The future of state and local budgets is never entirely clear, but as things stand right now it appears as though we’re heading for a time when there may need to be a lot of belt-tightening.
There are a handful of ways that many entities approach shortfalls of cash, including cutting back on services and raising taxes. But neither is particularly popular for residents who aren’t entirely clear about the pain that budget offices face in trying to construct a balanced budget. People tend to be happy with service cuts, as long as they’re not the services they use themselves. And nobody much likes higher taxes.
With that in mind, many states, cities and counties find their way to other routes to a semblance of fiscal security. Sadly, while most of these may be short-term fixes, in the long term, they’re going to take their toll.
Take training. Though many places are currently focused on employee development, slashing training is a very easy thing to do. This approach goes entirely unnoticed by residents. What’s more, a reduction of training adds back time that state and local government managers are often reluctant to give away.
We’re not only talking about traditional training offered in the workplace, but the kind of knowledge that employees can gain when they attend out-of-state conferences. We go to many of these and can see the new information that is imparted. In addition to the ideas communicated in formal sessions are the benefits that come when attendees are at receptions, dining together and chatting in the hallways.
We’re not aware of many entities that are issuing blanket prohibitions on out-of-state travel, but it’s easy to place administrative hurdles that are intended to suppress the likelihood that employees will sign up to attend these gatherings. One way that this can happen is when the permissions necessary for travel are lifted up the food chain from department directors to higher levels — putting a lid on the desire to even ask.
An even less effective way to save cash is deferring preventive maintenance on government assets. For example, delaying road and bridge repairs eventually results in one of two options: Close down the road or bridge entirely (which is rarely feasible) or spend a great deal more money for repairs when they can no longer be ignored.
In April, KIRO radio in Seattle reported that the Washington State Department of Transportation “had to shut down two lanes of the westbound [Tacoma Narrows] bridge, built 76 years ago, after an inspection earlier this week found severe damage to the steel supporting the bridge’s right side.”
The news story went on to explain that the legislature “routinely shortchanges the maintenance and preservation budget by nearly $1 billion a year, choosing to spend scarce transportation dollars elsewhere. It has done this for decades, so it’s no coincidence that our aging infrastructure is failing.”
And it’s not just roads and bridges. Buildings need to be maintained on a regular basis, or they’ll wind up decaying as time goes by. The results of avoiding regular roof maintenance can lead to leaks, which can destroy other assets, thus multiplying the costs many times over.
Both the lack of training and deferred maintenance are unfortunate ways to keep a budget in balance. Yet another ill-advised action occurs on the revenue side. To avoid tax increases, many entities turn to bringing in cash through fees and fines.
There are certainly instances in which fees and fines are legitimate sources of revenue. It’s hard to argue with the idea that people should pay for the use of a municipal golf course. And parking tickets can not only bring in dollars, they help downtown merchants make sure there are spaces reasonably close to them for new customers.
But even these can be abusive means of bringing in dollars. Some entities turn over the collection of fines for tickets, which adds late fees or interest when someone misses a deadline. Over time that can turn a rational $75 ticket into an unpayable thousand-dollar debt.
In almost all cases, fines and fees are a regressive source of revenue. As the Urban Institute wrote in an October 2025 paper, “Criminal legal system fines and fees are a routine source of revenue for many state and local governments. These legal financial obligations encompass both penalties imposed for civil infractions, such as traffic and parking tickets, and court- or incarceration-related costs. Recent federal policies may increase pressure on states and localities to fill budget gaps and consider options for raising additional revenue. However, expanding reliance on fines and fees may deepen financial hardships among residents without meaningfully improving state and local budgets. …
“Nearly one in five working-age adults reported their households were charged fines or fees in 2024, with court and incarceration-related costs disproportionately affecting families with low incomes."
We sympathize with the troubles many entities face when expenditures appear to be outstripping revenues. But we’d argue that biting the bullet and raising taxes or diminishing services may be necessary. It’s not easy. But nobody ever said that the work of government was supposed to be easy.
This commentary originally appeared on the authors’ website. Read the original here.
Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.