[Op-Ed by Danna McCall, founder of Living Snoqualmie, resident of Snoqualmie for 23 years, former Communications Manager/PIO for the cities of North Bend and Snoqualmie. Views expressed are those of the author, not Living Snoqualmie. You may submit letters to [email protected].]
Should a city commit to permanent new expenditures, spend down its financial cushion and then ask voters to approve the tax increase needed to sustain those expenditures?
That is essentially what Snoqualmie Mayor James Mayhew is proposing.
As a Snoqualmie resident for 23 years, the founder of Living Snoqualmie, and a former employee of the cities of North Bend and Snoqualmie, I’ve observed and covered countless issues impacting our community. I’ve watched city leadership change many times and witnessed firsthand the consequences of decisions made inside City Hall.
What is unfolding in Snoqualmie today is concerning – not only because of how the city is being managed, but because of the financial risk its residents are being asked to take on.
A legally balanced budget is not necessarily a financially responsible one.
As I previously reported in Living Snoqualmie, the mayor’s proposed 2027-28 biennial budget:
- Adds new staff positions without sufficient ongoing revenue to sustain them.
- Significantly depletes the city’s fund balances to cover increased spending.
- Banks on an additional $3.6 million in annual property tax revenue beginning in 2028.
That property tax increase has not been approved by voters.
The mayor has identified service shortfalls, deferred maintenance and unfinished work. Maybe those are legitimate needs, but identifying a need and having the financial resources to address it are two different things.
Even Snoqualmie’s own Financial Management Policy discourages using accumulated fund balances to pay for ongoing expenditures.
In August, the Council said no to the mayor’s request to place a property tax levy lid lift on the November ballot. Now, his proposed budget relies on it, seemingly strong-arming council into a property tax ballot measure in 2027.
What happens if voters say no?
Will the conversation then shift from asking voters to support expanded services to asking them to save city jobs and prevent service cuts?
When councilmembers challenged the characterization of his budget as balanced, the mayor defended his approach, citing what state law allows.
But would you commit to permanent increases in your household expenses, draw down your savings and count on a future raise you haven’t been promised?
Why should we expect any less financial discipline from our city government?
Public engagement or public persuasion?
Under Snoqualmie’s strong-mayor form of government, the mayor essentially becomes the city’s CEO. For that system to function effectively, the mayor must recognize the value of experienced professional staff. Micromanagement and staff turnover can be costly to city finances, operations and employee morale.
Mayor Mayhew campaigned on promises of increased transparency, greater public engagement and less unilateral decision-making. Yet two recent taxpayer-funded city publications, titled The Choice Before Snoqualmie, leave me questioning whether the administration is seeking to inform public opinion or shape it.
The October flier asks, “If We Fund Less, What Gets Cut?” It outlines potential consequences ranging from slower emergency response times to deteriorating parks.
What it fails to adequately distinguish is the difference between eliminating existing positions and choosing not to fund proposed new ones.
The November flier prominently declares that “Snoqualmie is losing ground,” highlighting declining satisfaction ratings from the 2025 community survey. Yet more than 80% of comparable survey measures remained statistically similar to 2023, and fire services received a 96% positive rating.
Perhaps most striking is the October flier’s criticism of the previous biennial budget, which relied on anticipated increases in police contract revenue and fees that never materialized.
“Those revenues had been used to balance the budget on paper,” the city states.
Isn’t that a similar financial risk councilmembers are being asked to accept today?
The November flier defends spending down fund balances by pointing to the costs of losing experienced employees and subsequently rebuilding staff.
As a former municipal employee, I understand those costs. That is precisely why I question committing to new positions before securing the revenue needed to sustain them.
The messaging in these fliers, combined with the framing of the city’s online budget survey, leaves me questioning whether residents are being presented with the full range of choices.
Residents can support public safety, city employees and the services they provide while questioning the financial wisdom of the mayor’s budget.
They should not be led to believe otherwise.
Your City Council is doing the work.
I know you’re busy, Snoqualmie. Fortunately, you elected councilmembers to pay attention and provide oversight of the city’s executive branch.
The mayor did not present councilmembers with a budget aligned with existing ongoing revenues and made clear that this was the only budget he would produce.
Councilmembers are now examining alternatives while prioritizing protecting existing staff and maintaining current service levels. They are exploring options like delaying new hires, postponing the implementation of police body-worn cameras and deferring a costly community development study.
These are questions of timing and affordability, not necessarily arguments against those investments.
Aren’t some good things worth waiting for?
Fiscal restraint is not a lack of vision. Nor is it a failure of leadership.
Snoqualmie, pay attention.
If the mayor believes expanded city services warrant higher property taxes, he should make that case to voters before committing to permanent new expenditures.
Voters deserve a choice, not a financial predicament.
The Snoqualmie City Council has until December 31, 2026, to adopt its biennial budget. I encourage residents to follow the deliberations, ask questions and share their thoughts with councilmembers – [email protected]
It is your city, your tax dollars and your financial future.
The mayor should not be spending tomorrow’s tax dollars before you have agreed to pay them.
