Update:
The County Council voted 3-2 to alter the property tax rate to 4% at its meeting Nov. 25. More details on how talks went are in the Tribune's story here.
___________________________________
County Executive Dave Somers’ proposal to raise the county property tax rate by 8%, which would pencil to about a $15 increase to a $600,000 home's taxes according to the county finance office, has generated two separate countermeasures from the County Council ratcheting the rate down.
County Council members are in the thick of budget talks, with their next public hearing and final vote scheduled for Nov. 25. The meeting starts at 9 a.m.
The 8% property tax increase would increase the rate for the portion of the county government’s taxes within property taxes. The county government’s section is about 6% of your whole property tax bill; schools and the state get the big dollars.
Council Vice Chair Nate Nehring proposes taking no increase, and making multiple budget cuts to offset not having as much revenue come in. Nehring said the public doesn’t have an appetite for more taxes.
Council Chair Jared Mead proposed a middle ground of 4%, which would be taking a 1% regular increase and 1% banked capacity for 2025 and 2026. Mead said “8% is unreasonable and irresponsible” but also called taking “0% unreasonable and irresponsible” as well.
Councilwoman Megan Dunn, for one, objects to Nehring’s idea. She said she can support Mead’s idea.
“Now is not the time to lay off staff and cut service,” Dunn said by email about Nehring’s amendment. “His amendment defunds the Sheriff by over $1 million, cuts services and would require layoffs. It’s critical to have transparency on this amendment and civil dialogue.”
Sheriff Susanna Johnson was asked to discuss the impact of Nehring’s proposal to take no property tax increase. Johnson said if no property tax increase was taken, she’d have to trim possibly 18 currently unfilled positions budgeted in her sheriff’s office budget.
The county’s got a revenue deficit already, and has cut its budget, so not taking the property tax to get revenue will lead to hard decisions.
Mead countered that the county general fund has $100 million in its savings account reserves, when the official county budget policy is to hold onto much less than that. “We should recognize we have a big savings account,” Mead said.
Somers said that he’d be looking at the amendments before deciding whether to veto.
“A number of budget amendments have been brought forward during the Council deliberation process, and I need to see what the County Council approves, but I do believe revenue is essential for the 2025-26 biennial budget to sustain core county services. I will be reviewing the budget with that as a priority,” Somers said in a statement through spokesperson Kari Bray.
Somers’ two-year budget calls to increase the county’s portion of the property tax rate by 8% by taking an additional 6% over the state limit by using the county’s banked property tax capacity. State law limits governments to a 1% increase annually, but if a government has a year where it takes no increase, like the county has in the past, it’s not use-it-or-lose-it but instead it is “banked” for future use.
The property tax rate would rise from 49 cents per $1,000 this year to 51 cents per $1,000 in 2025.
Each 1% in property tax brings in $1 million to the county, county senior legislative analyst Jim Martin said.
The property tax topic dominated more than 1½ hours of public comments at a daytime hearing last week. A majority of speakers came after learning of Nehring’s proposal through a public awareness campaign.
If this meeting was in the evening when most people were off work, there would be a much larger crowd speaking out, one speaker said.
“The time is now to listen to the people,” former Brier mayor Bob Colinas said in lobbying not to increase taxes.
“You need to cut other places,” said a longtime Snohomish resident named Kimberly, who said one-quarter of her income goes to property taxes.
“Those especially on fixed-income are being forced out,” speaker Georgia Fisher said.
More than one public speaker decried it was a political play to call Sheriff Johnson to the podium to speak to what would be lost if Nehring’s 0% tax proposal went forward.
Last week’s meeting lasted 4½ hours.
Council members have put forward 20 budget amendments in all.
The performance audit results presented by an independent auditor that morning underpinned some of the amendments.
Those included better controls on hiring practices within the executive’s office, transferring certain portions of the county executive’s Office of Social Justice to other departments, transferring and essentially disestablising the Office of Recovery and Resilience tasked with administering COVID-19 federal stimulus dollars, and moving other things around.
One budget amendment from Dunn and Mead would enforce the auditor’s recommendations.
In another amendment, Mead proposed restructuring part of the Executive’s department, including eliminating four specific positions.
Councilman Strom Peterson said he was uncomfortable with this, calling that level of specifics micromanagement. One suggested altering it to be an across-the-board cut instead.
Somers doesn’t like it.
“I am strongly opposed to the proposed cuts to the Executive Office,” Somers said through his office. “We are a lean office, with a core team of 13.3 FTE (full-time equivalent) positions. The growth that has occurred is largely tied to specific funding and areas of work, such as the Office of Recovery and Resilience to administer federal ARPA dollars. Core staffing levels have not changed substantially since 2004, when former County Executive Bob Drewel had an office with 15 FTE positions or 1.7 more than we have today. “
A budget amendment proposed by Mead and Nehring staked a claim to allocate $6 million toward constructing a secure drug-withdrawal detox center with 48 beds, as well as allocating $3 million in seed money for the facility. The seed money would be used to attract state and federal grants which have matching dollars requirements, and would come from the money collected from Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Sales Tax.
The county’s rejected public safety sales tax measure would have given major funding for the facility.
Dunn objected that this special budget allocation undercuts the council’s usual procedure to put a project up for consideration, where it is scored and weighed against the whole menu of competing projects seeking county funding.
Nehring said that the seed money would be returned if the project doesn’t attract any grants.
Somers had lobbied to see the recovery center open through his support of the public safety sales tax, but said by email it’s not his preference to see this funding amendment go through.
There is already a five-year plan in place, he said, and his budget reflects that plan on how to spend Affordable Housing and Behavioral Health Sales Tax revenues.
“My preference for the coming biennium is to remain consistent with the existing plan for this funding rather than redirect it. Our current plan does include behavioral health funding that could be used toward this type of facility through a competitive process. This is our only source of local housing dollars, so we would be left without a crucial tool for addressing the housing crisis if that resource is redirected,” Somers said.
Other budget amendments scrutinized the purposes of the county’s Office of Social Justice and other measures, such as closing out the county office tasked with administering federal coronavirus dollars. That coronavirus grants office is the Office of Recovery and Resilience.
Bray said the county already planned to close out that office.
Tied to the audit, one amendment scrutinizes the freestanding Office of Social Justice department on whether it should be disintegrated and its tasks moved to other departments. The office was created in 2020. Its task, in part, is to implement a DEI Action Plan within county government.
In another amendment, Dunn and Mead sought to limit some of the spending authority of the Office of Social Justice unless better oversight for performance measures is given.
Also among the 20 amendments, Peterson put forward an amendment to make the Victim Witness Advocate position within the Prosecutor’s Office permanent. He considers the role important for restorative justice. It is currently a pilot program position which funding ends at the end of 2025.
