Tumwater City Council voted 5-1 to adopt an ordinance increasing the city’s utility tax from 6% to 12%.
Finance Director Troy Niemeyer, who briefed the council on the ordinance before they voted, explained that the increase would generate revenue for the city’s general fund.
“This money is unrestricted, meaning it can pay for any general government general fund type, service, supplies, professional services, salary and benefits,” Niemeyer said.
The increased utility tax would generate an additional $617,000 a year or $1.2 million for the 2025-2026 biennial budget, which will help the city counter its budget deficit.
The city’s proposed 2025-2026 budget currently has a deficit of $5 million, down from $6.8 million when city staff updated the council two weeks ago.
Niemeyer said that the utility tax is added to water, sewer, and stormwater fees, and applies to residential and commercial users, as well as manufacturers in the city.
The increase is on top of the annual increase in utility rates, which the council approved on November 4 as part of the city’s 2025 fee schedule.
Sample calculations prepared by Niemeyer demonstrate that an average residential utility bill would increase by $8 due to the increased tax, but this excludes the impact of the increase to the base cost of the utility rates.
If the increased tax and increased rates were combined, Niemeyer’s sample calculation shows that an average utility bill could increase by $14.5.
Councilmember Joan Cathey, who was the only council member to vote against the ordinance, held that the city could find a different way to earn the $1.2 million that the city would get by increasing the utility tax.
“I think $1.2 million in a huge budget like this could be found somewhere else,” Cathey said.
“Eight dollars doesn't sound like much because it's sounding like that to us as council members who aren't at the bottom levels of trying to make it every month,” the council member added.
Before making the motion to adopt the ordinance, Councilmember Michael Althauser commented that no one is treating the $8 as a small amount.
“But looking at the budget, there sort of seems to be some sort of main cost drivers where if we don't do this, I figure it probably either means we won't be able to do police body cams… We wouldn't be able to do increases for unrepresented staff… Or we would have to do layoffs like the city of Olympia is doing,” Althauser said.
“I think that we do need to raise revenue, and I do think that this actually is probably the best resource by which we can do it to meet our obligations,” the councilmember added.
Niemeyer highlighted that the city offers programs to help people in need pay for utility bills.
The city has a utility hardship program that people within certain income limits can use once a year.
Tumwater also has a lifeline program that offers 50% reductions in utility bills for low-income seniors and residents with disabilities.
While 110 participants utilize the latter program, the utility hardship program is underutilized, with only two people using it a year. Niemeyer said they are working with the city’s communications team to promote the program further.
Councilmember Angela Jefferson held that the program has “failed” if there are only two people in it. She suggested including information about the program on utility bills so that people can learn more about it.
Mayor Debbie Sullivan commented that the Community Action Council of Lewis, Mason, and Thurston previously managed the program. She said that the city has recently taken control of it again and hopes that they can improve it moving forward.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
C K
Seriously? when will we reign in government spending and hold these so-called-public-servants accountable for how they spend/waste our hard-earned income? enough is enough. STOP raising taxes/extortion money and dreaming up more ways to take money from citizens.
Thursday, November 21 Report this
Southsoundguy
Just buy bitcoin and sell bitcoin bonds. Stop taxing us!
Friday, November 22 Report this
PamelaJHanson
This tax increase goes into the general fund and cannot be tracked. The tax increase should stay in the utility tax/fund category to be tracked for its expenditures. The city only justified the utility tax increase - for the general fund - because of the deficit in the required balanced budget.
Chart of Accounts: 1) In typed form it looks “similar to” a numbered indented list (1. A. 2. A, B, etc.), 2) It “identifies” the fund, categories and sub categories (street name & building lease = 340 into data entry & budget document), 3) It “defines” the fund, categories and sub categories, 4) It is linked to federal and state grants, income, rules and laws, etc. by its coding (for data entry & the budget document), 5) The coding can be a string of more than four data entry codes so that receivables, payables, payroll, insurance, etc. can be debited and credited to the correct fund, category and/or sub category.
A "Balanced Budget" should include the above detail. The "Chart of Accounts" is the master "Table of Contents" in budgeting, spending, and all financial allocation transactions. Yes, this was another Government Accounting 101 lecture from me (facebook). What are my credentials? For "years" I was a direct report to the Comptroller of the Washington State Department of Revenue. The following “years” I had my own budget in the Property Tax Division. Tumwater overspends, over taxes, and needs to be stopped. The front line employees are not the target of my, and hopefully your, tax complaints.
The overspending, budgeting, and tax increases are the direct responsibility of the electeds. The budget documents provided to the public and to the City Council at the meeting I attended - was inadequate. There is not adequate transparency in the budget. The loan from the transportation fund for the old brewhouse? I have no clue if it was paid back, but it is on my list. If it has been paid off, did it come from the general fund?
I didn't attend this meeting. I did not support the increase last meeting during public comment.
Friday, November 22 Report this
Juno1439
Thank you Councilwoman Cathey for voting against this ridiculous egregious tax increase. I struggle now as it is, budgeting every nickel and dime. I think the council needs to relook at the budget again and find the money somewhere else. How can you all honestly agree to this increase without looking at the effect on your citizens. We are all financially struggling! As for the so-called funds and programs available, I don't qualify because I make just a little more than the income allowed. What do I and others like me do! Perhaps you could stop giving tax breaks to all the builders coming--not paying taxes for up to 12 years! That break comes on the backs of your taxpayers!
Friday, November 22 Report this
bhalverson
Tumwater is just the first to vote for approval of increased fees/taxes to support their budget. Olympia, Port of Olympia and Thurston County are looking at similar increases in fees and taxes. Most of our local elected officials voted for their respective jurisdictions to pass a motion to fund the Deschutes Estuary Restoration Project Interlocal Agreement (ILA). This ILA agreement does not fund the estuary restoration at all. It funds the maintenance dredging of the West Bay and more specifically the access area to the private marinas and yacht club in West Bay. Each local jurisdiction agreed to pay over $15 million or more into this fund by signing this ILA. They did this knowing they had current budget deficits in the millions of dollars and knowing that their financial outlook for many years ahead would not help them balance those budgets. I testified at a Tumwater City Council meeting over a month ago against signing this ILA, before they voted to pass it. They are not listening and digging a bigger and bigger hole that we will all end up paying for. This is just the first of many fee/tax increases to come unless our elected leaders start saying, "NO" to absurd special interest group requests. All of them need to get back to the basics.
Saturday, November 23 Report this
MrCommonSense
A 100% increase in the tax rate? All these utility and tax increased have a direct impact on the affordability of housing. All renters will see their rents rise. And homeowners already saddled with high property taxes and dramatic increases in insurance costs will be forced to absorb this increase. And the city is adding to the overall inflation rate, too. Let me see, rent, food, school clothes for the kids, gas, oh, I forgot, another $15 for city utilities in hidden taxes; not for the actual cost of the utilities...........hmnmmmmm
It is difficult to balance a city budget, but it's not always about finding new sources of revenue. It's about looking at all programs and expenses, too.
Monday, November 25 Report this
Dogmom
I totally agree with all the comments. Enough is enough. Where are the supposed govt watchdogs or auditors that get paid big bucks to audit. It's way past time for the whole bunch of elected officials & unelected officials to start working for the average cirizen. How much more in fees & taxes do you think we can handle. Start living with the original budgets you were given. County Commisioners & all other officials do not deserve a 6%+ raise until they all start doing their jobs. Why is it the only thing they are good at is finding ways to suck us dry even more. If a person qualifies for a senior low income break on property taxes, then the cities should follow suit.
Tuesday, December 3 Report this