Snohomish County Councilmembers Somers, Ryan and Klein are right to push for answers on County Executive Lovick’s budget. (Article, “County Council, Lovick tangle over plan to reroute tax money.”)
Lovick pushed for the most expensive version of the new courthouse, increasing the cost by $50 million to $160 million-plus. To now divert $5.9 million scheduled for debt service to fund 2015 operating costs raises serious financial questions.
Lovick’s budget shows roughly an $8 million a year increase in revenues in 2015, with another $8 million in 2016. But if roughly $6 million of the 2015 budget is one-time money, that means he anticipates a $14 million increase in revenues for 2016. Is that realistic?
And is the $5.9 million for truly one-time expenditures? This is debt service money, and the debt payments last for 30 years. The expenditures cannot be roof repair or new technology unless the executive can show the county will need no roof repairs or new technology for the next 30 years.
I have been away from the county budget process for a year and may be missing something. But Councilmembers Somers, Ryan and Klein are concerned. And from my years on the County Council I know Somers, Ryan and Klein. I don’t think that Mark Ericks is right when he says “they didn’t understand what we recommended.”
But Ericks may be right. The Herald should offer Lovick the chance to write an op-ed explaining what was recommended and why it does not set up a financial train wreck for Snohomish County citizens. And then the councilmembers should be given an opportunity to respond.
Only by being open and transparent can Lovick and Ericks show the council and the citizens that the budget is truly balanced and not a time bomb waiting to go off after the 2015 election.
Dave Gossett
Mountlake Terrace
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
