Balancing Tri-Cities government budgets isn’t as easy as you think | Opinion

The numbers are eye-popping.

Benton County government is spending 43% more than it did just a decade ago. Franklin County is spending 83% more. Taxpayers are right to question whether their leaders are managing budgets responsibly.

But before people pull out the pitchforks, they should consider the underlying causes of ballooning budgets. Yes, leaders made some bad decisions, but some factors are beyond their control.

The Tri-City Herald’s Cory McCoy conducted a reality check on local government budgets.

The counties’ spending growth outpaces inflation, which was about 35% nationally over the same period, including the high inflation rates of just a couple of years ago.

Inflation, however, is not a great metric when it comes to government spending. The Consumer Price Index, which is used to calculate the inflation rate, measures a wide assortment of goods.

Local governments don’t buy many eggs. Rather, they pay for things whose costs tend to increase much more rapidly.

Government services rely on personnel, many of whom have college degrees. Salaries for those people need to at least keep pace with inflation.

Meanwhile, health care is one of the most inflation-prone costs for any company or government. Employee benefits are expensive.

Governments also build things and move things. The prices of construction materials and gasoline tend to increase much faster than other goods.

Then population growth compounds the problem. Benton and Franklin counties grew by tens of thousands over the past decade. The Mid-Columbia remains a popular place to move. More residents, plus higher costs, compound costs just to maintain current service levels.

Then new costs arise, whether it’s fixing an unexpectedly failing roof or meeting a state requirement to increase funding for public defenders.

School districts also are feeling the pinch. Last month, the Richland School Board cut $3 million from its budget because revenue had not kept up. The district is preparing for even more cuts to come.

Local government revenue struggles to keep up with spending because property taxes are capped and state and federal funding can disappear with shifting political winds. Economic uncertainty can also hit their sales tax coffers.

Yet the fiscal realities do not fully exonerate local leaders. During and after the pandemic, the federal government sent billions of dollars to states and localities to help them weather shutdowns.

That was always temporary support. Some of the money did go to infrastructure needs like 911 system upgrades and addiction recovery facilities, but some also paid for new government workers and new programs without a plan for how to fund them after the federal money dried up, as it now has.

Taxpayers are right to be frustrated. Their leaders either bungled budgeting or turned a blind eye to fiscal realities.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House further complicates the calculus. If his Department of Government Efficiency convinces Congress to slash spending, that won’t trickle down to states and localities, it will crash on them like a ton of bricks.

That’s especially worrisome for the Tri-Cities municipalities if they decide to look toward the Hanford site for cost cutting.

Local leaders cannot count on residents to close budget gaps. Voters in November were notably tax-averse. They rejected tax increases for core services like public safety and schools.

They also only narrowly rejected an initiative to repeal the statewide capital gains tax, lagging far behind overwhelming statewide support for the tax. Public skepticism about taxes is warranted given recent performance.

State lawmakers could provide some help. They could, for example, subsidize the transition to higher public defender expenses for a time. That might be a stretch, however, in light of recent revenue forecasts.

Gov. Jay Inslee’s state budget director predicts a $10 billion to $12 billion revenue shortfall over the next four years, and that’s probably optimistic. The analysis did not include new collective bargaining agreements with state employee unions that could cost almost $3 billion more over four years.

If new state spending is off the table, lawmakers should be looking for ways to empower localities to increase revenue themselves. That might require ballot initiatives, but better those emerge from legislative compromise than activist groups.

Balancing growth and inflation with fiscal sustainability requires tough choices. Local government must prioritize spending that directly benefits residents and fosters long-term growth.

Budget growth is inevitable in a thriving community, but it must be paired with a commitment to fiscal discipline and transparency.