Community Budget Forum - Regular Meeting

Okay, Snohomish County Council is called to order for our Finance, Budget, and Administration Committee. Today is Tuesday, August 11, 2026. At 10 a.m., we're meeting in the Jackson Boardroom and also remotely. I'll read the script for public comment, and then our clerks will take roll. We'll take public comment, beginning in person and then remotely. On Zoom, click on the hand icon to raise your hand. If you're calling in by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak, and please start your comment with your name and city of residence. Next is roll call.

Committee Chair Dunn.

Here.

Vice Chair Neering.

Committee Member Lowe.

Present.

Committee Member Mead. Here. Committee Member Peterson. Here. Chair, there are four members present.

Thank you. Next is public comment. Did anyone wish to provide public comment today? There's no one in person. Were there any hands raised? No hands are raised. Okay, we'll close public comment and move on to our action items. First is motion 26-288.

Good morning, Council. For the record, Nicole Gourley, Council Staff. In March, Council approved a contract with QuestPro LP for additional staffing needs in risk management. The contract has been amended once by the Finance Department, adding $10,000 to the contract. The Department anticipates needing the temporary staffing for longer than initially anticipated, and Motion 26-288 would approve Amendment No. 2, adding $80,000 to the contract for a new Do not exceed amount of $140,000 and extend the contract duration to March 31st, 2027. Today's request is to move to GLS for consideration.

Thank you. Questions from council? Any objection to consent? Hearing none, this will move to the 19th on the consent agenda. Next is item two, motion 26-300.

Motion 26-300 would approve amendment number three to the assessor's contract with the Master's Touch LLC for printing and mailing services. Under the amendment, $40,000 would be added to the contract to cover the cost of three smaller mailings that are going out prior to the end of the year. There is no change to the contract duration or any other terms of the agreement. Today's request is to move this to GLS tomorrow for consideration. Any questions from council?

Objections to consent? Hearing none, this will move to the consent agenda for tomorrow. Next is motion 26-294.

Motion 26-294 would approve a contract with Rise Up Academy for phase one of a child care and early learning project under which they will be awarded $1 million on a reimbursement basis to acquire land with two buildings on it. Under phase one of this project, 35 child care slots will be made available to children and families in Snohomish County at or below 40% AMI. The child care slots will be open to infants through children age five through children up to five years old. Today's request is to move to GLS for consideration.

Questions from council? Any objection to consent? Okay, hearing and seeing none, this will move to the consent agenda for the 19th. Next, we'll hear motion 26-295 and motion 26-299.

The final two motions are for contracts with government-relation companies for governmental affairs services at the state levels. Motion 26-295 is with Columbia Policy Advisors, who will provide general government relations services for a two-year period with a do not exceed amount of $273,600. Motion 26-299 is with Gigi Public Affairs, who will provide focused government relations services on behavioral health issues at the state level. The contract is for a one-year period and has a do not exceed amount of $72,000. Today's request is to move both motions to GLS for consideration.

Questions from council? Objection to consent? Okay, hearing and seeing none, those will both move to the 19th on the consent agenda. That concludes our action items, and next we have a discussion item with Kara from our executive department on the Snohomish County Engagement Findings Briefing.

Good morning, council members. So, Chief Budget Officer Karamane Hester, great to see you all. We're here today to talk about our community engagement findings. We did a community engagement process to inform the 2027-2028 executive recommended budget that lasted from May to July. And this presentation provides you first look at some of the results that will be represented in a report that we will be putting up on our website. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jenny Walden with LISC Puget Sound. She'll do introductions for LISC and we'll go from there.

