Op-ed by Snohomish County Councilmember, Jared Mead (District 4–Mill Creek, Bothell, Brier, Mountlake Terrace).
Two months ago, I gave you my first impressions of the County Executive’s (Dave Somers) proposed biennial budget and promised to write again once the choices were clearer. Ahead of our November 10th budget vote, I want to share what we found and the changes I’m proposing.
I wanted to know how much of the proposed savings were real long-term reductions, why our reserves were still falling so quickly despite new revenue, and whether we actually needed to use every revenue option on the table.
After two months of digging, department by department, I have some answers.
Throughout the process, my standard has been consistent: government should show its work before asking people to pay more. That means protecting core services, finding savings, and explaining how much additional revenue is needed while keeping enough money in reserve for the future.
That has gotten harder.
The County’s costs have gone up significantly in recent years. Labor, construction, insurance, medical costs and just about everything else we purchase is more expensive. As I wrote in September, federal policies have added pressure too. Our own budgeting decisions have also contributed, including using one-time money for ongoing programs. We have a responsibility to address those decisions here at home.
There’s another piece of this budget challenge that deserves more attention: the state continues to add new requirements and costs for local governments without always providing the funding to pay for them.
The Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) has been sounding the alarm about this for years, particularly around public defense and other growing financial pressures on counties. Local government can sometimes feel like an afterthought when decisions are made in Olympia.
Some of these policies may be worthwhile, but the math still has to work. I think this deserves a newsletter of its own, so we’ll come back to it in a future issue.
The Problem With the Proposed Budget
The Executive’s proposed budget protects services in the short term, but it also increases property taxes while reserves are projected to fall below the County’s historic 14% target in 2028 and keep dropping, all the way to just 4.5% by 2032.
Think of that reserve like your family savings account. You can spend more than you bring in for a while if you have enough savings to cover the difference. But if your budget has you doing that month after month, eventually the savings run out.
And you probably wouldn’t start by finding every possible way to bring in more money. You’d go through the bills first, figure out where you could spend differently, and then determine how much additional income you actually needed.
That’s what I thought we needed to do with the County budget.
What We Found
Some comes from reducing or not adding positions where I believe the work can be handled differently. Some comes from holding rapidly growing programs closer to current spending. And some comes from using existing restricted funding for eligible expenses that would otherwise be paid from the General Fund.
Those measures help the General Fund in different ways. Moving an eligible expense to another funding source does not, by itself, reduce the County’s total cost. The distinction matters, just as it did when we reviewed the Executive’s proposed savings.
So Where Does That Leave Us?
The Executive’s proposed budget uses the regular annual property-tax increase and all of the County’s banked taxing capacity from previous years.
I’m proposing we leave the banked capacity alone.
We would take the regular 1% annual increase in the County’s General Fund property-tax levy in 2027 and 2028. That describes the increase in the levy, not a 1% increase in every resident’s total property-tax bill. If the economy changes or costs come in higher than expected down the road, that banked capacity would remain available for a future Council to consider.
Based on this proposal and its forecast assumptions, I do not believe we need to use the banked capacity now.
My proposal also retains the sales-tax revenue approved in August. I opposed approving that tax before reviewing the full budget, but that decision has been made and our responsibility now is to use the revenue well.
Under my amendments and the forecast assumptions below, reserves are projected at 15.04% in 2028 and 14.13% in both 2029 and 2030. The forecast stays above the County’s historic 14% target through 2032.
The longer-term forecast also relies on updated assumptions about salary growth and future sales-tax revenue. Those are estimates, not guaranteed savings, and the forecast will change as better information becomes available.
No one knows exactly what the County’s finances will look like six years from now. We should use the best information available, test how the forecast responds if costs are higher or revenue is lower, and keep reviewing whether our decisions protect reserves beyond this budget.
Keeping them there will require continued oversight.
Why This Matters
There will be proposals that go further in both directions. Some will argue we should balance the budget entirely through deeper cuts. Others will be more comfortable relying on additional revenue.
I don’t think either approach gets the balance right.
County government provides services people rely on every day. We answer emergency calls, operate courts and the jail, maintain parks and roads, provide public defense, and respond when storms bring down trees. Those services cost money, and deeper cuts eventually mean reducing something residents expect us to provide.
But asking people for more money before we’ve done the hard work of finding savings isn’t responsible either. Especially right now. Groceries, housing, utilities and gas all cost more, and the County already increased the sales tax and added a $20 annual car-tab fee in August. I voted against both.
My approach is to protect core services, find savings where we can, take the regular 1% property-tax increase, and leave the additional banked capacity alone because we don’t need it.
What Happens Next
They also don’t solve every longer-term challenge. We still need to address our own ongoing spending commitments and work with our partners in Olympia on responsibilities and costs passed to local governments without adequate funding.
But for someone whose family budget is already stretched about as far as it can go, or a senior trying to make a fixed income cover bills that keep getting more expensive, I think we owe them this work before asking them for more.
That’s what I’m trying to do with this budget.
Jared Mead has served on the Snohomish County Council for the past six years. This essay was originally written for his e-mail newsletter to constituents.