Thurston County weighs multiple revenue options; commissioners direct staff to explore levy lid lift and public‑safety sales tax

Thurston County budget and finance staff on Aug. 6 presented a menu of potential revenue options to help close projected budget gaps, including councilmanic options and voter‑approved measures. The board asked staff to provide more analysis and agreed to move forward with exploratory work on two priorities: a general‑fund levy lid lift and House Bill 2015 (a public-safety sales tax option), while keeping other councilmanic options under consideration.

Summer Miller, budget and finance manager, led the presentation and reviewed each option’s statutory limits, estimated revenue ranges and timing considerations. Staff emphasized the estimates are preliminary and are being refined as additional research and legal review continue.

Highlights of revenue options discussed (all figures presented by staff as estimates)

- Gambling tax (pull tabs, punch boards): Councilmanic option for unincorporated areas; estimated annual revenue roughly $630,000–$660,000; revenue must be used for public safety.

- Transportation Benefit District (TBD) sales tax (councilmanic, 0.1%): If established countywide, estimated annual revenue roughly $830,000–$1,000,000; must be used for transportation projects; staff are researching jurisdictional boundary questions (cities with existing TBDs may be excluded).

- TBD vehicle license fee (nonvoted, up to $50): Paid by county residents who own vehicles; estimated revenue $1.8 million–$4.7 million depending on fee level and phase‑in.

- Cultural Access Program (CAP) sales tax (up to 0.1% councilmanic; up to 0.3% with voter approval): Staff estimated a 0.1% CAP could generate about $7.5 million countywide; after accounting for the City of Olympia’s portion that staff removed from the county estimate, the local estimate presented was about $4.4 million. Revenues may be used for startup, administrative and program costs for qualified nonprofit cultural organizations; staff are awaiting additional legal guidance on allowable uses.

- House Bill 2015 (improving public safety): A tenth‑of‑a‑percent sales tax authorized under state law for public‑safety and behavioral‑health services. Staff presented an approximate revenue estimate of $7.5 million and noted that the state grant component (administered by the Criminal Justice Training Commission) is still pending guidance and that local jurisdictions must meet application requirements to qualify for grant match funding.

- Real estate excise tax for conservation areas: Voter‑approved real estate excise tax options were estimated to yield roughly $3 million–$12 million annually depending on rate (0.25%–1.0% tried in modeling). Statute restricts use to acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas.

- General‑fund levy lid lift (property tax): Staff outlined single‑year, multiyear (up to six years) and permanent options and offered illustrative scenarios on revenue outcomes. In one illustrative scenario staff used in discussion, a levy lift produced an increase in property tax collections of roughly $34 million (presented as an example; staff said any specific rate would require detailed modeling by the assessor and a formal outreach plan).

Board direction and next steps

Commissioners discussed tradeoffs: councilmanic actions are easier to adopt but limited in scope and restricted by statute; voter‑approved measures can raise larger sums but require public campaigns and carry timing risks. After discussion the board asked staff to:

- Proceed with deeper analysis of House Bill 2015 (public-safety sales tax) including CJTC requirements and grant match implications. - Explore the levy lid lift mechanics and outreach needs, and convene a meeting of elected officials (and invited appointed department directors) so all impacted offices review scenarios and messaging. - Continue gathering legal detail and revenue modeling on other councilmanic options (TBD, vehicle license fee, CAP sales tax, gambling tax and real estate excise tax) so commissioners can decide which measures to formally queue for future decisions.

Staff cautioned that some revenues (sales taxes) will not generate immediate cash for operations because of statutory start‑date constraints and Department of Revenue processing timelines. Commissioners asked staff to present case examples from neighboring jurisdictions and provide clearer “medium‑household” dollar impacts for any lid lift scenarios.

No binding ballot decisions were made at the meeting; the board’s direction was to develop analyses and outreach plans for the items identified above so the board can consider formal action in future meetings.