Thank you, Cara. Good morning, chair and council members. I'm Jenny Walden with LISC Puget Sound. Thank you for the opportunity to share the findings from the community engagement process. So a little bit about LISC. The Local Initiative Support Corporation is a national community development organization with a local Puget Sound office here in Washington. For nearly five decades, LISC has worked in communities across the country, partnering with local governments, community organizations, and residents on issues that affect community well-being and economic opportunity. A core part of that work is helping local governments hear directly from communities they serve, particularly by working through organizations and relationships that people already know and trust. Our role is to create multiple ways for people to participate, listen for both common themes and differences in perspective, and then bring that information back to decision makers. That was our role with Snohomish County in this process to support a broad community engagement effort and synthesize what we heard into a report. Throughout our engagement process, we had more than 500 people participate. We intentionally used multiple engagement methods because we wanted both broad participation and the opportunity for deeper conversations about difficult budget trade-offs. The engagement included 24 county boards, commissions, and advisory bodies, four existing community partner meetings, six co-hosted community partner roundtables, in two targeted community listening sessions and a final community conversation with Executive Summers. More than 75 community and partner organizations were represented across the engagement, and 80 people completed the follow-up survey, which was offered to everyone involved. All engagement included a briefing by Cara, current budget status and planning she walked through the various service areas that could be impacted by spending reductions and then following the briefing we facilitated a conversation guided by three main questions they're up on the screen first what should be protected as fundamental to community well-being to where is their flexibility if reductions become necessary and three what principles should guide difficult budget decisions While there were a variety of perspectives, we heard consistency in the values and considerations shared by participants. First was making decisions for the long term. Participants frequently talked about prevention, maintenance, and early intervention and expressed concern about reductions that could create greater costs later. Second was thinking in systems rather than individual programs. People often connected services to one another, for example, recognizing that a reduction in one part of the system can increase demand or cost somewhere else. Third was maximizing the impact of every dollar. We heard significant interest in efficiencies, modernization, partnerships, and other ways of stretching existing resources. Importantly, that wasn't necessarily an alternative to difficult budget decisions, but it was something participants wanted considered as part of them. Fourth was protecting people with fewer alternatives. Participants frequently raised the question of who would be most affected by a reduction and whether those residents had other places to turn. And 5th was building trust through transparency people understood that the county is facing difficult but budget choices. What they consistently asked for was clarity about those realities the trade offs involved and how decisions were ultimately made. Another thing that came through across the engagement was that participants generally did not view the county's fiscal challenge solely as a question of where to reduce services. Across conversations we heard significant interest in taking a broader approach to fiscal sustainability looking at revenue partnerships and other strategies alongside spending decisions. That theme was also reflected in the survey when respondents were asked how urgent it was for the county to pursue additional revenue strategies to help stabilize services and reduce future cuts 82% of those who answered rated as very urgent or extremely urgent. When we asked about specific approaches, there was more variation. As you can see here, partnerships, adjustments to county fees and pursuing additional state and federal funding were among the approaches raised most frequently. Dedicated funding options were also identified along with transportation and property tax-related strategies. So with those broader themes in mind, I'll turn now to what we heard about the county service areas themselves. Participants had different perspectives on individual services, but we saw clear patterns and where They were most concerned about the impacts of a reduction as well as where they saw more flexibility Public safety law and justice was consistently identified as a high priority across engagement But participants also made distinctions within this service area emergency and non-emergency response times and patrol coverage rose most clearly to the top and Participants frequently described these as core county responsibilities and expressed concern about reductions that could affect the county's ability to respond when people need help. Criminal investigations and corrections staffing were also viewed as areas where reductions could have significant impacts. At the same time, participants identified comparatively more flexibility in some areas, including timelines for court proceedings and charging decisions, death investigation timelines, and some specialized programs. I want to emphasize that these weren't necessarily viewed as unimportant. Rather, participants generally saw the impacts of reductions there as more manageable relative to reductions in emergency response and patrol capacity. One additional theme came through strongly in the conversations. Participants often described public safety more broadly than law enforcement alone. They connected emergency response and enforcement with prevention, behavioral health, housing stability, diversion, and crisis response, and frequently talked about those systems as interconnected. So within this service area, the clearest distinction was between protecting immediate response capacity while recognizing somewhat more flexibility in certain timelines, specialized functions, and administrative areas. For roads, infrastructure, and transportation, participants again made clear distinctions about where they perceived the greatest impacts from reductions. Transportation projects and routine road maintenance emerged as the strongest priorities to protect. A reoccurring theme in the conversation was the importance of maintaining existing infrastructure and the concern that deferring maintenance can result in greater costs later. Participants also placed significant importance on maintaining the county's ability to provide local match for transportation grants. People recognized the value of using county dollars to leverage additional state and federal investments. By comparison, participants saw somewhat more flexibility around bridges and other infrastructure, as well as mowing, brush cutting, and litter removal. Again, that doesn't mean these were viewed as unimportant. It just reflects relative prioritization. And in the broader conversations, transportation was frequently discussed as more than roads alone. Participants connected transportation access to employment, healthcare, and other essential services and raised the different needs of urban, rural, incorporated, and unincorporated communities. Health and community well-being was consistently identified as a high priority service area across engagement. Within this area, family resource centers, emergency assistance for low-income households, and support for senior centers emerged most clearly as priorities to protect. Participants frequently described these services in terms of stability and prevention, helping people address needs before they become more serious or more costly. Veterans support services and disease investigation and outbreak response were also areas where participation No, participants saw significant impacts from potential reductions. They saw comparatively more flexibility around restaurant permitting and food safety inspection timelines and support for long-term care facilities responding to disease outbreaks. One of the strongest themes in the broader conversations was prevention and avoided downstream costs. Participants frequently connected reductions in community-based and preventative services with potential impacts elsewhere, including emergency response, healthcare, housing instability, and the criminal justice system. Partnerships also came up frequently, particularly the role of nonprofits, healthcare providers, and other community organizations in extending the reach of county resources. For parks, environment, and community spaces, park maintenance and restroom cleaning, along with trash pickup and facility upkeep, emerged most clearly as priorities to protect. Participants frequently connected these functions with keeping public spaces safe, accessible, and usable. Hazard tree removal was also viewed as an area where reductions could have significant impacts. Community programming, including programs like 4-H, Master Gardeners, and Park Naturalists, fell into that category as well. Participants saw comparatively more flexibility around seasonal amenities, including spray parks and around ball field maintenance and mowing. One important nuance emerged when we looked across different engagement settings. Priorities weren't always the same from community to community. For example, at our casino road listening session, community programming emerged as one of the highest priorities. Participants there described those programs and community spaces as particularly important resources in that neighborhood. This is an example of where an activity may appear to have comparatively lower impacts across the engagement as a whole, but can have greater significance in a particular community, especially where there may be fewer alternatives available. The final service area was planning, permitting, and neighborhood safety. Here, code enforcement and the county's capacity to address environmental hazards emerged as the clearest priorities to protect. Response to nuisance property complaints was viewed as an area where debt reductions could have significant impacts. Participants saw comparatively more flexibility around enforcement and compliance activities. The broader conversations also surfaced a somewhat different theme in the service area. operational improvements and modernization. Participants frequently raised technology, streamlined processes, and other efficiencies as ways to improve service delivery and make the most of limited resources. Permitting also came up in connection with broader county priorities, particularly housing production and economic development. Participants recognized that the timelines and effectiveness of these processes can have impacts well beyond the permitting function itself. So here again, similar to the other service areas, these findings reflected both a desire to protect core health and safety functions and interest in how services might be delivered more efficiently. Stepping back from the individual service areas, consistent considerations surfaced when we were talking through difficult trade-offs. And we sort of compiled them together in a decision-making framework based off of what community feedback was. Before reducing county service, participants encouraged leaders to really think about the long-term impacts, who would be most affected, interconnections between systems, leveraging additional resources, and operational improvements and alternative service delivery approaches.

