Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public voices split on proposed 0.1% public-safety sales tax; council continues review
Summary
Dozens of speakers and hundreds of written comments surfaced during community forum as residents weighed a proposed 0.1% sales-tax ordinance for public-safety/justice services. The council continued consideration and scheduled additional public comment for Feb. 18 at a Committee of the Whole meeting.
During community forum at the Feb. 10 Pierce County Council meeting, multiple residents expressed strong opposition to a proposed ordinance referenced in public remarks (spoken as ordinance 2026-501) that would raise local sales taxes to fund public-safety or justice-related services.
Ken Paulson, speaking in chambers, said he had reviewed roughly 475 written comments on the measure and read representative objections: "I cannot afford to pay more taxes," he said, and urged the council to reject the proposal. Other in-chambers speakers echoed opposition, arguing higher sales taxes would hurt families and local businesses.
Some commenters supported the measure. Laurie Lee, who said she served in the Army and received immersive culture training in Japan, told the council she "completely agree[d] with the 1 tenth of 1% because that's what was voted on in HB 2015," and said the tax would fund law enforcement and court-related services.
Online commenters also used the community-forum time to connect the proclamation to contemporary concerns. A social-worker commenter urged comprehensive school-safety measures that include mental-health professionals and crisis counseling, saying physical security alone is insufficient.
Chair and staff noted the ordinance has generated significant attention; the council is continuing the item. The chair said the Committee of the Whole would revisit the proposed sales-tax ordinance at a Feb. 18 COW meeting at 9:30 a.m. to allow additional public comment and further deliberation.
The meeting record shows the council did not act on the ordinance on Feb. 10; rather, members scheduled continued review and further opportunity for public input.
