Spokane Valley council advances 0.1% public-safety sales tax to August ballot after heated public hearing

The Spokane Valley City Council voted to advance an ordinance to the second reading that would place a 0.1% public-safety sales tax on the Aug. 5, 2025, special election ballot.

The tax — an increase from 8.9% to 9.0% local sales tax — would be dedicated to public safety and is estimated in city materials to generate about $2.6 million annually, with roughly half the revenue paid by nonresident shoppers. The ordinance directs that the revenue be used for criminal-justice purposes permitted by statute, including staffing recommended in the city’s recent Matrix Consulting study.

Why it matters: Council and public debate centered on whether the city should ask voters to fund a recommended increase in police and related support staff rather than cutting other services. Proponents, including police leadership, said additional officers would shorten emergency response times, increase proactive patrols and investigation capacity, and reduce officer overtime.

Chief Dave Ellis, Spokane Valley Police Department, summarized the Matrix study at the public hearing and gave staffing details: "The staffing recommendations came back with a recommendation of 25 new dedicated police positions, three shared positions with Spokane County, two civilian positions, and one additional civilian position recommended by staff." Ellis said the city’s calls for service have increased roughly 54% since incorporation and that response times and self‑initiated activity have declined.

Deputy City Manager Eric Lam presented the financial and outreach background, noting the city conducted a two‑month survey in 2024 with 641 respondents and five community meetings. "Eighty‑seven percent of the respondents supported hiring some level of new officers," Lam said. He told council the community most frequently favored a public‑safety sales tax among revenue options presented.

Council discussion and next steps: Councilmembers asked staff about alternatives to a ballot measure, whether internal reductions could pay for the hires and how quickly new hires could be on patrol. Eric Lam and other staff said the city reprioritized funds and funded 12 positions in the 2025 budget without a tax increase, but those one‑time savings and cuts are largely not available again for 2026 recurring costs. Lam said the city would need roughly $2.6 million annually to fund the target staffing level. Bond counsel Deanna Gregory explained the ordinance language and the process for placing a voter pamphlet explanatory statement and pro/con committees.

Councilmember comments reflected the split in the community. Councilmember Yeager defended a citizen vote: "All we're doing is asking the people to make a vote whether or not they like to use 10¢ on every $100 purchase to go towards increasing your safety," she said. Other council members urged additional budgeting work to identify internal cuts before asking voters for new revenue.

Public hearing reaction: The public hearing attracted robust, often sharply divided comment. Supporters said more officers and combined police‑social worker response teams are needed to address crime and homelessness; several residents praised the police department’s recent hiring and the proposed expansion. Critics argued more officers will not address root causes such as housing and behavioral-health needs, questioned the representativeness of the 641‑person survey and urged alternative spending priorities. Several speakers said they feared increased property taxes or argued the city should find internal savings rather than raise new revenues.

Vote and logistics: The council voted to advance the ordinance to a second reading and to uphold the special election calendar so the measure can be placed on the Aug. 5 ballot if council adopts the election ordinance at a later meeting. If approved by voters, the sales tax would be collected by the state and 85% of the receipts would be retained by the city (15% going to the county). Eric Lam said the city’s estimate of per‑household impact is about $28 annually based on current retail and household figures.

What’s next: Council will consider the election ordinance and appointment of pro/con committees at subsequent meetings; staff said the city can appoint pro/con committees and prepare the explanatory statement for the voters’ pamphlet. If the council places the measure on the ballot and voters approve it, the funds would be dedicated to public‑safety uses described in the ordinance and the 2026 budget process would allocate specific positions and programs.