Thursday, October 1, 2026
Facing a revenue drop that could leave a “$12 to $14 million budget shortfall” while calling for “shared sacrifice,” the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) has proposed to forgo their own salary increases for 2026.
In a written request to the Citizen’s Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials, the BoCC collectively asked not to receive a pay increase as the county faces service slowdowns and fiscal gaps.
“In light of these circumstances, we respectfully request that the Commission not approve any salary increase for the Board of County Commissioners this year,” the letter stated.
The board also said the move was the "right thing to do" given the circumstances.
“Standing with our employees during this difficult time is both the right thing to do and an important message to send to our workforce and the public we serve," the letter stated.
The commissioners stated that the gesture carries “symbolic” weight as it aims to echo the reality faced by the county’s various departments who are anticipating budget cuts.
“These are not easy conversations, and the financial challenges ahead will require careful stewardship, collaboration, and shared sacrifice across the organization,” the letter added.
The commissioners discussed the draft in a work session held on Wednesday, March 26 wherein the board agreed to delay any final action until all members are present, particularly BoCC Chair Tye Menser, who was absent.
Although final approval was left on hold, most of the board favored skipping the salary adjustment.
“I really liked what I saw when I read it. It aligns with what I’ve thought about the salary commission, but more so our own personal salaries. … It’s the responsible thing to do, you know, to protect public resources for us to kind of hold off on raises for ourselves,” Commissioner Emily Clouse said.
Commissioner Carolina Mejia, who penned the draft statement, backed the tone and language pointing to the county’s financial headwinds.
“We are facing a huge budget shortfall since last year. … We’re facing, you know, $12 to $14 million gap in our budget, and the state is not coming to really save us or really assist us in any way,” Mejia said.
She made it clear that the intent of the message wasn’t “symbolic” flair, but to show accountability in action.
“Even though it’s little and it’s symbolic, it really does matter. I remember being an employee and seeing electees, right, have the huge bumps and yet, you know, as employees, we were sometimes constrained just to the 2.5%, and it kind of ... affects morale,” Mejia shared.
Commissioner Rachel Grant stood behind the letter’s purpose, but noted the language might unsettle county staff and needs “wordsmithing.”
“We don’t have that information really clear yet,” said Grant regarding the letter’s assertion of “potential reductions in staffing and services.”
Grant worried that the phrasing could “cause fear” if read by employees and suggested slight edits and softening the sentence without altering the statement’s main thoughts.
“I think the purpose of the letter is to say that, you know, we know that there’s going to be hits, and that we’re willing to take the hits ourselves. However, what I would hate is for the people who read this, who are not the elected officials, who are the staff, to take this as a ‘we’re going to lose our jobs’ sort of a thing,” she emphasized.
Meanwhile, the board then examined how the proposed salary freeze might influence the pay structure of other elected officials tied to the same recommendation process.
Commissioner Wayne Fournier flagged the way commissioner pay sets the pace for others.
“The way that it rolls out in the last couple years is we based everyone else’s salary increase on what was recommended of the county commissioners. … So, the increases that the other elected officials got (were) based on the recommendation that the county commissioners got.”
Fournier said the board’s request may end up influencing pay for other officials not directly addressed in the draft.
“It does create the opportunity for the board to much more easily not change their pay as well. So, while they’re not mentioned, it would likely affect them,” he said, urging further input from people potentially affected.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez and Human Resources Director Maria Aponte provided administrative context. Aponte noted the salary commission typically aims to meet in June to align with budget planning.
To reflect on earlier county decisions, Mejia recalled during the COVID-19 pandemic period, the board also halted all elected official salary increases through a formal request to the salary commission.
She further explained that the board did the same move of forwarding a letter at the time, asking that no raises be considered due to the “uncertainty and financial strain” the county was facing.
Fournier requested a copy of the COVID-era letter for context when the commissioners revisit the current draft again with Menser present.
According to Mejia, the final language and timing of the letter remain pending full board consensus. She pointed out the draft statement was only a proposal and invited further revisions from fellow commissioners.
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
JulesJames
Good on Commish Mejia! Thurston County's 300 thousand residents dealing with a $14 million shortfall isn't just taxing $50 more apiece. Tough choices ahead. The most qualified people to suggest and implement those choices aren't so motivated when leadership salary raises flowing along normally.
Monday, March 31, 2025 Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
Instead of closing businesses down, it is becoming even more important to work with local businesses to help them succeed, thus gaining millions more in revenues for the county. They need to quit closing small businesses in the area. Maybe think of them as "their best customers" and what do they have to do to help them succeed.
Monday, March 31, 2025 Report this
Overtaxed
I applaud the County Commissioners . This type of action goes a long way to restoring the Public`s Faith in our elected officials. Well Done
Monday, March 31, 2025 Report this
ChuckCross
12 T0 14 MILLION IN REDUCED REVENUE -- HOW DOES THIS SHAKE OUT? HOW MUCH IS FROM REDUCED SALES TAX AND/OR PROPERTY TAX; HOW MUCH IS FROM ANTICIPATED LOSS OF FEDERAL AND STATE REVENUE? ARE ANY OF THESE REDUCED REVENUES TIED TO SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES -- I.E. ROAD CONSTRUCTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS, WATER/SEWR PROJECTS??? HOPEFULLY THOSE PROJECTS LOSING FUNDING WILL BE THE FIRST PROJECTS CUT.
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
JnNwmn
Builders and Realtors claim we don't need Impact Fees on new houses because the new property taxes will cover new costs for schools, fire, parks and police. Guess what? The county is broke and they are obviously wrong. Impact Fees are needed or all of you pay the costs for the newcomers!
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
bonaro
The Board of County Commissioners approved 6% raises for elected officials (themselves) and 3% raises for non-represented staff during their last meeting of 2024. Now they want to freeze raises due to a budget shortfall they knew was coming...calling this move a "shared sacrifice". What sacrifice did they share?
Sounds like they need to budget better.
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
BillString
I wonder how much money the county would save if they stopped wasting money on the homeless?
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
Yeti1981
I mean, I'd be okay with settling for a 12% raise over the last couple of years and foregoing one this year to look good politically too. Also, to the person who supports impact fees, they are an outdated and misguided philosophy. The largest outlays for any jurisdiction is operations and maintenance. They're typically paid for by overlapping long-term bonds. All residents benefit from new construction, and the proper way to pay for impact is to evenly spread the share among all tax payers in the district. And, since new construction means an expanded tax base, the impact would feel like far less than an up front fee. Plus, the people who have been somewhere aren't any more special than those who seek to move there.You're simply suggesting to charge new people an entrance fee to be part of your neighborhood. Because builders and developers don't just eat that cost. It ALWAYS gets passed on in the form of higher housing costs.
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this