Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Utility Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter flags 1997 utility‑tax allocation in Olympia budget; staff say calculation follows ordinance and past practice
Summary
At the Nov. 19 Finance Committee meeting, resident Jim Lazard said a 1997 half‑percent utility‑tax increase was wrongly included in the city’s general‑use calculation in the draft budget; city finance staff reviewed the claim and said the half‑percent has historically been treated as part of the 11% ILA calculation and is shown more transparently in the current draft.
At the Nov. 19 meeting of the Olympia City Council Finance Committee, resident Jim Lazard said he had corresponded with staff and identified an apparent error on page 22 of the draft 2026 budget involving a 1997 utility‑tax increase.
"I am here for public comment," Lazard said, and explained that the 1997 increase — a half‑percent added at that time — has historically been dedicated to parks maintenance and related projects and, he said, should be appropriated to parks maintenance rather than counted as part of the general‑use portion subject to the interlocal 11% calculation.
Finance director Mike Gethins responded that staff had reviewed the calculation and the formula "and this is how it's been calculated and applied going back" and that they had not deviated from long‑standing practice. Joan Lutz, senior budget and finance manager, cited Ordinance 5753 (effective 01/01/1998) and the 2015 interlocal agreement (ILA) worksheet and addendum, saying the half‑percent has been used for parks, open spaces and bike‑lane construction and maintenance and that the current draft budget is more transparent by showing the calculation rather than rolling it into a single number.
"It has been my understanding that we can utilize that half‑percent for new parks, open space facilities, and bike lane construction," Lutz said, summarizing the ordinance language and the historical worksheet her office reviewed.
Committee members asked staff whether the budget document could show the calculation more clearly; Joan said the difference stems from the budget now displaying the calculation rather than rolling it into a single line item. Council members asked city management to double‑check the claim as a routine check‑and‑balance; staff said they had already reviewed the matter and the ILA worksheet supports the current interpretation.
The committee did not take formal action on the public comment itself; members asked staff to ensure the budget language and schedules are clear before final adoption. The public comment and the staff response are recorded in the meeting record for follow‑up before the council’s final budget consideration.
