Snohomish County expects a $24 million (about 10 percent) hit to its general fund budget. In response, the county is considering freezing hiring, eliminating discretionary raises, and cancelling travel and training. According to the Everett Herald, the County Council will consider two hiring freeze ordinances tomorrow:

One would last through the end of the year and make a wide range of exceptions, including positions within the sheriff’s office and prosecuting attorney’s office. Another, which would last 60 days, makes no explicit exceptions but outlines a process for the council to fill any vacancies that are “fiscally sustainable and necessary.”

“This is one of the best and quickest ways to belt-tighten,” said Councilwoman Megan Dunn, who supports the 60-day hiring freeze proposal. “We’re also hoping to avoid any layoffs.”

Similarly, the City of Tukwila estimates it will lose $6.1 million in revenues through May. To save $4 million, the mayor has frozen hiring, cancelled travel, furloughed part-time temporary staff, eliminated transfers to capital project funds, and reduced overtime.

(Such preemptory actions mirror the first measures undertaken by former Gov. Gregoire in response to the Great Recession.)

As I noted last month, the City of Seattle estimated that its revenues this year could be down $110 million.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Bob Ferguson has issued some guidance on how local governments can legally provide financial assistance to residents. The state constitution prohibits governments from giving gifts or loans to private individuals and businesses. Article VIII, section 7:

No county, city, town or other municipal corporation shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in aid of any individual, association, company or corporation, except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm, or become directly or indirectly the owner of any stock in or bonds of any association, company or corporation.

A March 17 memo from the AG noted, “In general, constitutional restrictions on use of public funds should not be an impediment to state and local efforts to combat COVID-19, because expenditures being made in furtherance of this effort in this time of crisis further fundamental public purposes, such as protecting the public health and welfare.” As an example, the AG cites local government subsidies for childcare for families of healthcare providers and first responders.

An April 6 memo expanded on this, specifically related to supporting low-income individuals and small businesses. The AG finds, “cash grants can be provided to low-income individuals consistent with our state constitution’s restriction on gifts of public funds. We also conclude that grants or loans can likely be provided to impacted small businesses, so long as reasonable safeguards are in place to prevent fraud or abuse.” Further, regarding the small business question:

A local government would need to provide a clear nexus between any proposed grants and loans to small businesses and public health and welfare to help explain to a reviewing court why these local efforts accomplish a fundamental government purpose. It seems reasonable to conclude that helping small businesses survive temporary closure will help reduce the economic hardship caused by this crisis and encourage small businesses to comply fully with public health guidelines, but including statements to that effect in authorizing legislation would be helpful. Because there is no case law directly on point, this conclusion is somewhat uncertain, but courts would likely recognize the unique circumstances here and the need for strong action.