Local

Unnecessary Property Tax Increase Is a Very Bad Idea                                                                        

                                                                                   By Barbara Brenner

 

The Whatcom County Council majority recently passed an unnecessary property tax increase that will add to residents’ economic burdens. It was “not much money” according to several county council members who passed a 31% increase in the flood tax. The Flood Tax is a property tax because it is based upon your property tax assessment. Some targeted projects were valid but the tax increase was not necessary!

 

We have many millions of dollars left in our county’s general fund, our REET II Fund (an existing sales tax), and other county funds. We already have much more than needed to provide the extra $1M dollars necessary for an individual council member’s “wish list”, which was claimed to be the reason to raise the Flood Tax. We continue to collect money in these funds each year without any tax increase.

 

One council member who voted for the tax increase was optimistic our economy would soon turn around. However, our current economic downturn is a very good reason to hold the line on taxes at least until the economy improves, especially since we already have much more than the amount of the tax increase within our existing funds. Another council member who supported the tax increase asked, “If not now, when?” That is the wrong question. We already have more than adequate funds to cover the $1M dollar “wish list” now. The question is “how”. “How” is by using existing funds. We could also eliminate more non-essential budget fillers if we want to be really bold.

 

The council member who proposed this tax increase claimed our REET II fund could not be used for some of the flood and storm water reduction projects he wanted funded. But state law clearly allows REET II funds to be used for “river and/or waterway flood control projects” and “storm and sanitary sewer systems”. Allowed uses are broadly defined and include planning in addition to projects. All planning and projects in the “wish list” proposed for the tax increase are related to flood and storm water reduction. At the very least, our REET II funds could have easily offset our existing flood tax to prevent this tax increase that was approved without even a clear budget regarding when, where, and how the money will be spent.

 

Figuring out the most cost-effective ways to provide flood and storm water reduction takes some thought. The “wish list” was presented to council members less than one day before the vote. It’s likely we can do even more flood and storm water reduction projects without a tax increase by making better use of our existing funds.

 

This is not a question of those who care about flood and storm water reduction verses those who don’t. Unfortunately most debates get framed that way. We should care about reducing flooding and storm water and about preventing unnecessary tax increases at the same time. In addition to having adequate funds without a tax increase, there were numerous non-essential expenditures in this budget that were recommended by the administration and easily passed by the council majority.

 

Separate categories of property taxes, such as the flood tax, are used to justify that “it’s only a little here” and “just a little there”. But that is smoke and mirrors. It’s difficult to determine which dollar is the one that pushes someone over the financial edge. But it’s easy to understand that raising property taxes in an extremely bad economy, or any other time when government already has the money, is a very bad idea.

 

This tax increase is on top of many new and increased fees the council majority passed at the same meeting so it’s even more difficult to determine which cost will financially break the taxpayer’s back. Some of these new and increased fees will encourage government inefficiencies and discriminations. Some will actually punish those who play by the rules.

 

We can force government to be more careful how our dollars are spent only if taxpayers look beyond the phony “good versus evil” debates into the details of our county budget.