May 4 City Council Meeting
Chart showing where property taxes go.
Teri Kilgore and Melinda Merrell gave a presentation on the upcoming revenue measures and a legislative update. The Financial Sustainability Task Force identified the structural deficit in 2020, and additional revenue is to solve that deficit.
Councilmanic .1% public safety sales tax is already included in the budget forecast. Kenmore has only gone to the voters one time for the Walkways and Waterways bond; the KenMORE <3 levy would be the second.
To bring forward a ballot measure, council needs to pass a resolution 4-3. There is no minimum voter turnout when it goes to the public; a simple majority will pass it. New legislation (effective July 1) will turn a “single year” levy lid lift to two years, and a “multi-year” from six to ten years. Levy lid lifts can be temporary or permanent. Temporary is typically to fund a specific project, permanent is added to your permanent rate that we charge. The separate question is the term - it can be 1, 2, 6 or 10 years. The 2/10 year options are not available for the 2026 measure since there isn’t enough time to assemble it if Council waits until after July 1.
The City can enact multiple levy lid lifts up to the limit of their statutory taxing authority, as long as they are approved by voters ($2.66 is our current capacity). The City Manager relayed that consultants believe that a 2026 measure would be rushed, and the City would be responsible for grassroots outreach. The City could hire consultants for outreach on a separate 2027 measure.
The three options presented were as follows:
Scenario 1: Funds general fund, enhanced and special projects. $.36 per $1k of AV if enacted in 2026 ($.44 if enacted in 2027). This would fund climate, affordable housing, and human services at the level in the current budget and keep us from falling below reserve goals until 2032. This would be $360 (or $440 if enacted in 2027) for the average household.
Scenario 2: Only looks at funding enhanced/special projects at current levels. $.24 per $1k of ARV. Still no staff reductions, but we fall below reserved. This would be $240 per year for the average household.
Scenario 3: Only enhanced, no special projects, no general fund. $.13 per $1k if enacted in 2026. This would be $130 per year for the average household.
CM Marshall asked for clarification on what the special projects were and whether the various options would impact staffing (scenario 1 has no impact on staff; scenario 2 may have some impact on supportive staff, but it wouldn’t reduce permanent staff. In scenario 3, the limited duration positions may not be needed). CM Marshall expressed that he can’t think about increasing taxes without thinking about more efficiency for the city government. He talked to too many people door-to-door during the summer and fall who are having trouble making ends meet, even without the high gas prices, and he would like to see reductions from staff first.
CM Adman expressed support for a ballot measure in 2026, one measure, all items that are listed at $.36 level (scenario 1), six year levy, permanent. He believes that we shouldn’t wait and continue to kick the can down the road, and that if we do this sooner it’s cheaper. He noted that the City isn’t used to raising the rate, but in his experience with the fire district they do this regularly. He believes the City needs to do the same.
DM Sasson, in response to CM Marshall’s question about staff, said that this wasn’t the time to talk about staffing efficiencies. She agreed with CM Adman’s stance on the type and timing of the levy, and believes this is to address the structural deficit. She said that Council has considered this carefully over multiple months, and going to the voters is the ultimate in community engagement.
CM Loutsis was also in agreement with CM Adman. He expressed some concern on the “permanent” option that we will hit our taxing limit. He asked if it were possible to councilmanically reduce the property tax (staff did not know). Based on recent KCRHA issues, he would like homelessness funding not tied directly to that organization (City Manager Killgore clarified that these come in as general fund monies, so they could be redirected).
CM Culver also agreed with CM Adman, but wanted two ballot measures. Regarding criticism that the voters aren’t requesting what is in the KenMORE <3 levy, he said that this has been in the works for some time: NHUSA, PERK, Northshore Social Justice Action Group [Culver is a founding member of this small group] have written and asked for it. He believes that installing solar, car chargers, etc., are good paying jobs and if we move towards electrification, he believes we become more independent and resilient.
Mayor Herbig asked how temp vs. permanent are perceived at the ballot box. He tends to agree that we can’t kick things down the road, and agrees with CM Adman’s position.
CM O’Cain voiced similar concerns to CM Marshall, and doesn’t want to push this on the community this year without their input. She pointed out that if we wait, we will have more data on KAPE and how it fits into our financial picture. She would like sustainable ways to generate revenue, and dislikes generating revenue off KAPE. Her preference is scenario 3, due to concerns about some of the special projects. King County is responsible for some of the items, and Kenmore funding them is a redundancy. She believes the climate is extremely important but doesn’t want to spend taxpayer dollars on marketing for climate action – planting trees, preserving parks are more important. She wants to maintain trust with voters, and be mindful of affordability. Climate matters, housing and human services matter, however we all got big tax increases from entities that are supposed to provide these services.
CM Adman made a motion to direct staff to prepare a ballot levy for scenario one, 2026 levy at $.36, six year, permanent levy. Motion passed 5:2 with CM Marshall and CM O’Cain opposed.
MRSC has a good explainer on Levy lid lifts: MRSC - Levy Lid Lifts
