Committee approves forwarding APHIS fingerprint levy to April ballot
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Council Member Girmay Zahilay, chair of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee, led the committee Jan. 8 in forwarding proposed ordinance 2024-0402 to place a seven-year APHIS property-tax levy on the April 2025 special election ballot. The committee voted 5-0, with one member excused, and gave the ordinance a due-pass recommendation to the Regional Policy Committee and the full Council.
The proposed levy would start at 2.75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Staff estimated the levy would generate roughly $25.3 million in its first year and about $188.8 million over the seven-year period. The county estimates the levy's impact on property taxes for a home valued at $875,000 would be about $24.06 in 2026.
Sam Porter, council legislative staff, told the committee the levy would fund the APHIS program as currently structured, supporting software, hardware, operations and maintenance, staffing, training, supplies and equipment. "The proposed 7-year levy would have a starting rate of 2.75 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value," Porter said during the briefing. Staff described the proposal as status quo rather than funding new program expansions.
Erica, a council economic/financial staff member, summarized operational elements funded by the levy: approximately 56 live-scan capture stations, two mobile identification devices for officers in the field, and staffing across identification and forensics units. The APHIS-funded positions include ID technicians, 10 print examiners, information specialists, processing technicians, latent print examiners and record specialists who process crime-scene evidence and verify identities.
KCSO representatives joined the briefing to respond to technical questions. Mike Leahy, regional APHIS manager for the King County Sheriff's Office, said the 2024 levy rate was 2.9 cents per $1,000 and told the committee homeowners would see "very little" change year-to-year under the proposed rate.
Staff noted projected costs to maintain operations across the levy period of about $194 million, producing a projected seven-year shortfall of about $5 million. That shortfall is expected to be covered by the fund's existing undesignated balance, which staff estimate at roughly $10 million now and about $5 million at the end of the levy term. Staff signaled the levy would need reauthorization in 2032 to continue funding.
The ordinance allows levy revenue to pay costs attributable to placing the measure on the ballot. Staff provided estimates for election costs that would be charged to the APHIS fund if the county places the measure on the April ballot (higher per-fund cost) versus August or November ballots (lower per-fund cost and more opportunities to split county charges with other measures). If the levy is not renewed, staff confirmed the APHIS fund would still be responsible for any election costs it incurred in placing measures on the ballot.
Committee members asked staff to make homeowner impacts clearer in future reports. Council Member Andrew (Perry) suggested staff add two lines to summary tables to show the year-over-year difference in rate and the dollar change for an $800,000 home so constituents can more readily see the consumer impact.
The committee considered three amendments: a technical language fix clarifying the prior levy's expiration date (Amendment 1), a policy amendment broadening the election-cost eligibility language to apply to "APHIS levy elections" (Amendment 2), and a title amendment inserting a missing word (T1). Each amendment was moved and carried by voice vote. The ordinance as amended passed on a 5-0 roll call with one member excused; the committee issued a due-pass recommendation and the ordinance will next go to the Regional Policy Committee and the full Council for final action.
By approving the ordinance the committee did not set the ballot outcome; voter approval will be required for the levy to take effect. The committee record and staff packet contain tables with detailed rate and fiscal projections, and staff indicated they can provide clearer year-over-year homeowner impact lines in future briefings upon the committee's request.
The proposed levy would start at 2.75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. Staff estimated the levy would generate roughly $25.3 million in its first year and about $188.8 million over the seven-year period. The county estimates the levy's impact on property taxes for a home valued at $875,000 would be about $24.06 in 2026.
Sam Porter, council legislative staff, told the committee the levy would fund the APHIS program as currently structured, supporting software, hardware, operations and maintenance, staffing, training, supplies and equipment. "The proposed 7-year levy would have a starting rate of 2.75 cents per thousand dollars of assessed value," Porter said during the briefing. Staff described the proposal as status quo rather than funding new program expansions.
Erica, a council economic/financial staff member, summarized operational elements funded by the levy: approximately 56 live-scan capture stations, two mobile identification devices for officers in the field, and staffing across identification and forensics units. The APHIS-funded positions include ID technicians, 10 print examiners, information specialists, processing technicians, latent print examiners and record specialists who process crime-scene evidence and verify identities.
KCSO representatives joined the briefing to respond to technical questions. Mike Leahy, regional APHIS manager for the King County Sheriff's Office, said the 2024 levy rate was 2.9 cents per $1,000 and told the committee homeowners would see "very little" change year-to-year under the proposed rate.
Staff noted projected costs to maintain operations across the levy period of about $194 million, producing a projected seven-year shortfall of about $5 million. That shortfall is expected to be covered by the fund's existing undesignated balance, which staff estimate at roughly $10 million now and about $5 million at the end of the levy term. Staff signaled the levy would need reauthorization in 2032 to continue funding.
The ordinance allows levy revenue to pay costs attributable to placing the measure on the ballot. Staff provided estimates for election costs that would be charged to the APHIS fund if the county places the measure on the April ballot (higher per-fund cost) versus August or November ballots (lower per-fund cost and more opportunities to split county charges with other measures). If the levy is not renewed, staff confirmed the APHIS fund would still be responsible for any election costs it incurred in placing measures on the ballot.
Committee members asked staff to make homeowner impacts clearer in future reports. Council Member Andrew (Perry) suggested staff add two lines to summary tables to show the year-over-year difference in rate and the dollar change for an $800,000 home so constituents can more readily see the consumer impact.
The committee considered three amendments: a technical language fix clarifying the prior levy's expiration date (Amendment 1), a policy amendment broadening the election-cost eligibility language to apply to "APHIS levy elections" (Amendment 2), and a title amendment inserting a missing word (T1). Each amendment was moved and carried by voice vote. The ordinance as amended passed on a 5-0 roll call with one member excused; the committee issued a due-pass recommendation and the ordinance will next go to the Regional Policy Committee and the full Council for final action.
By approving the ordinance the committee did not set the ballot outcome; voter approval will be required for the levy to take effect. The committee record and staff packet contain tables with detailed rate and fiscal projections, and staff indicated they can provide clearer year-over-year homeowner impact lines in future briefings upon the committee's request.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting