Kittitas County auditor presents $6 million preliminary general‑fund deficit for 2026 budget
September 02, 2025 | Kittitas County, Washington
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
KITTITAS COUNTY, Wash. — The Kittitas County auditor’s office on Tuesday presented a preliminary 2026 county budget that shows a roughly $6 million deficit in the general fund and flags personnel costs as the primary driver.
Zach Haven, auditor’s office, told commissioners the “big number that everyone’s interested in would be the deficit in the general fund, which comes in at $6,000,000.” He said the figure reflects some late changes and that many projects included in the draft are continuations of previously started work.
The presentation compared the preliminary shortfall to last year’s “paper deficit,” which Haven said was $6,600,000, and noted savings options. “Vacancy savings, when we look at that, 5% vacancy savings in the ’26 budget would be $1,600,000,” Haven said, adding that would reduce the structural deficit substantially.
The auditor’s packet shows personnel growth of about $3,000,000 in the general fund and a net increase of roughly 2.7 full‑time‑equivalent positions. Haven said salaries are the main factor in personnel cost growth and that benefit cost increases have been muted by the county’s self‑insurance approach; he also noted that current UnitedHealthcare rates are lower than the office projected.
The draft includes a fund‑balance assessment using county policy metrics; the auditor said a rough estimate puts the county in a “critical financial stress” category under one measure and “moderate financial concern” under another, while adding both measures are preliminary because 2025 year‑end numbers are not finalized.
Haven highlighted other cost increases in the general fund, including equipment leases and a large increase in liability insurance from the risk pool. He also noted the preliminary budget lists 19 personnel requests across funds: three overlap positions, three new positions and 13 reclassifications.
The auditor closed by pointing commissioners to appendices with tables and project lists; the draft budget was presented for review and further work by staff and commissioners rather than for final adoption.
Commissioners did not record a vote on the preliminary budget during the meeting.
Zach Haven, auditor’s office, told commissioners the “big number that everyone’s interested in would be the deficit in the general fund, which comes in at $6,000,000.” He said the figure reflects some late changes and that many projects included in the draft are continuations of previously started work.
The presentation compared the preliminary shortfall to last year’s “paper deficit,” which Haven said was $6,600,000, and noted savings options. “Vacancy savings, when we look at that, 5% vacancy savings in the ’26 budget would be $1,600,000,” Haven said, adding that would reduce the structural deficit substantially.
The auditor’s packet shows personnel growth of about $3,000,000 in the general fund and a net increase of roughly 2.7 full‑time‑equivalent positions. Haven said salaries are the main factor in personnel cost growth and that benefit cost increases have been muted by the county’s self‑insurance approach; he also noted that current UnitedHealthcare rates are lower than the office projected.
The draft includes a fund‑balance assessment using county policy metrics; the auditor said a rough estimate puts the county in a “critical financial stress” category under one measure and “moderate financial concern” under another, while adding both measures are preliminary because 2025 year‑end numbers are not finalized.
Haven highlighted other cost increases in the general fund, including equipment leases and a large increase in liability insurance from the risk pool. He also noted the preliminary budget lists 19 personnel requests across funds: three overlap positions, three new positions and 13 reclassifications.
The auditor closed by pointing commissioners to appendices with tables and project lists; the draft budget was presented for review and further work by staff and commissioners rather than for final adoption.
Commissioners did not record a vote on the preliminary budget during the meeting.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
