Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After extended debate, Lynnwood adopts $7.2M levy, salary ordinance and a two-year budget that trims some requested positions
Summary
Following hours of debate and several failed amendments, the City Council adopted an estimated $7,200,001 property tax levy and approved a salary ordinance and a 2025–26 biennial budget that reflects a reduction from 13 to 10 additional positions; final budget approval passed after a reconsideration motion.
Finance Director Gregory Myers presented two primary options for the 2025 levy and budget: Option 1 (an estimated levy of $6.2 million reflecting the preliminary budget) and Option 2 (an estimated levy of $7.4 million that would fund up to 13 additional positions, mostly tied to public safety and the Community Justice Center). "Option 1 really is the preliminary budget as presented," Myers told the council. "Option 2 is the inclusion of these additional 13 positions."
Councilmembers debated whether to raise the levy, reduce expenditures, or adopt a middle path. Several members urged caution about significant tax increases and pressed for expenditure reductions; others argued the city needed permanent funding to maintain service levels and to staff the Community Justice Center and public safety operations. Councilmember Marshall and others proposed higher levy amendments that failed on roll call.
After discussion, council members proposed trimming the additional positions from 13 to 10, which Finance Director Myers said would lower the annual impact by roughly $199,250 (a rounded staff figure provided in the packet) and reduce the monthly average household increase by about $1. Multiple amendment votes failed, and a motion to set an estimated regular property tax levy of $7,200,001 ultimately passed (roll call result recorded in the meeting). The council then considered the general salary ordinance (Ordinance 3470), which covers roughly 98 regular employees; that ordinance passed unanimously.
The council next addressed and adopted the two-year biennial budget (Ordinance 3471) as amended to reflect the adjusted general fund numbers tied to the 10 additional positions; the final budget motion carried after a successful reconsideration and recorded votes. During debate, councilmembers also proposed adding a government-efficiency study to identify potential savings; the council discussed scope and timing but moved ahead with the adopted budget.
Council members emphasized the trade-offs between maintaining service levels—particularly public safety and Community Justice Center staffing—and the tax burden on residents. Staff said continuing review of staffing and a scheduled follow-up were possible as part of implementation.
