Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Federal Way council advances 0.1% public‑safety sales tax to second reading after long debate
Summary
The council voted 6–1 to forward an ordinance to impose a 0.1% local sales‑and‑use tax for criminal justice and public safety to its April 7 second reading, following hours of public comment and debate about the tax's regressive impact, timing and how the revenue would be used alongside state HB 2015 grant funds.
Federal Way City Council moved forward a proposed ordinance to add a one‑tenth of one percent local sales‑and‑use tax dedicated to criminal justice and public safety to a second reading on April 7, voting 6–1.
The proposed ordinance (Council Bill 934) would raise the city's sales tax rate by $0.10 per $100 of purchases and is authorized under RCW 82.14.345 and related provisions of HB 2015. City Administrator Brian Davis told the council the tax is intended to address mounting public‑safety costs and an estimated near‑term shortfall; he presented forecasts showing public‑safety expenses growing faster than current sales‑tax receipts.
Why it matters: Council members and members of the public framed the decision as a tradeoff between raising dedicated revenue for police, prosecution and related criminal‑justice services and imposing a regressive tax on residents and visitors. Supporters said the tax helps the city remain competitive for officers, sustain services and qualify for a separate state grant pool. Opponents urged delay and asked the city to present more detailed budget tradeoffs before committing to new taxes.
Debate and public comment: Dozens of residents spoke during public comment. Paul McDaniel, a longtime resident, said the city should “wait to collect all the information” before increasing taxes; another resident, Mike Bollich Ziegler, urged immediate action on dangerous intersections but questioned rushing a tax vote. Sarah Lee, a homeowner, warned that surveillance investments such as Flock cameras risk harming immigrant residents and asked that any new revenue fund neighborhood traffic safety, mental‑health programs and schools rather than expand surveillance or automatically raise police budgets.
Council members split over timing and scope. Council Member Hamilton and others emphasized that HB 2015 provides a one‑time $100 million state grant program and that the sales‑tax mechanism provides ongoing local revenue to retain officers and support public‑safety related services the statute allows. Council President Honda said she wanted more public input and a clearer list of what the city would cut if the tax did not pass; she voted against forwarding the ordinance at this meeting.
Police and budget context: Police leadership and finance staff described a roughly $1.5 million shortfall in the current year and told council that, absent new revenue, the department would likely delay hiring or leave some vacant positions unfilled. Police Chief (on record in the meeting) said, “I won't be laying anybody off. I just won't fill positions that become available,” and estimated 8–10 officer hires might be deferred to meet the budget gap.
Next steps: The motion to forward Council Bill 934 to the April 7 council meeting for second reading and enactment passed 6–1. If adopted in April, the Department of Revenue requires notice ahead of the effective date; staff explained the earliest implementation windows are January 1, April 1 or July 1 and noted timing constraints tied to available grant programs.
The council asked staff to produce more detailed budget scenarios showing specific program cuts and alternatives if the tax does not pass, and to continue public outreach ahead of the second reading.