So, now the job is to take that community input and translate it into budget decisions. And obviously, this is what we've been working on since receiving the results. So, we did the engagement through July just to receive the results and the report that has gone up on the website. And this was after our analyst technical review, but before we finished up all of our decisions with the executive leadership team and the executive. So, we have used this community input to really evaluate our decision-making framework and understand, were we on track? Was our budget guidance on track? Were our assumptions on track? And how should that inform future strategies? And then, really, we did, when we were presenting this, when we are presenting this to the community, a commitment to, if we didn't get it right, this is the point at which that changes will be made. And you will see that reflected in the executive's recommended budget. Obviously, the budget will be presented to you all on September 1st, so we will hand over that baton. And there is a tension when it comes to community engagement, really what the community tells us, but then the realities of how we have to structure a budget, in order to be compliant, in order to meet our mandates. So we know that the community told us that we need to protect prevention, emergency response, infrastructure, think long-term, avoid across-the-board cuts, really look at that program side of things, explore revenue, and improve government first. Some of these items are things you can do in the short term, and some of these items need a long-term commitment from the county to really think differently. And that's something that I really took home, was the community said, We think what you're doing is actually really important, but cross-sectionally, how are you doing this? And I think that is definitely one of the challenges we have moving forward as the county because we also have to balance the general fund, meet all those legal obligations that we have, maintain those quorum operations, and then address the realities of inflation, compensation, and look at each department separately because that is how our structure works. So really kind of wrestling with the tension in this space is something that's important and something that I think every county government and every county leader is doing and will continue to do. So, when we think about those five principles, we stepped back and started to think about, we, as the budget team, stepped back and started to think about where are we actually putting these into practice. And so, there's some great examples that I can give you that you'll see reflected in the budget. First, making decisions on the long term. We could have a conversation about making sure we go to an austerity budget, but at the same time, there are things that we can do now that will support us in the long term. A very classic example is recruitment with our sheriff's office and for corrections. What we know is that right now we have a vast number of open positions that if they were filled, it would be better for staff morale, better for safety, and decrease our costs in the long run. So it makes sense to really actually engage in making sure that recruitment is a priority for us. Thinking in systems, not programs, there are the big conversations about big systems. Affordable housing is kind of a very classic one. That is a systems question, systems approach. But what are the things that within a biennial budget with a couple months' notice that we can really think of as a system? One of our areas for opportunity is in our county's properties and equipment. making sure that they are used to the optimal amount, that we get a great return on investment for our community. That is an area you'll see reflected in our budget. Maximizing every dollar. Federal funds that come in that we need match for are incredibly important. So on the transportation side, ensuring that we have enough local funding on the transportation side so that we can pull down those federal dollars is important in a way to stretch every county dollar to its maximum extent. When we look at protecting people with the fewest alternatives, the county has an amazing network of family resource centers that provide support to families and really ensure that greater impacts are not felt by those families that are furthest from opportunity. And so supporting those family resource centers and continuing to invest in those spaces is an element that you will see reflected in the budget. And finally, building that trust through transparency obviously This community outreach was part of that effort that will continue. But we also have the reality of the transparency of our data. Putting into place the modern ERP system that we've all been working on for so long will really increase transparency both inside the county and outside the county. And that continues to be a priority in the executive's budget. So obviously what comes next is the budget gets handed over to the county council. And as part of our outreach, we've also been talking about the council's community forums. We just got a confirmation on the date for that. So we will be, when we do a very similar presentation, what you have here, we will also be talking about the council's community forums, the date and time for that so that council receives feedback directly. And with that, happy to take any questions you all may have.

