Thurston County commissioners vote to oppose bill provisions that would shift county budget lead to auditor

Thurston County commissioners voted Jan. 21 to oppose proposed legislation known in materials as “5154,” after commissioners and staff raised concerns the bill’s language would shift primary responsibility for preparing a county budget to the county auditor and narrow the commissioners’ ability to employ staff to prepare a competing or parallel budget.

The board acted after a report from County Manager Leonard Hernandez and legal and association contacts raised questions about how the bill would alter long-standing, locally negotiated practices for preparing and presenting the county budget. Chair Ty Mentor said staff had only recently learned the measure was scheduled for a legislative hearing this week and recommended commissioners weigh in quickly.

Commissioners said the bill’s text replaces prior language that allowed commissioners to employ staff who could take a leading role in budget preparations with language that limits those staff to “assist with” the auditor’s preparations. County Manager Leonard Hernandez and multiple commissioners argued that change would effectively give the auditor primary authority for the county’s budget process and could be executed by statute rather than local agreement.

Commissioner Wayne Fournier moved that the board oppose 5154; the motion was seconded and carried on a vote recorded as 3 in favor, 0 opposed and 2 abstentions. The board instructed staff and the county’s lobbyist to prepare talking points and, if necessary, to sign the county in as opposing the bill at the hearing. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate with the Washington Association of Counties (WAC) and other counties that had expressed concerns, and to make staff available to accompany any commissioner who testifies.

Hernandez said some provisions of the draft bill are narrow “clean-up” items (for example clarifying clerk-of-the-board duties) that staff do not oppose, but the budget-staffing and auditor-authority sections raise concerns serious enough that the county should ask the Legislature to pause or amend the measure so stakeholders can negotiate. Several commissioners expressed reluctance to frame the disagreement as a personal dispute with the auditor’s office and asked that the county’s statements focus on the statutory and operational impacts rather than personnel.

The board’s action follows conversations over the last year about how county budget work is shared among the commissioners’ offices, the county manager and the auditor. Commissioners asked staff to produce a short, rapid bill analysis and a set of concise talking points so any commissioner who testifies can answer technical questions. County lobbyist Deborah (last name not specified in the transcript) and staff were directed to coordinate testimony and follow-up with WAC and other counties that may sign on to the county’s position.

The board’s recorded motion did not single out any amendments to keep in or out; staff will return with recommended language and a communication plan for the county’s position.

Votes at a glance: motion to oppose 5154 — outcome: approved; recorded tally: 3 yes / 0 no / 2 abstain.

Ending: Commissioners said they will continue to work with lobbyists and peer counties to refine the county’s objections and return to the board with suggested text or next steps before any further legislative action.