By WARREN CORNWALL
Herald Writer
The Snohomish County Council rewrote its budget Wednesday, siding with a veto by County Executive Bob Drewel and endorsing his plan to raise tax collections by $1.3 million to improve roads.
In a scene highlighting the topsy-turvy state of Washington’s tax landscape, council members upheld Drewel’s veto of a plan they had approved 5 to 0 just weeks earlier.
They unanimously voted to raise property tax collections by 6 percent in 2001. The earlier budget called for a 2 percent increase.
The change means a larger tax bill for county residents who live outside cities, where the tax is assessed. It also puts the county at odds with the 2 percent tax limits of Initiative 722, the ballot measure approved by Washington voters in November.
Drewel said the plan was "honoring the spirit" of the initiative by encouraging citizens to comment on taxes, while at the same time raising money needed to help unclog the county’s roads.
"Such a critical need exists for roads, and roads are such a high priority for our citizens that we must take a different course," Drewel told the council before the vote.
Initiative sponsor Tim Eyman of Mukilteo, however, has criticized Drewel for disregarding the initiative’s limits.
He has claimed Drewel’s move represents a "father knows best" attitude, given that nearly 60 percent of Snohomish County voters endorsed the measure.
Eyman could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
The initiative would keep property tax collections from increasing more than 2 percent per year. Its passage has set governments scrambling to block it or adjust to its fiscal limits. It has been tied up by legal challenges from a number of cities and counties. Snohomish County is considering joining the suit against the initiative.
The new tax increase means the owner of a $200,000 home would pay roughly $16 more in 2001 than if the county had stuck to a 2 percent increase, according to county budget officials. It’s hard to say how much an individual homeowner will pay compared with 2000 because the county Assessor’s Office has yet to calculate the 2001 property tax rates.
That is a small price compared with the harm the county would suffer by not funding needed road projects, county public works director Peter Hahn said.
Holding to 2 percent for just one year could cost the county $13 million in the long run, because it would lower the starting point each year for calculating taxes, he said. Remaining at 2 percent over six years could strip $88 million from a $283 million spending plan, he said.
The loudest opposition came from growth-control activists, who said taxpayers are unfairly bearing the cost of congestion caused by growth.
Lake Stevens resident Jody McVittie urged the council to hold off on the tax increase. They should wait to raise fees charged to developers to help offset the costs of traffic drawn by new subdivisions, she said.
Those charges have not been raised since 1995, while the county has raised the road portion of property tax collections by 6 percent each year since then, she said.
"People feel like we are paying for growth," she said.
Drewel’s plan drew support from a number of business and education officials.
Dick Bennett, former president of the Snohomish County Committee for Improved Transportation, said the funding would be critical to keeping traffic moving for residents and businesses.
The committee is made up largely of county businesses. Bennett is director of marketing and business development for Perteet Engineering, a civil and transportation engineering firm.
Residents in central, east and north Snohomish County will bear most of the cost increase, because the tax doesn’t apply to people living in cities.
That posed more difficulties for council members representing those regions, all of them with seats up for election in 2001. Councilman Dave Somers, whose area includes much of east county, cast the sole vote challenging Drewel’s veto.
However, he joined the rest of the council in supporting the executive’s counterproposal.
"When that failed, I could see where we were headed and decided to change," he said.
Somers said he was concerned about the tax increase in light of I-722 and lagging development fees.
Those worries were overcome by the pressing road construction needs, Somers said. He also predicted his support could help speed passage of changes in the fees for developers, which the executive is expected to propose in January.
Council chairwoman Barbara Cothern, whose district lies in south-central Snohomish County, said the need for dealing with transportation problems was greater than the political risks.
"It’s the costs of not doing it that weigh on my mind," she said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
