Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenino council weighs changing local gambling tax to boost revenue
Summary
Councilor outlined shifting the city's gambling tax from a 6% net model to a higher net rate or a 5% gross option; estimates presented suggest the change could add several tens of thousands of dollars annually to help address a $1.3 million repayment obligation and public-safety staffing shortfall.
Councilor (speaker 3) urged the Tenino City Council on April 8 to consider changing the city's local gambling tax to raise revenue for public safety and to help repay a $1.3 million sum the city must reimburse. The councilor said the city's current ordinance taxes for-profit pull-tab operations at 6% of net and proposed moving to either the legal maximum of 10% of net or switching to a 5% tax on gross receipts.
The councilor presented rough quarter estimates for a local pull-tab business, saying the Landmark Tavern reported about $200,000 in gross pull-tab receipts in Q4 2024 and paid out roughly $150,000, leaving approximately $50,000 net. At the current 6%-of-net rate, that would generate about $3,000 per quarter or about $12,000 per year for the city; under a 5% gross model on $200,000 the quarter, the same business would generate $10,000 per quarter and potentially raise city revenue from roughly $12,000 to about $40,000 annually, the councilor said. He called those figures "rough numbers" and said he would provide a fuller packet with audited numbers at a future meeting.
Council members discussed collection and reporting issues. The councilor said recent state gambling-commission records showed the city lacked a recent remittance from Landmark Tavern for the last quarter; he said he had spoken informally with the manager and that the receipts might have been routed to the county in error. Staff and other council members agreed to verify payment streams and, if necessary, follow up with invoices to ensure the city receives its share.
No ordinance was voted on April 8. Mayor (unnamed) and staff agreed to return to the topic with a proposal and more detailed numbers at a subsequent meeting so the council could consider legal constraints (for example, whether a rate change can take effect mid-quarter) and collection mechanisms.
"These are not large numbers, to be sure, but it's revenue," the councilor said. "It's a little something I'm willing to do to help out."
