Lake Stevens council rejects 2026 budget ordinance after split 3–4 vote; workshop planned
November 26, 2025 | Lake Stevens, Snohomish 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 »
Council members on Nov. 25 declined to adopt the city’s proposed 2026 budget ordinance (No. 12‑05), voting 3 in favor and 4 against after a final public hearing and extended council discussion.
The vote followed a staff presentation that listed an estimated beginning balance of just under $54.3 million, projected revenues of about $51.1 million, budgeted expenses of roughly $66.5 million, and a citywide ending fund balance of about $38.9 million. Staff proposed two new positions, an IT applications/data analyst and a traffic engineer, and described a mix of capital projects funded partly by grants.
Mayor (speaker 1) summarized next steps if the motion failed: “If the vote is no, then the next steps are, we come back, because we have to have a balanced budget passed. … If this is a no vote tonight, then we come back next week and those who vote no have to figure out what’s gonna get them to a yes,” he said.
Opponents said the budget has unresolved structural issues. Council member Packard (speaker 3) pressed staff on property‑tax allocations, asking why a portion of property tax is routed to the street fund rather than kept in the general fund to shore up reserves. He also raised concerns about ongoing program costs and whether new positions would create unsustainable recurring obligations.
Supporters and staff said some items are funded by restricted sources and that the traffic engineer role would be funded through the traffic‑safety (camera) program rather than the general fund. Staff said the street fund allocation supports pavement preservation, striping and safety projects and reducing that allocation would lower levels of service. “We have to have a balanced budget passed,” the mayor added, urging flexibility and the potential for amendments during the year.
Roll call on the final passage produced these votes: Daughtry — aye; Peters Hagen — aye; Dorstedt — aye; Ewing — no; Shipman — no; Donahue — no; Packard — no. With a 3–4 tally the motion failed and the ordinance was not adopted.
After the vote the mayor and staff proposed scheduling a workshop to drill into the outstanding structural questions and produce a revised proposal before the end of the year. The council then adjourned the meeting.
What remains open: staff and council indicated they will model alternate allocations (for example, transferring additional property-tax revenue from the street fund to the general fund) and return with options. A workshop was proposed for the following week to narrow differences and prepare a balanced ordinance for a future vote.
The vote followed a staff presentation that listed an estimated beginning balance of just under $54.3 million, projected revenues of about $51.1 million, budgeted expenses of roughly $66.5 million, and a citywide ending fund balance of about $38.9 million. Staff proposed two new positions, an IT applications/data analyst and a traffic engineer, and described a mix of capital projects funded partly by grants.
Mayor (speaker 1) summarized next steps if the motion failed: “If the vote is no, then the next steps are, we come back, because we have to have a balanced budget passed. … If this is a no vote tonight, then we come back next week and those who vote no have to figure out what’s gonna get them to a yes,” he said.
Opponents said the budget has unresolved structural issues. Council member Packard (speaker 3) pressed staff on property‑tax allocations, asking why a portion of property tax is routed to the street fund rather than kept in the general fund to shore up reserves. He also raised concerns about ongoing program costs and whether new positions would create unsustainable recurring obligations.
Supporters and staff said some items are funded by restricted sources and that the traffic engineer role would be funded through the traffic‑safety (camera) program rather than the general fund. Staff said the street fund allocation supports pavement preservation, striping and safety projects and reducing that allocation would lower levels of service. “We have to have a balanced budget passed,” the mayor added, urging flexibility and the potential for amendments during the year.
Roll call on the final passage produced these votes: Daughtry — aye; Peters Hagen — aye; Dorstedt — aye; Ewing — no; Shipman — no; Donahue — no; Packard — no. With a 3–4 tally the motion failed and the ordinance was not adopted.
After the vote the mayor and staff proposed scheduling a workshop to drill into the outstanding structural questions and produce a revised proposal before the end of the year. The council then adjourned the meeting.
What remains open: staff and council indicated they will model alternate allocations (for example, transferring additional property-tax revenue from the street fund to the general fund) and return with options. A workshop was proposed for the following week to narrow differences and prepare a balanced ordinance for a future vote.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
