Thurston County assessor presents levy lid‑lift options; $26 million example would add roughly $200/year to median home

Thurston County Assessor Steven Drew and his staff briefed the Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 10 on options for a property tax levy lid lift, including the differences between a single‑year measure and a multiyear permanent measure with a variable limit factor.

Drew and his team told commissioners a single‑year lid lift can appear on any general, primary or special election, while a multiyear permanent lid lift can only be placed on a primary or general election and may include a higher “limit factor” (for example, 4 percent or 6 percent) that the board could apply in later years. The assessor’s office cautioned that any numerical examples use current property values and that final rates would depend on 2027 assessed values if a measure were placed then.

As an illustrative example the assessor offered a multiyear permanent lid lift that would generate about $26 million in additional general‑fund revenue in the first year, increasing the county levy rate by about $0.40 per $1,000 with the current road‑shift in place (about $0.45 per $1,000 without the shift). Using a median home value of $500,000, the office estimated the county portion of property tax on that home would rise by roughly $200 per year under that example; the assessor emphasized this is an illustration, not a proposal, and the final numbers would vary with 2027 values.

Drew’s presentation explained how a higher limit factor can be structured to “bank” unused capacity so the county could apply partial increases in subsequent years without returning to voters annually. Staff also discussed senior/disabled exemptions (which must be specified in the ballot measure if used) and the tradeoffs between running a single‑year versus multiyear measure.

Commissioners asked about legal and practical constraints; one commissioner asked whether the board should adopt a resolution or only a motion. Staff recommended a motion is sufficient for a temporary FY25 posture but that ballot language and legal review would be required for any measure placed before voters. The assessor’s team said they had consulted the Department of Revenue and other technical resources to confirm their interpretations of limit factors and election timetables.

Ending: The presentation put the county’s declining levy rate and choices about road shift and limit factors into context for the board; staff recommended early planning if the board wants a measure on an upcoming ballot so campaign and technical work can proceed with adequate lead time.