Arthur Babitz
Hood River County Commissioner District 2
arthurforhr.com
Why are you the right candidate for this position? What are your qualifications?
The County has a serious financial problem. I led the City out of a similar crisis, and the fixes we put in place have withstood the test of time. This isn’t an easy job. Experience and knowledge matter.
In the private sector, I built my own successful technology company, and I have led large product teams at several companies.
I have a solid understanding of government finance, land use planning, as well as how public boards and commissions work. I served three terms as Mayor of Hood River. I currently serve as chair of the Hood River Planning Commission and as a Governor’s appointee and chair of the Columbia River Highway Advisory Board. I led the budget side of the successful effort to restart our library, and have served on the budget committees of several local governments.
Having good ideas doesn’t mean much if you can’t get them implemented. I have a track record of not only coming up with creative ideas, but of working with others to turn ideas (both mine and theirs) into reality. I am proud of my record of major accomplishments during my years of public service.
What do you think caused the County’s current budget problems? What are some specific steps you would recommend to the County to improve its financial situation?
County government has worked hard to maintain services even as costs, state laws, and timber markets have changed. They did this by spending reserves, deferring maintenance, and delaying vehicle and equipment replacement. These are all reasonable actions for a short period if you have a plan and expectation things will change, but that hasn’t proven to be the case.
A basic rule of management is that as situations change you adjust your plans. With or without the levy, our budget needs to be sustainable and transparent. This means we need a budget and budget policy (the rules for future budgets) which:
- restores healthy reserves over several years
- allocates funds annually for maintenance and replacement of facilities and vehicles
- catches up on the backlog of those needs
Obviously this is much easier if the levy passes, but in either case we need to set the level of service to one we can provide without breaking sustainable budgeting rules.
What is your experience in making complex budget decisions? How would your recommendations change if the local option levy passes? How about if it fails?
My experience leading the City out of a financial mess is the most relevant example. It took several year of hard work to reform established practices and make staffing changes necessary to plug the leaks and convert a serious deficit into solid reserves. People imagine “fixing” a budget is a matter of finding some money and adjusting the spreadsheets, but in reality you have to change how people think about government and budgeting. That takes years of steady and competent leadership, with numerous opportunities to go astray.
If the levy passes, the first job of the Board of Commissioners will be to make sure there is a plan in place to spend the money as promised to the voters— and to do that sustainably. Simply having more money doesn’t mean the budget is a healthy one.
Once this is done, there are two paths we can consider. We can plan to ask for the operating levy every five years, like the School District does, or we can restructure to find the needed funds in a different way. For example, a “service district” for Sheriff’s patrol services is a way the voters can make the funding permanent (similar to creation of the Library District). I would start this discussion at the earliest possible date, since the levy only lasts for five years.
If the levy fails, the Board of Commissioners first job is the same, but much harder. We will have to define the services which can be supported with a sustainable budget. Just as in the other case we will need a plan to return to adequate reserves while planning for equipment and facility maintenance and replacement. Obviously the services will be reduced significantly.
I’ll add from my experience with budget cuts, it is important to do it once, and only once. If you struggle trying to figure it out and have to do multiple rounds of layoffs, you do far more damage to morale (both of staff and the public). Cut once, and establish a level of service which we can maintain until circumstances change.
Is there anything that the recent COVID-19 pandemic has revealed about the county’s ability to provide essential services to County residents in times of emergency? What changes you would make to improve the readiness and delivery of services in times of crisis?
Whether it is a pandemic, earthquake, ice storm, or wildfire County government plays a key role in our community’s resilience. It is a real shame we don’t have any reserves to help recover from this pandemic, for example. That’s why whatever scenario plays out with the levy we need to restore reserves (AKA rainy day funds) because it will rain again.
Today we can say “Good thing we have a functioning Health Department.” Two years ago we would have said “Good thing we have deputies to help organize wildfire evacuations.”
I am very concerned what future response will look like if the levy fails and we have significant staff cuts. We will be relying much more heavily on assistance from other jurisdictions. We’ll need to be sure the planning happens so such cooperation will be as automatic and robust as possible. There’s no magic answer— with tighter budgets we will be less resilient. But it’s the Board of Commissioners’ job to make sure the County is organized for the best possible response given the funding.
We know there have been some recent misfires between the City and the County— the recent water emergency exposed confused communication and decision making processes. Past I-84 closures exposed lack of plans and lack of communication between multiple agencies. As Commissioner I would make sure the emergency response plans are formalized and carefully followed.
Addressing Hood River’s housing affordability problem has been a goal of the County Commission for many years. Do you think the County has a role to play in housing? Why or why not?
Yes. We have an economy with strong manufacturing, agriculture and tourism sectors who are already struggling with the cost of housing. If employees can’t find housing, most companies will eventually choose to move or grow elsewhere. If orchardists can’t find workers they can’t produce their crop. If service sector employees have to bring in workers from elsewhere, their cost structures can become unworkable.
We have a surprisingly diverse economy for a rural county. This has brought us great opportunities, but if we don’t make serious efforts to address affordability at all levels we will eventually lose many of the good jobs that diversity has brought. Adequate housing (both inventory and price) are necessary so everything from our breweries to tech companies to hospital can hire and retain workers. We also need to remember we’ll all eventually retire, and a functioning community also needs housing for retirees.
Working within Oregon’s innovative land-use system what ways can the County plan for expected population growth? What are your ideas for how the County can address livability issues like the provision of adequate park spaces and transportation needs including biking and walking path connectivity?
There are two critical element here. The first is we are subject to both Oregon’s land use laws and the National Scenic Area restrictions, making any changes to our Urban Growth Boundary incredibly difficult. We can’t depend on expanding our Urban Growth Area to meet our population growth.
The second is through a history of mistakes we have a “fuzzy” boundary between our urban and rural lands. Without getting too technical, we have allowed urban sorts of developments in many areas that aren’t incorporated, and those developments weren’t done through the current process that would provide for urban infrastructure such as parks, trails, roads and sidewalks.
I would start by reviewing whether the County is living up to the agreement to extend regulation similar to those in the city limits to development in the Urban Growth Area. We shouldn’t compound the problem by allowing more development without infrastructure for eventual incorporation.
Next I would act to perfect and adopt the Parks Master Plan developed by the Parks and Recreation District for the City and County. Without a plan in place we can’t expect anything to get better. Development can only be required to provide infrastructure if it is in a legally adopted “plan.”
I would also want to see a coordinated review of the County and City Transportation Plans. These plans are supposed to be updated every ten years, and cover everything from truck routes to bike paths. I would like to see additional emphasis on things like extending “Safe Routes to Schools” corridors beyond the City limits to HRVHS. There are also many issues with County roads which are seeing more urban levels of traffic. Planning roads that provide for rural access and urban populations requires better City/County coordination. Livability comes through better planning.