Questions from council members? Council Member Mead?

Thank you. Thanks for the presentation and for doing the work there. So I have two questions, I guess, that I'd drop here into this discussion. The first is, I don't know exactly how to frame the question, but as one of the bullet points, you said that the community told you to avoid across-the-board cuts. So there's a lot of words here and a lot of takeaways, potential takeaways, but also could just be a lot of words that do absolutely nothing if we just propose a budget that has 3% across-the-board cuts and a bunch of revenue. And we don't address anything at a department or programmatic level, which is what we've done historically. That's what I have assumed that was going to be coming. If I'm being honest, I thought, and I still think, unless you're about to tell me on the record something different, in a month we're going to get a budget that is a 3% across the board cut and a bunch of revenue. And we're not going to have department-specific, let alone program-specific cuts or changes. So I don't know if that's a question. That might be a question for you. Is this changed fundamentally, the way that you're approaching the budget in a way that you can actually point to when we get the budget? Or is it just, we got a ton of information from the community. Thank you so much for your input. We hear you. We see you. 3% across the board cuts.

I think there's two answers to your question, if you're okay with that.

You can give 20 answers.

Don't give me that amount of time. Okay. When we put out the budget instructions, this was this was one of the big questions, one of the foundational questions that departments had, which was we've always done across the board cuts. They just sit in one line item and that's what we do. And we asked departments and that's part of where the data came from here. So part of where the data came from for the survey was asking departments, what is it you would have to do? And so that concept of like we throw in a negative and call it a day. We are asking those questions. Now, can we go to deep into program level across council? That was the first answer. Second question, can we go to that depth with the amount of time that we have had for this process? I think we've started to walk in that direction. We are not going to achieve the goal in the short amount of time.

