By Jean Godden

The August primary is behind us, and Seattleites have selected finalists for mayor (Jenny Durkan and Cary Moon) and for two City Council seats (Lorena Gonzalez and Pat Murakami; Teresa Mosqueda and Jon Grant). Voters now have until Nov. 7 to decide how to fill those positions. 

It's the voters' job to pick the people who can best keep Seattle running. The new mayor must have the management skills to deliver basics. The council needs the ability to prioritize those services. 

Is there clean water? Sewer treatment? Trash pickup? Fairly-priced electric power? Are city streets passable and the transit system reliable? Are police and fire services readily available? Are libraries, parks and community centers operating and open to all? Is the city tending to the homeless and unsheltered?

The mayor ultimately is responsible for providing and managing these services. Each year in September, the mayor sends a budget to the council. By law, the mayor's budget must be balanced, revenue sources identified. The council can and most likely will tweak the budget (seldom does a mayor's budget get a rubber stamp). The council then must vote to approve next year's budget by Dec. 1, ensuring that core needs will be met. 

Passing the budget is the City Council's single most important job. With the mayor and two council positions up for election in November, it is critical and timely to have discussions now about how the city will spend the taxpayers' money in future years. 

In July, the Seattle Municipal League released a report titled: "The Seattle Budget -- A Looming Crisis?" That report ought to be required reading for every would-be officeholder and for every individual who might be a pivotal voice on city finances. The Muni League released the study with the aim of launching a discussion between candidates and voters about how a revenue crisis, if it should occur, would be addressed.

Prepared by business reporter Stephen H. Dunphy with help from a panel that included a former mayor (Wes Uhlman) and former councilmember (Martha Choe), the report outlined what has happened to the city's general fund over the last 50 years. 

Since 1967 -- the year when Seattle's mayor first submitted a budget -- spending has grown more than 250 percent (adjusted for inflation). While the city has thousands more Seattleites than 50 years ago, budget growth has outstripped the population increase. What was considered "basic" in 1967 has been expanded. More is expected of government today, including those services once provided by churches, charitable organizations and the public or not provided at all.

The Muni League report draws attention to the city functions whose funding relies heavily on sources that may be at risk. Declining revenue from any of these sources would create a revenue shortfall and require hard decisions to close the gap. The Muni League foresaw three scenarios where Seattle's budget might be severely impacted.:

     1. Economic Slowing. The city could be challenged by a slowdown in construction revenue or a slowing of overall economic growth.

 

     2. Voter weariness with additional property taxes. The Legislature's solution to the school funding issue means an increase in Seattle property taxes that may come as a shock to homeowners. 

 

     3. Loss of federal funds. The Trump administration has proposed budget cuts to important revenue sources and Congress has expressed priorities that do not include robust funding for municipal services.

      

If all three scenarios hit at once, it would create a perfect storm, resulting in some traumatic choices. The Muni League example of unthinkable choices:  "Closing fire stations to keep senior centers open." 

 Although brutally specific about Seattle's risks, the Muni League did not attempt solutions. Rather the League believes this year's city elections provide an opportunity to debate how the city might manage threatened revenue changes. 

That leaves us with many unanswered questions. How does Seattle balance its progressive values with the reality of finite resources? Do we need new revenue? More sustainable revenue? Are there limits to what the city can do to solve human problems? What practices should be adopted to prepare for possible shortfalls but still address the city's needs?

These are the questions that we, as voters, should be asking candidates. It is vitally important that we seek and demand answers now. City elections provide us with a matchless opportunity to assess which candidates can best serve and deal with any revenue changes.