EVERETT — A phantom courthouse will loom over Snohomish County Council members when they try to pass a new budget Monday.
Plans for an eight-story replacement courthouse died over the summer, a week before crews were supposed to break ground. The question now is what to do with the stream of taxes collected for a project that fell apart for political and financial reasons.
The 2016 budget Executive John Lovick proposed at the end of September would cut $4 million in annual taxes that were to be used to pay down courthouse construction bonds. Lovick sought an early exit from bond obligations, keeping a small stream of money for emergency fixes at the current 1967-vintage courthouse.
An amended budget that Council Chairman Dave Somers released last week includes no such tax cut. The old courthouse still needs to be replaced, Somers reasons, so it makes no sense to eliminate the funding before deciding on a plan.
“I propose coming back the first quarter of 2016 and having discussions with the council in regards to the options that we have for the courthouse project,” he said. “In the meantime, we set aside the dollars we have raised for that project, pending a decision by the council.”
Somers won the executive’s job when he challenged Lovick in the Nov. 3 election and is set to change roles next year.
All five council members are scheduled to vote on the courthouse tax cut, and other questions, at Monday’s 10:30 a.m. budget hearing.
There’s bound to be disagreement.
Councilman Brian Sullivan, like Somers, thinks it’s imperative to replace the old courthouse. He sees that happening on a longer time frame and favors Lovick’s idea of retiring — in financial terms “defeasing” — most of the $75 million courthouse bonds the county took out in 2013.
“There’s no way to move forward, from all the numbers I’ve seen,” Sullivan said. “It’s my express hope that all branches of government work together to solve this problem.”
Sullivan also wants voters to approve future tax hikes to pay for the courthouse.
If Lovick’s tax cut doesn’t materialize, Sullivan said he’ll push to freeze that money in a special account.
Taxes for the courthouse project are the most obvious difference between the competing versions of the budget, but hardly the only one.
Somers recommends spending slightly more than Lovick, about $230 million versus $228 million. Both versions would fund about 2,800 employees.
Neither leader is seeking a 1 percent property-tax hike for the county’s general levy. Many cities and other local governments include a 1 percent increase in their annual budget as a matter of course.
Somers does recommend a 1 percent increase to road and conservation futures levies, which Lovick advised keeping at 2015 levels.
Somers’ budget would raise an extra $575,000 for road projects in 2016. The 1 percent increase would cost an extra $4.53 per year for the owner of a house assessed at $307,100, the average assessed value for unincorporated areas. The roads levy applies only to unincorporated areas.
A 1 percent increase in the conservation futures levy would cost an extra 27 cents per year for the owner of a home assessed at the countywide average of $300,000. That levy is collected countywide to buy future park land and open space.
Lovick sought to use more than $5 million in road-levy money to support sheriff’s office traffic enforcement activities. Somers proposes reducing that amount by more than $800,000, but making up the difference through other sources.
Somers’ budget would follow Lovick’s recommendation of directing $400,000 toward First Steps, a social services program for young mothers.
Both plans aim to strengthen the county’s budget reserves, Somers’ at a faster rate, reaching 11 percent by next year. Strong reserves help maintain cash flow and a healthy bond rating.
Noah Haglund: 425-339-3465; nhaglund@heraldnet.com. Twitter: @NWhaglund.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
