Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Okanogan County commissioners revise key revenue assumptions as budget work continues

October 01, 2025 | Okanogan 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 »

Okanogan County commissioners revise key revenue assumptions as budget work continues
Okanogan County commissioners and finance staff on Wednesday revised revenue assumptions and line items in a working draft of the 2026 budget, agreeing to raise the countys sales-and-use-tax projection and record several grant passthroughs while flagging unresolved accounting and coding issues.

County Treasurer Pam Johnson said staff had difficulty breaking down Department of Revenue remittances by city and unincorporated areas. "When I go into myDOR, I cannot tell," Johnson said, describing efforts to identify how much of a recent remittance came from unincorporated county residents.

County Auditor Carrie Hall described the methodology used to build beginning fund balances and defended staff estimates. "I based it on actuals from revenue from August through December, and then expenditures August through December, you know, because I had the cash on hand as of July," Hall said, explaining the five‑year averaging approach staff used to smooth volatile accounts.

Why it matters: the revisions change the countys budget baseline and therefore the amount of contingency and carryover available for next years spending. Officials said they are trying to be cautious after recent years of unpredictable remittances and program changes, and they repeatedly emphasized the need for precise grant accounting and timely state remittance detail.

Major adjustments and agreements
- Sales and use tax: After reviewing historic trends and recent monthly receipts, commissioners agreed to raise the countys sales-and-use-tax estimate for the draft budget to 4.5% (from a higher draft target discussed), and to add $300,000 to that revenue line to reflect that assumption. Carrie Hall walked commissioners through several year-over-year comparisons and seasonal concentrations in October–December receipts that informed the choice.
- Criminal justice/special one‑tenth tax: Staff proposed and the commissioners accepted a modest upward revision for the countys criminal-justice one‑tenth percent line to $675,000 (an increase of $55,000 from the working figure presented during the workshop).
- PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes): Commissioners agreed to increase the PILT projection by $350,000 based on recent trends in federal payments and prior-year actuals.
- Leasehold excise tax: increased slightly (by $2,000) to $37,000 based on lower-bound historical receipts over recent years.
- OCCAC/CDBG passthrough: staff recorded a passthrough grant of $194,703 for OCCAC with $21,633 identified as the countys administrative share; commissioners adjusted related line items (+$194,703 on revenue; administrative portion posted to the county line).
- Delinquent property‑tax interest: commissioners agreed to increase the delinquent‑taxes interest line by $50,000 based on recent collections and ongoing foreclosures.

Coding and accounting items flagged for follow-up
- Several bar codes (account codes) used in 2024 were reassigned for 2025; staff identified one legacy bars code (35739) that appears unused in the draft and proposed zeroing its budgeted revenue ($145,000) and moving those amounts into current, active bars codes. Commissioners approved removing that unused budget line pending final verification.
- Public‑defense and prosecution receipts: staff and the countys court administrators confirmed there are two separate revenue streams for public defense (state payments and cost recoupments) and that billing to cities for booking/boarding and prosecution costs is split across multiple bars codes; Shelley (court staff) and Carrie Hall said they will reconcile the second‑half billings and expected additional revenues in the next week.
- Munis rollout and payroll timing: commissioners reiterated a goal to shift county payroll to biweekly when the county goes live on Munis. Staff warned the transition will require significant configuration and testing; the target start was discussed as the first pay period of the new year to simplify annual calculations, but staff noted additional implementation costs could be incurred if work must be re-done.

Grants affecting next years budget
- Juvenile reentry grant (implementation): juvenile staff confirmed an initial $100,000 deposit is already in the county account and that an estimated $400,000 more tied to implementation milestones could arrive, with additional milestone funding possible (up to another $500,000–$1,000,000 depending on implementation milestones). The commissioners and finance staff agreed the grant revenues are restricted and must be tracked and reported as restricted carryover; juvenile staff said two positions will receive pay increases that will be charged to the restricted grant and that staff will provide detail for a February budget supplemental if needed.
- Other grants and passthroughs: staff noted other recent awards and pass-throughs (CDBG/OCCAC public‑services pass‑through) and reminded commissioners that grant matches and reporting frequency must be considered when counting on grant revenue to offset operating costs.

What remained open or required action
- Several figures and coding changes require follow-up: staff committed to reconcile DOR remittance detail for unincorporated versus city receipts, finalize prosecution/city billing, and provide updated totals for public‑defense recoupments and incarceration boarding fees.
- Commissioners asked staff to prepare a concise written summary of all changes (line and account adjustments) and to tag restricted grant carryover amounts clearly in the January actuals so the board can adopt a final balanced budget.

The board did not take a formal, recorded vote on a final budget during the workshop; the changes recorded were decisions by consensus of the commissioners and finance staff to update the working draft and to return with reconciled numbers and sources for adoption at a future meeting.

Editors note: At multiple points staff emphasized that state reports and Department of Revenue detail are not always itemized by jurisdiction in public online systems; the county auditor and treasurer said they had to request county‑specific breakdowns from DOR staff.

Ending: Finance staff said they would circulate a revised working draft after reconciling the prosecution and public‑defense receipts and the juvenile grant accounting; commissioners set follow-up items and asked to see final numbers before formal budget adoption.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Washington articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI