On Monday, August 3, 2026, the Snoqualmie City Council voted 6-1 to reject Mayor Mayhew’s proposal to place a $3.4 million property tax increase measure on the November 3 ballot. The lone vote in support was Councilmember and Mayor Pro Tem Jolyon Johnson.
Mayhew presented his tax increase proposal to the council on July 13, after giving an in-depth budget presentation showing a $1.5 million budget gap next year. The mayor also requested another $1.9 million to fill staff positions supporting city service levels and modernize operations.
The mayor’s budget presentation and the identified budget deficit were based on financial numbers “rigorously validated” by the City of Snoqualmie Finance Department, according to Finance Director Drew Bouta. The mayor’s presentation did not include financial statements or revenue and expenditure forecasts supporting the conclusions or recommendations.
In a July 31 post, the city said the council was deciding whether to place the measure before voters, not whether to increase property taxes directly. It warned that without new ongoing revenue, Snoqualmie would begin the 2027-28 biennium facing a projected $3.4 million annual funding gap and would need to rely on service reductions, emergency reserves or both while considering other options.
The council was given three weeks to decide on the ballot proposal so that, if approved, the city could meet the August 4 King County Elections filing deadline for the November 3 ballot.
During the August 3 meeting, councilmembers again expressed concern on a perceived rushed timeline for their decision – expressing a desire to better understand the budget issues outlined in the mayor’s presentation.
At the meeting, resident Georgia North provided public comment, asking the council to vote no. She said, “The proposed ordinance is clear and concise, but many feel no proper foundation has been laid, and the urgency may well be appropriate, but the preparatory process has been insufficient.”
Pointing to a clear desire from the community for more information, Councilmember Johnson advised the city to use its website and hold multiple town halls before a November election.
Comparing the response to the debate over the Battery Energy Storage facility, Councilmember Cotton said the number of emails to the council about the potential levy measure was similar. She said, “It certainly seems more prudent at this time that we do our homework, that we bring forward the information that residents and voters are asking for. And if we still can’t fill the gap between the budgets and make this happen, then in the future maybe we can proceed forward.”
Councilmember Testman commented, “Nothing that I have seen so far leads me to believe that we need to have the public vote this November on a lid lift. I think we have enough time to figure things out, and if the facts show that a levy lid lift is the way to go, okay, we can tackle it in a subsequent period.”
Calling for a broader conversation with the public, Councilmember Washington noted that the proposal wasn’t just asking for revenue to close the budget gap, but also for an additional $1.9 million in spending. He commented, “So for me, a vote to approve this resolution is a consideration of our residents. I feel like I can’t do that without putting forth both sides of the argument.”
Concerned that the city was moving too quickly and assuming significant spending cuts were necessary, Councilmember Wotton said, “I’m not convinced that we’re at that point. We might be, but we have time to adjust.”
Councilmember Murphy criticized the 21-day decision process and characterized the requested levy as a “tough ask” considering the current economic climate, where residents face rising utility rates, job layoffs, and other cost-of-living increases. He said, “Advancing this means that we feel good about all of the analysis, all of the alternatives, all of the information provided before us. And I can’t say in good faith that we have gotten all that information, that we have looked at all the analysis, and that the ballot is all that’s left.”
Next Steps
The meeting was adjourned after the vote. There was no discussion of subsequent steps in the budget development process. Historically, the city launches the budget development process about six months before the start of the next biennial budget cycle. According to the Snoqualmie Financial Management policy, “the City Council will meet to discuss Council goals and priorities prior to the start of the budget development process. The budget will be developed per Ch. 35A.34 RCW.” A budget calendar is also presented to the Council before the budget development process begins, as the process typically requires many public meetings.
Council goals and priorities help shape each biennial budget. The mayor and administration work with staff to develop a proposed balanced budget aligned with those priorities. The budget is then presented to the council, often by the finance director. Subsequently, councilmembers provide oversight and work to refine the budget, sometimes by requesting changes. In the past, Snoqualmie department directors have presented their budgets during regular council and committee meetings, which also provide councilmembers opportunities to ask questions. The final budget is usually voted on by the full council in late fall and goes into effect on January 1 of the new biennium.
