Snohomish County Council passes compromise 4% property tax

 

By a vote of 3-2, the Snohomish County Council on Monday approved a 2025-2026 biennial budget that rejected County Executive Dave Somers’ proposal for an 8% property tax increase over two years, instead amending it to a 4% increase over the biennium.

County Council Chair Jared Mead said he strongly opposed the 8% tax increase and warned his fellow Democrats on the council – Megan Dunn and Strom Peterson – that he would vote for Republican Councilmember Nate Nehring’s 0% proposal rather than the 8% that Somers had proposed. Republican Councilmember Sam Low also supported the 0% option.

Between two sets of public meetings on the budget, the council has heard from over 300 residents. On Monday, most of those testifying said they would not support any tax after the Executive Office audit that was reviewed on Nov. 13.

“When I saw the audit, I was really disgusted and sad,” Tamara Nelson of Edmonds said.

Edmonds resident Carolyn Strong said she opposed both an 8% and a 4% property tax and expressed her opposition to potential conflicts of interest revealed in the audit.

After much debate and proposed compromises, the council decided on Mead’s proposed 4% increase – which represents a 2% tax hike each year over the next two years. A proposed amendment by Peterson to raise the tax to 6% failed.

Mead’s 4% proposal was voted down, but was brought back as discussions continued. A compromise introduced by Peterson that preserved the 4% tax, but made modifications to staffing cuts that Mead had proposed, failed.

The staffing changes within the Executive Office have not been officially decided yet.

“My team and I will closely review what was passed by council yesterday and then determine any next steps. I will provide an update once that review is complete,” Somers said.

County Communications Director Kari Bray said more information will be available after the Executive Office receives the council budget.

Snohomish County Council Chair Jared Mead.

When Somers  presented his draft budget to the council in September, he said it focused on sustaining core services and avoiding cuts to staff or programs “despite a systemic budget shortfall as revenues fail to keep pace with rising costs. Snohomish County has a track record of making the most with limited resources, and I am mindful of the impact any increase in the county’s property tax levy could have on people.”

In speaking to his proposal for a 4% increase, Mead said: “We cannot tax our way out of this. We clearly have a spending problem within the county and have to adjust.”

Mead said the differences between the 0%, 4% and 8% increases were how much time councilmembers could buy the county before going bankrupt, which he said was between five to six years, depending on the tax. He explained that 1% in property tax equals $1 million, and the county’s structural deficit is $14 million yearly.

“All we have is 6% banked capacity to go for, and even that is not enough to save us,” Mead said.

While local governments are limited under state law to a 1% property tax increase annually, they have the option of deferring those increases – or “banking” them – for future use.

While the 4% compromise increase was lower than Somers’ proposal, Councilmember Low said it is the highest tax increase he has seen during his time on the council. During his first year as a councilmember – in 2017 – he said a 4% increase was proposed. However, the council voted against it, favoring a 0% increase. Low said the highest tax hike he had seen was for 2.5% in 2022.

Councilmember Sam Low.

“At the time that we adopted the budget [in 2022], our ending fund balance was $29 million,” Low said. “So that’s what we had in reserves.”

Low said the projected ending fund balance for 2024 is $100 million. The county also established a Revenue Stabilization Fund, which currently has nearly $14 million.

“We established it for times like this; I do believe we have a structural deficit coming. I do believe we have some significant financial challenges coming ahead” Low said.

Mead pointed out earlier in the discussion that $100 million in reserve funds is about three times the amount the county needs to follow best business practices.

— Story and photos by Rick Sinnett

    1. JJuele:

      I am not advocating for any property tax increase, but I want to make certain that you understand that this 4% increase only applies to the Sno County portion of your total property taxes. For the average Sno County home this increase will be about $15 for the full year.

      1. Laurie – there is a very generous property tax reduction program for moderate and low income seniors in the State of Wash. that has been in existence for decades. It’s the Senior and Disabled Property Tax Exemption. The tax is reduced by 1/3 to 2/3, depending on net income. The County Tax Assessor staff helps home owners complete the application. (Most individuals whose income is less than $77,000 and are on Medicare qualify) There’s also volunteers at the Edmonds Waterfront Center who help complete the application (I lead that group). There’s also programs that reduce utility taxes from every local jurisdiction and PUD that provide utility services. Please help spread the word about these programs. They’re not well known. And I respectfully request you make another comment that corrects your original comment at 10:15 pm. On Nov 27th. It’s alarming, and it’s wrong. Thank you.

        1. Theresa Hollis. Question? What does “most individuals who make 77,000 or less mean. Does this mean for a 2 person married couple living in their owned home each can make 77,000. dollars + 144,000. dollars in income? I don’t think so but individuals confused me. Also what does most mean. What would disqualify if the net income is there and no other income? I am curious. Thank you for the answer. Deb.

      2. Hi Laurie, please don’t delete your post. You’re allowed to have an opinion, share your concerns. I saw a Seattle Times piece about 2 years ago, highlighting seniors being driven from their homes do to taxes, cost of living.

        The existence of a tax credit program, doesn’t prove seniors are being taxed out of their homes.

        1. Theresa. Never mind about the question. I figured it out. We in SS Which is RR retirement for us and a pension smaller from an employer. It isn’t more than 77,000 but D says it’s the income from taking certain amounts out of our investments for retirement which we do need is why we don’t qualify as that money we take out is taxable too. SO anyway, that’s cool. I am glad though to see this can probably help a lot of people who would meet that 77,000. threshold and probably pretty easily. Thank you for helping those folks at the Waterfront Center? Good woman you seem to be to me. Deb.

      3. Correction: The existence of a tax credit program, doesn’t prove seniors are NOT being taxed out of their homes.

        1. That is true Eric. I don’t think it was meant the way you took it. Seniors and others too are being taxed out of their homes, but some can be helped. It’s as you know not all about property taxes for residents it’s about extremely high utilities and goods are costly. It’s about some buying when they couldn’t afford and going with variable interest rates and all sorts of things. Family emergencies, illness all of it. And yes, it is very sad. I am not sure what we do about it though Eric. Are you young? Do you know about the saving nothing is for sure except death and taxes? Well, it’s true.

    2. How DARE they just continue to tax us into poverty when they have been told by their constituents that they shall not raise taxes?!? I’m SICK of these people just doing whatever they feel they want to against the wishes of their bosses. We need a system to be able to remove these systems and theives, yes, I said what I said. They are THIEVES!

  1. Democrats run the State. They run the county. The cost of living is very high here. Taxes are high. Crime is the highest in the nation. The voters in WA appear like this and want more. Elections have consequences.

  2. While the argument that the 8% only applied to the county portion is correct, it still tells me that the county’s costs that are partially supported by property taxes have gone up 8% at some point. IMO, they need to explain what the reasons behind that are. It sounds like the reasons include the popular “kicking the can down the road” option and now something on this part of the revenue side is being proposed to catch up, similar to what the City of Everett attempted to do recently.
    On the other side of the equation are the expenses, and while the audit revealed many problems there, I don’t see anything in this article that addresses that beyond the popular and unspecific “we’ve got a spending problem,” such as, “the audit provided many good insights and we’re going to do X because of the audit.” Rather, as I’ve seen too often the case, an audit appears to only be done to check a box off the politician’s list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.

By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.