PORT TOWNSEND — When the city entered the new year with a balanced budget, city officials took a look back at the long, hard process of matching the numbers.
Early last year, City Manager David Timmons identified a trend that showed that the city’s revenues would not cover services expenses in the coming years.
The city, he surmised, was heading toward a deficit budget.
“That trend is not unique, with all cities going through that throughout the state,” said Timmons.
In better economic conditions, however, Port Townsend’s future is not as bleak, Timmons believes.
“Right now we are seeing sustained growth,” he said.
“We are seeing projects that are bringing more income and revenue.”
“I think we will be OK.”
His outlook comes after a long, arduous budget-balancing process, the result of which was a reduction in services.
Last September, the City Council sought voter approval of a levy that would increase property taxes with a tax rate of about $1 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
The levy would have increased the city’s property tax revenues by 53 percent and raised up to $760,000.
The council intended to use the funds, generated by the levy, to plug the $770,000 budget shortfall projected for 2005.
Under criticism
At the time, the council came under criticism for introducing the levy too close to the Nov. 2 election date, thus not giving citizens enough time to educate themselves on the issue.
Voters shot down the proposal by about 2 to 1.
An information package issued with the measure identified the council’s intent to cut certain services in nonprofit programs, park maintenance, police and fire services and the swimming pool if the levy failed.
Still facing the need to cut services, city lawmakers invited residents to a public forum to prioritize programs.
After a lively three-hour discussion in November, community members said to save the pool, keep the nonprofits, and do not increase the size of the police force.
‘Loud and clear’
“I think primarily it came out loud and clear that there is a strong support to keep those services, and that decision was made,” Timmons recalled.
At that point, the 2005 deficit estimate shrank to about $650,000, as new numbers came in. That signaled a more positive revenue outlook, he said.
Helping that outlook: The council implemented a 1 percent property tax increase allowable under state law without a public vote.
Then in mid-December, the council approved Timmons’ balanced budget, which showed minimum cuts in recreation and park maintenance.
So how did it happen?
So how did the city go from $650,000 projected deficit to a balanced budget with minimal tax increase?