking the unusual step of consolidating agencies responsible for human resources, finance, information and administrative services, and construction and facilities management. But those moves didn’t fully close the gap, and millions of dollars have been cut from programs already stretched thin.
The shortage of funds has forced postponement of at least one major project the county has long had on the drawing boards — a merger of the two separate financial and payroll systems King has been operating since taking over Metro, the county’s transit and wastewater agency, in 1996. The $38 million merger was tabled in 2001 and is projected to take at least another $30 million to complete — dollars that likely won’t be available for years to come.
Positives: Strong investment and debt policies; executive finance committee reviews investment policies monthly; despite fiscal problems, county maintains two healthy reserve accounts; new policy caps non-voter-approved debt service at 5 percent of county’s general fund; financial information accessible on the Web; fiscal notes prepared for legislation with budget impact.
Negatives: Structural imbalance is serious, with new tax cap adding to woes; $15 million in one-time spending in 2001 budget, although one-timers nearly eliminated in 2002; current financial systems aren’t integrated and don’t produce real-time information; inadequate procurement training at department level.
Positives: Six-year capital improvement program linked to comprehensive plan; roads program forecasts needs out 20 years; county avoids bonding for maintenance projects, using “firewall” on maintenance funds that protects them from budget cuts; major-maintenance model effectively prioritizes projects.
Negatives: Cost-benefit analysis and operating cost projections weak for some projects; detailed project tracking done only at departmental level, with no central information system; condition-assessment quality varies by department.
Positives: Will finish six-year unification of pay and classification systems this year; in earliest stages of reorganization to centralize some personnel functions; management training has improved discipline process; hiring for most employees relatively quick; performance appraisals consistent among non-union employees.
Negatives: Separate payroll and information systems persist almost six years after King County-Metro merger; integrated HR system part of stalled technology upgrade; weak workforce planning; termination of weak employees still difficult; contracts negotiated with 100 separate bargaining units; county settled court case for $18 million over use of temporary and contract employees; 2000 management audit cited HR for not following countywide personnel policy and procedure but recommended changes implemented.
Positives: Five-point MFR plan developed in 1999; departments write annual strategic plans, although quality varies; some departments already strong in outcome measurement; growth-management report provides some outcome data.
Negatives: Budget pressures trumping measurement effort; no formal strategic plan; long-range planning doesn’t occur and isn’t pushed from the legislative side; more outputs than outcomes used for measurement.
Positives: Recently established IT governance structure to centralize functions, with CIO and technology management board; centralized GIS; beginning to write IT strategic plan and e-government plan; pilot e-filing program for courts; first annual technology report covering service levels will be issued by the county in 2002.
Negatives: $38 million attempt at merging King County and Metro systems failed and a new effort has been postponed indefinitely; procurement standards inconsistently applied; no IT replacement policy; no disaster-recovery plan, although data stored off site.
|
 |
eattle may be a cultural hot spot these days, but within King County, it’s just one of 39 separate jurisdictions, nearly all of them crammed into the county’s far end, west of the Cascade Mountains. There are more all the time. Washington State’s Growth Management Act, passed in 1990, seeks to concentrate future development in urbanized areas, and during the past decade existing cities annexed large portions of the county and 13 new jurisdictions were formed. This has been troubling from a fiscal perspective, because the new cities and annexed areas tend to be in economically desirable locations, siphoning most of the commercial tax revenue away from the county. King has been left with a tax base skewed toward residential property, and a poorer population, with higher unemployment and greater need for services, in the dwindling portion of county-run territory.