It’s budget time for local governments, and you can tell by the nervous look in the eyes of city staffers. Much like a herd of antelope anxiously watching the circling lions, they know that it’s hunting season for budget cuts, and that usually means city staff jobs. In Maple Valley, the two antelope on the edge of the herd this year are the city attorney and one of the three building inspectors.
I don’t envy the job of the lions, though. The Great Recession has left a lot of city coffers somewhat emptier than they are used to, and that leaves Council members wondering whether to increase taxes, cut services, cut staff or some combination of all three.
In the case of Maple Valley’s staff though, the two jobs up for debate would have to be replaced by contract employees, so the savings aren’t apparently clear. Most likely, there wouldn’t be any savings, and they’d actually lose money in training costs for the replacements. Plus, who do you want on your team when the fight turns nasty?
Up in Monroe, the city just lost a case based on questionable advice from their contract attorneys (according to the plaintiff), and will likely have to shell out over $175,000 in legal fees for both sides. The lawsuit itself wasn’t earth-shattering; it was simply over whether the city had to release some Council members’ e-mails for a public records request.
Would a full-time attorney have given better advice? Maybe, maybe not. But the different motivations of the two can have a strong influence on the quality of the advice you get.
A good friend of mine is on her third attorney to handle a business issue, after the first two turned out to be primarily motivated by keeping the clock ticking. When you’re being paid $300 an hour, it’s very difficult not to be influenced by the way you make that money. Pick up a copy of “Freakonomics” if you don’t believe me.
When your salary is set, raising money is no longer your primary motivator, and you can focus your mind on doing great work. I’ve found that people want to take pride in their work, and if you trust them to do their jobs without micromanaging them, you’ll almost always get their very best.
OK, so the antelope might be safe this year. What about raising taxes?
Every time the subject of taxes comes up, the anti-tax crusaders come out to say, “we’re being taxed to death; suffocating under the weight of Big Government”. It’s easy to buy into that, since we’re all trying to keep as much of our money as possible. Somebody else will pay for it, not me. But we want the cops to show up when we call, we want somebody to cut the grass at the park and when are they going do something about that lake that forms every time it rains?
Most people will tell you, raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. So, raising taxes during the Great Recession must be worse, right?
All right, time for an example. Your utility tax rate is at 2 percent, while everyone else is at 6 percent. Are you both being taxed to death? Will the six percenters die a quick, painless death while the two percenters get by on cat food and Top Ramen until they finally give in? Or is there room for the 2 percent people to give a little more to maintain essential services and a healthy city?
Generally, I’m not in favor of expanding government. I have to believe that someday we’ll have a “Unified Theory of Minimal Government” to use as a basis for setting tax rates. Communities could then decide what “extras” are important enough to have additional taxes for.
Maybe we could rate the cities’ tax rates on a five-star scale, and the Big Government fans can persuade others to move to their five-star cities, while the anti-tax crusaders can set up shop in the one-stars. Look for me in a two-star; somebody’s got to fix that lake in the road.
