By a vote of 3-2, the Snohomish County Council on Nov. 25 approved a 2025-2026 biennial budget that rejected County Executive Dave Somers’ proposal for an 8% property tax increase over two years, instead amending it to a 4% increase over the biennium.
County Council Chair Jared Mead said he strongly opposed the 8% tax increase and warned his fellow Democrats on the council — Megan Dunn and Strom Peterson — that he would vote for Republican Councilmember Nate Nehring’s 0% proposal rather than the 8% that Somers had proposed. Republican Councilmember Sam Low also supported the 0% option.
Between two sets of public meetings on the budget, the council has heard from over 300 residents. On Monday, most of those testifying said they would not support any tax after the Executive Office audit that was reviewed on Nov. 13.
“When I saw the audit, I was really disgusted and sad,” Tamara Nelson of Edmonds said.
After much debate and proposed compromises, the council decided on Mead’s proposed 4% increase — which represents a 2% tax hike each year over the next two years. A proposed amendment by Peterson to raise the tax to 6% failed.
Mead’s 4% proposal was voted down, but was brought back as discussions continued. A compromise introduced by Peterson that preserved the 4% tax, but made modifications to staffing cuts that Mead had proposed, failed.
The staffing changes within the Executive Office have not been officially decided yet, Somers said.
County spokeswoman Kari Bray said last week that more information will be available after the Executive Office receives the council budget.
When Somers presented his draft budget to the council in September, he said it focused on sustaining core services and avoiding cuts to staff or programs “despite a systemic budget shortfall as revenues fail to keep pace with rising costs. Snohomish County has a track record of making the most with limited resources, and I am mindful of the impact any increase in the county’s property tax levy could have on people.”
In speaking to his proposal for a 4% increase, Mead said: “We cannot tax our way out of this. We clearly have a spending problem within the county and have to adjust.”
Mead said the differences between the 0%, 4% and 8% increases were how much time councilmembers could buy the county before going bankrupt, which he said was between five to six years, depending on the tax. He explained that 1% in property tax equals $1 million, and the county’s structural deficit is $14 million yearly.
“All we have is 6% banked capacity to go for, and even that is not enough to save us,” Mead said.
While local governments are limited under state law to a 1% property tax increase annually, they have the option of deferring those increases — or “banking” them — for future use.
While the 4% compromise increase was lower than Somers’ proposal, Councilmember Low said it is the highest tax increase he has seen during his time on the council. Low said the highest tax hike he had seen was for 2.5% in 2022.
“At the time that we adopted the budget (in 2022), our ending fund balance was $29 million,” Low said. “So that’s what we had in reserves.”
Low said the projected ending fund balance for 2024 is $100 million. The county also established a Revenue Stabilization Fund, which currently has nearly $14 million.
“We established it for times like this; I do believe we have a structural deficit coming. I do believe we have some significant financial challenges coming ahead” Low said.
Mead pointed out earlier in the discussion that $100 million in reserve funds is about three times the amount the county needs to follow best business practices.
