Today's P-I reports there will be two park levies for the August Primary, one for maintenance, the other for expansion, each adding $0.05 per $1,000 assessed property value. Resistance is futile!
Each will appear separately on the ballot, and if rejected in August, will reappear on the November ballot.Fortunately, we also have two fiscally responsible Councilmembers:
Although the maintenance levy passed the council unanimously, members Reagan Dunn, R-Bellevue, and Kathy Lambert, R-Woodinville, voted against the open-space tax.CORRECTION: The Parks Levy campaign says only the maintenance levy would be revoted if it fails in August. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 08, 2007 12:46 PM | Email This"Somebody's got to say, 'Too much,' here," Dunn said.
He argued that voters could be overwhelmed by tax proposals headed to the ballot this year, which could include county measures for parks, emergency medical service, passenger ferries and mental health and multibillion-dollar regional measures for Sound Transit light rail and for highway construction.
"I support parks," Dunn said. "But I think this goes too far, and I think it's poorly timed."
Taxes are the price we pay to keep this area livable. Parks are a key part of that and personally I will vote yes.
Posted by: Giffy on May 8, 2007 12:49 PMGiffy is a poster child for the effectiveness of pulling things like Parks that EVERYONE values out of the dungheap of Kounty Services and holding it ransom for a tax increase.
Giffy, have you every thought to ask your leaders:
1) Why Parks are not given higher priority in the existing Budget?
2) Isn't there something in the Budget LESS DESIRABLE...like Sims Chauffer or something equally as ludicrous that they could put on the ballot instead??
Giffy, ocassionally (albeit rarely) you have faint glimpses of being a reasonable person.
Try to put yourself in that "reasonable person" zone for a minute and answer me this....
WHY ARE PARKS BEING HELD HOSTAGE TO A TAX INCREASE INSTEAD OF SOMETHING LESS DESIRABLE??
Even Schrammbo was against all these levies this morning. He wanted to know what the rest of our taxes was used for if not these main essentials. Man, was he ever livid!
But, then "rock for brains" started bringing up the partisan angle. Oh, that is Carlson. I could have just strangled that numbskull. Here, the conservatives have a chance to redefine basic services, illustrate what our taxes are used for, and then he goes off on a partisan tangent.
And as a topper, these are simple majority levies now, aren't they?
Posted by: swatter on May 8, 2007 01:06 PMWhile wasting a bunch of money hiring people to figure out where every dollar goes. Guess that's the new GOP motto 'you got to spend money to find the money' (even though most Govt. financial records are public record if you actually bothered to look for them).
It not only about where the money goes, but how efficiently it it spent. As far as perusing Governement financial records goes, why don't you go talk to Armen Yousoufian.
Posted by: NW Denizen on May 8, 2007 02:08 PMHave you ever thought Cato that perhaps the Government Entities ought to do a better job of Open & Honest Financial disclosure....rather than force citizens to spend months & years going thru reams of documents trying to figure out where the existing dollars are going??
I've tried and continue to try to figure out government spending via Records Requests. The problem is that every Request results in multiple additional requests.
What I see on many levels (R's & D's both) is an arrogant effort to hide from the Public where the fat is and to keep mining for more $$ by holding out valued services as TAX INCREASE OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE & HAVE HORRIBLE QUALITY OF LIFE!
Cato & Giffy...can't we agree that government at all levels must do a better job of reporting taxing & spending and have a higher level of accountability??
Can't we also agree that government at all levels ought to be able to show they are good stewards of existing tax dollars BEFORE asking for more?
Shouldn't we be outraged when government at all levels forces us to go thru a seemingly endless maze to get fundamental information?
Giffy & Cato--
Do you know the difference between BASIC SERVICES and DISCRETIONARY SPENDING????
Basic Services are essential services required by law like infrastructure & public safety.
Everything else like Parks, Library etc. are Discretionary. Sims Limo is also DISCTRETIONARY.
Have you ever studied how much of your local government budget is Discretionary.
ANSWER: A lot!!!
Just because a group of folks believe Libraries are necessary & desirable does not mean they are a required Basic Service. Same with Parks.
However, most successful communities value Parks above sending their Bureaucrats to $5,000/week seminars on how to screw the taxpayers more gently.
Local
Cato, what if I told you of the research I did and the corruption I found in city government. Would you do anything? I thought not.