Why did we even do a biannual budget? I thought that was the whole point, was so that you guys could do that. And now you're saying, we're tight, time-restricted. We didn't do this survey until July or whatever, and we only have two months. We don't have time. And that's been the excuse every year since I've been on council. And so we said, all right, let's do a biannual budget. And the concern with biannual budget is you're going to have a huge deficit before you know it. Okay, check, that happened. But the positive was we could do long-term thinking. We'd have all this time to dig in to the programmatic level and make the – So the negative happened with the biennial budget. We have a huge deficit, and nobody raised the alarm bells until too late. But the positive of it gave everybody a bunch of extra time didn't come to fruition. And now you're still saying we don't have enough time. And what I worry, and I do believe based on what you're saying is going to happen in a month, is we're going to have 3% cross-report cuts. We're not going to go to the programmatic level. We're not going to dig into departments. We're not even going to say at a department level, The sheriff only goes down 1%, but the auditor goes down 4%, but the treasurer goes down 6%. We're not even going to do that, let alone the programmatic level. Do you see the frustration?

I absolutely see your frustration. I think it's a little unfounded, seeing as you haven't seen the budget. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm asking you to tell me I'm wrong. But your answer just now was, we didn't have time.

No, my answer was, we didn't have time for those deep programmatic conversations. So there is a whole... To your point, during the budget conversation, there are a variety of items that come up as challenges or, hey, we should work on this or we should think about this differently. So, first thing that happened during the mid biennium last year is ERP got kicked off. We've been working on that. That is the same group of people. So, there are projects that have been happening in the intervening time, and there will be a variety of projects and cross-program items that we say, hey, we need to dig into this in the mid biennium. So, my commitment to you Personally, my commitment is there are a variety of those things where it's like, hey, we need to look more closely at this. I am saying without more information, we shouldn't just cut for cut's sake. And I think we would both agree on that.

Well, for sure. Yeah. And we can put a pin in this since this is just a committee and we don't even see the budget. Yeah, totally.

Yep. Slightly awkward on that one.

Yep. The second question, you brought the example up, which is the only reason I'm even bringing it up here, is of the vacancies in the Sheriff's Department and saying we need to prioritize vacancies. recruitment and retention. At a budgetary level, how do you do that from the executive side? What are we going to see in the budget that we're getting in a month that reflects what you just said, the priority needs to be recruiting and retaining to fill those vacancies? What am I going to be able to touch in the budget?

Right. So the example that was given here, there was a request for some recruitment funding. So that was the example that I was given there. The less obvious thing is, as you know, we have open contracts, and those are planned for in the budget, too, and I'm not going to speak much more to those.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions from councilmembers? Maybe kind of building off some of Councilmember Mead's questions, maybe we take a step back, and can you share a little bit more about, like, priority packages that are received? I mean, In the past, there's been an underspend. This year, there's an underspend and a request for a reduction. So we take, like, council's budget, for example. We underspend every year. We made deliberate reductions that we submit, and then the executive doesn't necessarily take all those as a 3% across the board. Like, there is some... decision making at that point between priority packages and some of the kind of bigger like values decisions that the executive makes. So it's not necessarily that everything that is submitted is cut and everything that's asked for is given because every year I think there's like 20 million in requests for some of those priority packages. So maybe just like a bigger kind of 10,000 view of what that process is that the executive uses. I think there's a little disconnect in that understanding.

Yeah, of course. So you're right our budget our financial show and underspend So it's very typical for any government to not spend every single penny of their budget on an on an annual basis and we even see that in our own departments and offices where We just can't fill a vacancy fast enough and so you're budgeted for every single staff member a hundred percent of the time and That is not necessarily our reality. So there is an underspend target is what we've called it here in Snohomish County. So There is that, but then there's also a reduction that we ask departments, so through a priority package or a change request is the current language, we ask departments to identify what that reduction would be. And so at a high level, we have said to departments, we would like to understand what it is and how that impacts the service level of your department. And I think you've heard from a lot of the departments on what that would be and if they had to cut further what that would mean. And so that's kind of how those two items play out in the budget, and you'll see those soon.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, I appreciate your time and the outreach that was done with community.

This was really important work. Appreciate it.

Thank you all. Yep. So that concludes our agenda and councils in recess to our next 11 o'clock committee meeting.