Community Budget Forum - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. We'll call to order the Snohomish County Council for our budget finance, budget, and administration committee. Today is Tuesday, 07/08/2025 at 10AM. We're meeting in the Jackson Boardroom and also remotely. I read the script for public comment and then ask our clerk to take role. We'll take public comment beginning in person then remotely. In Zoom, click on the hand icon at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand. If you're calling in by phone, press 9. To raise your hand and when called upon, you can press 6 to unmute. Each speaker has three minutes to speak, and please state your comment with your name and city of residence. Next is roll call.

Committee Chair Dunn. Here. Committee Vice Chair Nering. Yep. Committee Member Lowe.

Present. Present.

Committee Member Mead.

Here.

And Committee Member Peterson. Here. Chair, we have five members present.

Thank you. Next is public comment. If anyone wish to provide public comment, please signify by raising your hand. We didn't have any members in person. And I don't see any hands raised, so we'll close public comment and move on to our action items. And first is ordinance 25 dash zero three six.

Thank you, chair Dunn. Good morning, council members. For the record, Jim Martin, council staff. Post ordinance 25 dash zero three six amends Snohomish County code chapter 2.48 and requires the clerk's report on pending legislation include motions that are thirty five days past assignment to committee. The report is to be included in the Tuesday administrative agenda. Requested action is to move to GLS on July 16. Is that time and date for a public hearing?

Thank you. Questions from counsel? Okay. Any objection to moving this to admin matters to set time and date? Okay. Seeing none, that'll go on the administrative matters for next week, July 16. Next is motion 25 dash three one three.

Opposed motion 25 dash three one three approves the agreement for professional services with CuraLink LLC for the for the provision of an employee assistance program. Agreement is a result of RFP twenty four dash zero three nine b c. Scope of work includes ongoing consultation for the county's EAP, including overall program design, implementation, and management. Compensation is based on a per per covered employee per month rate with a total not to exceed amount of $175,000. Contract begins 08/01/2025 and is through 07/31/2028. The contract may be renewed or extended for up to two additional two year terms. Action is to move to GLS on July 16 for con consideration.

Any questions from counsel? K. Any objection to consent? Hearing and seeing none, this will move to the consent agenda for the sixteenth. Next is motion 25 dash three one six.

Post motion 25 dash three one six approves an increase in the number of employees authorized in the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six biennial budget in general fund zero zero two for the executive's office. The FTE would be a one point o FTE administrative assistant management exempt position to provide administrative support for the office of social justice and support for the Human Rights Commission. Requested action is to move to GLS on July 16 for consideration.

Questions from council? Yeah. Council member Neri.

Yeah. Thank you. Just some comments on this. So I have some significant concerns with this proposal. It is highly unusual for us to add a general fund FTE midyear outside of the budget cycle.

I appreciate the good work that that Will is doing, but I have heard from several offices of independently elected who are facing, you know, some pretty significant budget cuts both with with what was adopted in the budget as well as, I think, what's been a doubling of the targeted reduction due to some of the insurance, issues that were unforeseen. I've also talked with some who are looking at potential layoffs. And so I think the timing of doing a general fund FTE addition outside of our budget process while we have departments facing those issues is, I I I don't think it's an appropriate move for us to be making. I know that we did receive a letter from treasurer Sullivan. I thought that that was, well said.

I share the concerns that were outlined. And from my perspective, we should wait on this proposal, wait to take any action until the budget when we can look at it in light of of the rest of our budget and what we're facing with different departments and potential cuts that are gonna need to be made. You know, when when we think about the budget every year when we come together, we we talk about budget and potential tax increases that are needed and the deficit that we face as a county. And, you know, those are those are difficult conversations, but it's decisions like this one that are being made midyear outside of the budget process to add general fund spending that lead to the sorts of difficult decisions that we need to make during the budget. And so I would just ask that the council consider putting this off to, until we have the full budget process where we can deliberate on it in light of all the other needs and potential cuts that we'll need to be making in, in the next budget.

Thank you.

Other council questions, comments? Kenzema Peterson.

Thank you, chair Dunn. Well, I I guess I don't disagree with council member Nearing on on the timing. I also believe, you know, we we don't do our work in a bubble. And I think, as we try to deal with, I think, some national issues when it comes to some of the work that the office of social justice can do here in our communities, We're, you know, we're at a, I think, a point where that support is needed. I mean, I I I would like a little more discussion and maybe, you know, some more conversation, with the executive's office, about the timing.

But I do think that as we look at what's happening nationally that the the work we can do in our communities to protect some of the most vulnerable in our communities is at a critical juncture. So I appreciate the concerns, the budgetary concerns, but I think we also have to look at, kind of the the broader structure of of what's happening, to so many folks in our communities and what the office of social social justice might be able to bring, to support some of those families. So I'm certainly not opposed to having more conversations, but I also understand the the need to maybe do this outside of the time frame that is what we usually do. But thanks.

Other questions or online? I had a question, Jim. Was this position included in the executives 2025, 2026 budget?

This position was not. No. This is a new position that would be an administrative assistant. There was other, office of social justice positions that were eliminated in the in the budget, but it wasn't an administrative assistant position.

Okay. It was like a program manager. It was a higher

or lower position?

It was higher.

It was

It was a higher level position that was that was eliminated during the budget.

Okay. And those two positions in OSJ were eliminated by council?

Oh, it's if I recall, it was just the one position that was actually ultimately eliminated was the one position that was eliminated by council. Yes.

Okay. So this is adding one back? Yes. And two were eliminated by council in the executive's office?

Again, I believe it was only one that was eliminated during the budget process. The the ultimate amendment that was that was, adopted eliminated one FTE.

Okay. Where was the other position that was eliminated?

Give me one second here. I have

it up. Finance or Eco Devo?

Actually, I I may have misspoke. Give me give me one second here. There were two there were two FTEs that were eliminated in that amendment. Let me double check and see where the other one was located at. Bear with me one second.

I don't need it today. We can But there were two FTEs.

There were two FTEs that were eliminated in the budget. One of them was an OSJ. The other one was an administrative position. It was identified as an emergency management director as a placeholder, but it was an administrative position

Okay.

Also at a higher salary level than the than the request.

Okay. Other questions from council? Are we comfortable putting this on action on the sixteenth? Do we want another week and put it on the twenty third?

I think another week would be great if if that's okay.

Okay. Questions. Okay. Okay. So this will go on the action item for July 23. Next is motion 25 dash three one seven.

Proposed motion 25 dash three one seven is a companion to motion 25 dash three one six and would approve a general fund budget transfer from nondepartmental to the executive's office. February of the requested transfer amount would be for the salaries and benefits for the remainder of the biennium for the FTE requested in motion 25 dash three one six. The remaining transfer amount would remove the fund would move the funds budgeted in nondepartmental social justice initiatives line item into the executive's office for the micro grant program. It should be noted that after ECAF after the ECAF was submitted, a $725 P Card purchase was processed, and verbal direction from counsel was requested to to for the clerks to correct the total transfer amount accordingly. And then requested action is to move this motion to GLS on July 16 for consideration or in light of the other motion, July 23 would be sufficient as well.

Questions from council?

Yeah. I do have some additional questions on this, maybe I'll ask offline. But if we could add this to the action agenda.

Okay. So we'll do it on the twenty third as well together because they're connected. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. So hearing none, the item number four will also go to the twenty third on action for July 23. And that concludes our agenda, and we're in recess until our 11:00, healthy or committee meeting.