Eric had a series of articles where Snohomish County was going to spend $250k for a Boeing party. When the council questioned it, the exec clammed up.
If the exec had wasted this money on a party, he may have come back and said, "we need a levy for our parks department for 250k because we are short money". What say you then?
Schrambo is definitely not a Republican. Why is he upset? Why are you upset that he didn't want to make it an R v. D thing like you are doing? Get a grip, big fella.
Posted by: swatter on May 8, 2007 02:22 PMThis will be an easy election..
No No No No No No No No No No No
They just jacked up our tabs again, and I'll be damned if we should let them do it again...
Posted by: GS on May 8, 2007 03:23 PM
That new Kounty building "aka Monument to Mediocrity" could have probably built Yellowstone Park.
The touchy-feely 1% to the Arts ought to be 1% to the Parks instead.
You all have the right idea.
Priorities.....and cost effectiveness.
Is that really too much to ask?
Seriously, could one of you research junkies out there compare the county income to inflation and population increase? The county should not need additional taxation percentages.
Hairy.
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on May 8, 2007 08:13 PMask yourself what any bank would say if your small business was constantly undershooting/blowing budgets & always needing more $$ to merely operate?
death by 1,000 levy cuts. guess voters dont mind the slow bleed. "20 cents here, a few dollars there"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 8, 2007 09:01 PMProperty tax revenue increases have been limited by initiative to 1% a year. That does not keep pace with inflation resulting in a net decrease every year.
The County budget basically has three things. 1) Mandated services. These are things the state makes the county do. Probably the biggest thing here is the sheriffs and jails which in 2007 is 440mil out of a 650mil general fund. 2) Discretionary expenses. This is basically a pool of around 100-150 mil. From this things like, general government, etc are funded. 3) Dedicated funds. These are things that have special taxes directed at them. These funds cannot be used for anything else. Big items here are parks, metro, wastewater, etc. These make up the bulk of the Counties budget. The County is very limited in how it spends its money. While a 3.9 billion dollar budget may sounds like a lot, only a very small portion of it is discretionary. Most is dedicated or mandated.
The two parks levies would raise 32 million a year. The reason dedicated funding is liked is that you know were the funds go to. If the county simply asked for a general tax hike people would oppose it because it could be spent on anything. This way the County can ONLY spend the money on things outlined in the ordinance authorizing the vote.
By the way the ENTIRE budget for the office of the executive is just over 10 million or 1/3 the parks levy.
Giffy, there is something smelly in Denmark and it ain't the fish. Why can't we give it a shot?
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2007 07:06 AMYes we spend a lot of Law and Safety but still a car thief can get caught 14 times stealing a car before facing Jail time. Early out program for prisoners to cut cost some of whom have violated agreements are not sent back to jail for full term. And how many people have been killed by this procedure to cut costs. There are a lot of bad decissions out there. You have to spend too much time going to many different sources to figure out where the money is being spent.
It is easier to find out the real costs for every department of the Federal Budget expenditures than you can find KC budget items. Every thing gets grouped together.
How many programs are there? the bottom line follow the money spent. The general fund being only 600 Million out of a 3.4 Billion budget. Lots of programs to look at. But as always only Safety get cut because they can always get more tax revenue for the people will vote for Safety and parks.
All we ask is open and accountability. Lets look at the audits. Answer why in the past. People working for the government who misspent millions of dollars. Gets rewarded by an increase in pay and Job responsibility. In a business they would normally get a pink slip. Does not happen often but it does happen. Not much trust in the government because of the appearance of hiding information from the voters.
IE. Look at the new $20 car tabs hike that can be added to getting your license. No voters allowed to vote on the issue. Why because they would lose. The will of the voters constantly ignored. So why should we trust them. There is no integrity or follow the will of the people in the Democrat Party. Just Tax and spend. Why do you think the latest State budget spends more than the income coming into the state. That is where the Democrats start. And it only goes up from there. Cut those items to balance the budget that can be used to get tax payers to agree to pay for the service. Fund those items the voters would say not to. Oh yes tack an emergency clause on the bill. To prevent voters from having a say on the topic.
The list goes on and on. The bottom line what has our local and state government shown that they are open and accountable to the people.
So was the millions of dollars for drunk housing discretionary? Or the $600k for changing the logo? The million dollar toilets? The "task force" that busted strippers or people hooking up on craigslist?
