|
Why I voted no on a new sales tax before the Council received the Executive’s proposed budget or a clear plan for what the revenue would accomplish.
Before government asks people to contribute more, it should first show its work.
My wife teaches middle school in Everett. Like teachers everywhere, she expects her students to show their work. Not because she is looking for extra steps on a page, but because showing your work demonstrates that you understood the problem, considered different approaches and arrived at your answer honestly.
I think the public deserves that same standard from its government.
In government, showing your work means explaining how you reached your decision before asking people to accept it. What options did you consider? What did you decide to reduce, delay or do differently? Where did you find savings? What will the public receive in return?
On Wednesday, the Snohomish County Council approved a significant new law & justice sales tax. I voted no because I do not believe government met that standard.
Our county is facing real budget challenges. The Executive estimates a $56 million deficit over the next two years. The cost of providing services has grown faster than recurring revenue, and ignoring that reality would be irresponsible.
But I also know many people already feel stretched. Housing costs more. Groceries cost more. Insurance costs more. Childcare costs more. For many families, there is not much room left in the monthly budget. That is exactly why government should show its work before asking people to contribute more.
Public safety is one of the county's most important responsibilities, and I’ve been vocal about the need to strengthen law enforcement. Our Sheriff's Office continues to struggle with vacancies, and residents deserve reliable service when they call 911. I support investing in the deputies, corrections officers and other professionals responsible for keeping our communities safe.
But if we are going to ask people to pay $24 million a year in the name of law & justice, they deserve to know what that money will actually accomplish.
The proposal broadly funds the county's law and justice system, including law enforcement, the jail, prosecutors, public defense, courts and the clerk. Those are all important responsibilities. What was missing was a clear plan showing how the new revenue would strengthen those services, put more deputies on the street, address staffing shortages or improve the results residents experience.
We should not use one of our most significant law & justice revenue tools without first establishing what success will look like and how the public will know whether the investment worked.
The broader budget math raises questions too. The Executive says we face a roughly $56 million deficit over the biennium. The new sales tax is expected to generate nearly $24 million annually - $48 million over the biennium - while the budget strategy is also expected to include roughly $22 million in spending reductions. He has also indicated that a property tax increase will likely be part of his proposal.
Those numbers may ultimately end up making sense together. But the Council was asked to approve the tax before the Executive presented the full budget, the proposed reductions or the remaining deficit. Without that information, the public and the council - had no way to see how the pieces fit together.
That is exactly my point. Show us the budget. Show us the reductions. Show us what the new public-safety dollars will accomplish. Then show us the deficit that remains, if one still remains.
This is not a new position for me. During last year's budget debate, I said that if I am going to ask taxpayers to pay more, the county also needs to demonstrate that it is trimming back. When this proposal first came before the Council, I again said I was uncomfortable considering a revenue tool this large outside the broader budget discussion. I wanted to understand how it operated within the context of the entire budget.
That standard has not changed. I have consistently supported new revenue when I believed the need was demonstrated and the plan was clear. I have also pushed back when taxpayers were asked to approve the bill before they were shown the work behind it.
None of this means every budget problem can be solved through cuts alone. I don’t believe it can. After an honest conversation about priorities, efficiencies and the remaining deficit, additional revenue may very well be part of the answer.
But it should not be where the conversation begins.
There were comments made during the public hearing that falsely claimed council had to pass this tax now otherwise we would delay revenue collection and must furlough essential county staff. That is categorically untrue. If the tax increase ordinance passed before October 20th, we would be able to start collecting revenue by January 1st.
Given that information, county residents should be asking why the Council rushed to approve this tax just one month before receiving the Executive’s proposed budget.
Once that budget is presented, the Council and the public will be able to see the complete picture: what the Executive proposes to reduce or delay, what services he intends to protect, where savings have been found and what deficit remains. That is when we should determine whether additional revenue is necessary and, if so, how much.
When government asks people to contribute more, showing them the complete budget and explaining the choices behind it is not too much to ask.
To me, that is a simple sign of respect.
Before asking people to accept the answer, government should show its work.
- Jared
You can find the link to the public hearing and vote from yesterday's meeting here: Proposed Tax Increase - Public Hearing 08-12-26
|
