Thurston County Commissioners express interest in exploring general fund levy lid lift to increase revenue

The Thurston County Board of Commissioners has directed county staff to explore a general fund levy lid lift, among other options, to potentially bring in additional revenue as the county faces significant drops in its general fund balance in the coming years.

County commissioners and budget staff met Wednesday, Aug. 6, during a board work session for the fifth budget discussion of 2025, with their meeting hyper-focused on finalizing research-based revenue options and the additional revenue they could generate.

A general fund levy lid lift would not be a new tax; it increases existing current expense levy property tax above the statutory 1% increase limit. The board would have a choice of a single-year lid lift that exceeds the 1% annual lid or a multi-year lid lift that exceeds the 1% annual lid for up to six years.

The current rate the county collects in expense levy property taxes is 82 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value, bringing in $52.7 million a year. Summer Miller, county budget and fiscal manager, told the commissioners that the maximum rate of collection the board could choose would be $1.80 per $1,000 of assessed value, which would rake in $115.3 million in a year.

While the rate at which to lift the levy lid is given by board authority, the lid lift itself would be voter approved by a simple majority.

The board can also choose between a temporary levy lid lift, which would increase the rate by up to 1% for the specific number of years and then revert back to the original rate, or a permanent lift to reset the levy amount.

“If you choose to do a multi-year, six-year permanent option, the first year of collection, let’s just say is $1.28 [per $1,000], we may have assessed valuations that are fluctuating over the six-year period,” Miller said. “The rate of collection may go up and may go down, and, in year six, we may be at $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed valuation collection. That is the figure that will be used to calculate all of your future 1% levy caps. From past experience, I would say the most ideal option is to do a multi-year permanent lid lift.”

Leonard Hernandez, county manager, told the commissioners that the rate at which the board chooses to increase the levy lid is vital so that the county doesn’t “shoot itself in the foot” based on the changing dynamics of the economy and collect less money than anticipated.

Other presented revenue options include a gambling tax on punch boards and pull tabs; a Transportation Benefit District sales tax, which could also include a non-voted vehicle license fee up to $50; a Cultural Access Program (CAP) sales tax; a House Bill 2015 public safety sales and use tax; and a Real Estate Excise Tax.

Commissioner Carolina Mejia told staff that she believes the county must go to the voters for the general fund levy lid lift to address its general fund forecast, which could see the fund balance in the negative by 2027 if it continues its current revenue and expense rates.

“Where we are right now and where we’re going in the future, I think the levy lift is something I would like to continue to discuss and to have conversations with staff [about],” Mejia said. “I also think it’s very important to have a meeting with all of our elected officials about this. That would be a great way for the assessor to present the information to all the electeds because they’ll have a voice in this discussion. …The more we’re looking toward the future and really stabilizing our budget and providing that safety for our staff at the county and the services that we provide to the public, I think that the only real way to do that moving forward is with a general fund levy lid lift.”

Vice Chair Wayne Fournier responded by saying that the county can’t just choose one option and that “there’s no magic wand on any of this” in terms of fixing its fund balance. He expressed interest in pursuing the House Bill 2015 tax for public safety, the CAP sales tax and the tax on gambling, along with the levy lid lift.

“It’s a small win, but it gets us a little something to help. It has restrictions, but it has restrictions to be able to put money where we need things,” Fournier said. “I’d be interested in continuing discussion about the levy lid lift. I’m skeptical that the voters would have an appetite for that kind of thing, but I don’t want to stand in the way of it. That is the only real way that we have to try to fix our structural deficit.”

Mejia said it’s not realistic for the county to pass revenue options and then ask the voters for a general fund levy lid lift.

“If we want to be really serious and we’re going to move forward with something, I think we just have to focus on one thing,” she said.

“That doesn’t mean we can’t plan for, if it fails, having some options on how we can make up ground.”

Fournier said the county putting all of its eggs in one basket, referring to the levy lid lift, is “dangerous.”

Chair Tye Menser and Commissioner Emily Clouse both expressed interest in the HB 2015 tax and the levy lid lift.

Hernandez told the board that the county will be sending departments the “targets to reduce down for a balanced budget” for 2026-27 in the next few weeks and that “that’s going to be a significant amount of cuts.” He said the revenue options presented during the meeting could offset those reductions if they pass through both the board and voters, but timelines would be crucial leading up to the budget adoption process.

A single-year levy lid lift measure could be placed on any special, primary or general election, with the soonest election being the Feb. 10, 2026 special election. County staff would have until Dec. 12 to file a resolution for that election. A multi-year levy lid lift, however, may only be placed on the ballot for primary or general elections, with the next primary scheduled for Aug. 4, 2026.