On the heels of the King County Council having trouble finding a tax increase they didn't like last week, some members of the Snohomish County Council seem willing to tread a similar path.
County Executive Aaron Reardon accuses the Council of wanting to raise property taxes by $1.2 million while his own budget calls for a $700,000 decrease. Reardon also objects to the increase at the same time that the Council is voting on a motion to support I-747.
There are a couple issues here. While the macro budget numbers of the tax increases or decreases under debate are not huge, the difference of opinion between a Democratic Executive and a Democratic Council is significant, more so in light of King County's recent actions. All this in a county that passed I-747 with 59% of the vote and just passed I-960 with almost 54% of the vote too.
Second, there are real problems with the relationship between Reardon and Council Chair Dave Gossett. Sometimes people just don't get along; they don't. It doesn't help Gossett very much embraces status quo thinking (in my experience on the Charter Review Commission and in observing the budget process up close) while Reardon prefers to think - even if at a bit of a wonkish level - about how government operations can be performed with more effectiveness and efficiency.
That state of friction is not going to get much better with the election of Mike Cooper creating a 4-1 Democratic majority and a liberal presence on the Council that will pull it farther to the left than Reardon's more centrist aligned tendencies would prefer. Look for a governing majority of Council members Brain Sullivan, Gossett, and John Koster - the sole remaining Republican after the last election - to emerge on contentious issues accordingly.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 18, 2007 08:58 PM | Email ThisIt's true that Reardon wants to decrease the tax rate ever-so-slightly. But it is not true that this represents an actual decrease in property taxes.
Our taxes are, in fact, increasing. A lot.
Posted by: pudge on November 18, 2007 11:20 PMIs the rate increasing or is the amount of money projected to be coming in under a set rate going up under Reardon's budget?
Posted by: Eric Earling on November 19, 2007 07:14 AMThe county road fund levy would be increased using the 101 percent limit factor of I-747, so it would be increased by 1 percent plus the amounts authorized as a result of new construction, etc.
The text of the proposed ordinances is in a 5.4 MB pdf file at the "link to Council introduced 2008 budget ordinances."
What gives? What is Reardon complaining about? Is the text of proposed ordinance 07-130 on the county's web site not what the council will be voting on? Is Reardon objecting to the increase in the road fund?
On a somewhat different topic, someone perhaps should tell the council that there appears to be a "typo" in proposed ordinance 07-130. The intent is apparently to preserve the unused levy authority, that is, the levy dollar amount which could be imposed with the 106 percent or inflation limit factor. But the text says "100" percent twice:
"Section 3. The County's unused general property tax levy capacity for the year
2008, at the lesser of 100% or 100% plus inflation as provided by RCS 84.55.005(2)�,
is reserved for future levy as provided by RCW 84.55.092."
It probably should say "...at the lesser of 106% or 100% plus inflation...."
Posted by: Micajah on November 19, 2007 11:37 AMShe also claims that "Promises made, Promises Kept" on her web site, none of which include having actually got the 1% increase permanent.
So from my standpoint, her "Promises made" are just more Tax "Promises forgotten"
She has got to go!
Posted by: GS on November 19, 2007 04:26 PM