It's pretty easy to be cynical about government asking us for MORE money to fund things we want like parks, when they're wasting money on things like what's listed above.
Posted by: Palouse on May 9, 2007 08:00 AMCase in point, I had a lot that I couldn't sell for a decent profit so I built a house and moved in. The increase in value really jacked up the taxes I paid from a thousand a year to six thousand. I understand the tax levy rate for my area and understand the tax increase.
However, this year (the second in the house) I expected the tax to skyrocket due to the roughly 20% increase in house appraised rate. However, because all the property in the area increased at the same rate, the total tax increase was minimal because the tax levy rate was lowered by $1/1000 assessed value. So, in the end, the taxes were about the same.
About six months before that I met the local county treasury in the elevator and asked him what he was going to do with all the extra tax money due to increased property values (as per your read, David) and he replied, "what increase in revenues? I don't know of any more money coming in."
I wish someone would explain these things so we all understand.
Posted by: swatter on May 9, 2007 08:15 AMNow special levies are exempt from that lid as they are a fixed amount per 1000 of assessed value. This is another reason why they are preferred.
The other problems you talk about are the essence of government. Pretty much everything is a special interest to someone. The role of government is to allocate scarce resources.
And Swatter part of the big reason why the County is always short on funds is that it has been mandated to do more. The biggest example is expanding public health needs and dwindling state and federal sources. Couple that with two initiatives that curtailed revenue and there you are.
Posted by: Giffy on May 9, 2007 08:23 AMSeriously, could one of you research junkies out there compare the county income to inflation and population increase? The county should not need additional taxation percentages.
Ask and you shall receive:
I went back to 1960 cause that was an easy year to get all the data I wanted without having to do extra research. Data is current through 2005 I have things indexed for inflation in 2005 dollars.
So numbers below are inflation adjusted, per-person tax rates in 2005 dollars.
In 1960 - Property $395, All: $986
In 1970 - Property: $796 All: $1,420
In 1980 - Property: $625 All: $1,713
In 1990 - Property: $768 All: $2,162
In 2000 - Property: $1,023 All: $2,263
In 2005 - Property: $1,120 All: $2,262
We can see that overall revenue has flattened out over the last few years, and that might have a lot to do with tax revolts that have occurred in recent years. Since these are population and inflation neutral numbers, there is no real reason the state should be "needing" additional tax revenues from what they have now. Maybe the government feels they are not doing their job unless they are growing? Do they think like a private corporation that must create some sort of "shareholder value" by expanding the "business" at 8-10% per year? It is interesting to see how tax revenues have grown by nearly 225% since 1960 and we still seem never to have enough money in the state budget to get the job done.
I agree with many of the other contributers. It would be very nice to have a commitment by our government to guarantee that certain government responsibilities will be paid for first and anything else would be paid for with any money left over at the end of the year. I know that is how I run MY household budget, and how I ran the budget of my departments in the SW biz.
But of course, the cynical me thinks that politicians don't want to run things like that since it prevents them from funding pet projects and rewarding donors and special interest groups.
Posted by: Eyago on May 9, 2007 09:18 AMI've looked over my taxes (excluding voter approved) and from 2004-2007, they have gone up 6.79%. If they were limited to 1%, I would have expected a little under half that increase.
True, my property valuation went up almost 46% and the taxes didn't go up as much, but they still increased more than 1% per year.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 9, 2007 10:00 AMPlaces that are pretty much taken over by the "homeless".
Would be nice if scabattle could afford cops who could be off the streets when (if) they arrested someone committing a crime. Still trying to figure out just what it means when on 3 separate occasions cops told me they couldn't arrest someone because it would take them off the street?!?!?!?
Perhaps my car wouldn't have been so badly trashed if they could.
What universe do these things live in?
/disgust.
Posted by: Fox3 on May 9, 2007 12:23 PMThe 1% is not per tax payer, but overall. So lets say in 2005 the total property tax receipts totaled 1000 million. In 2006 they could only total 1010 million. This excludes new construction and the like. However any individual owner may see a different amount of change. The legality of that law (it was an initiative) is currently before the state supremes.
Posted by: Giffy on May 9, 2007 05:20 PMI thought the taxation was based on property valuation. Any thoughts on why existing property wouldn't pay their 1%, forcing me to pay more?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on May 9, 2007 06:55 PM