Kenmore council directs staff to prepare 2026 levy lid lift to shore up budget

Kenmore’s City Council voted 5–2 on a direction to staff to prepare a November 2026 levy lid lift that would raise 36 cents per $1,000 of assessed value for six years and be permanent if approved by voters.

City Manager Terry Kilgore opened the study session by framing the fiscal challenge: Kenmore’s updated financial forecast shows the city would begin drawing on reserves in 2028–29 without new revenue. “This evening we are continuing our discussion of a potential revenue measure … needed to address the structural deficit in our budget,” Kilgore said, noting that if the council gives direction staff could return as early as June 8 but no later than June 29 to meet King County’s August 4 filing deadline for a November 2026 ballot.

Administrative Services Director Melinda Morurell walked council through options and scenarios. She said the city remains eligible for a 0.1 percent public‑safety sales tax previously modeled as a transportation tax, and presented three property‑tax levy scenarios: a 36¢ levy that makes currently one‑time special projects permanent and addresses the structural gap through roughly 2032; a 24¢ levy focused on enhanced projects at current levels; and a smaller 13¢ levy that would fund enhanced programs only and would not close the structural imbalance. Morurell said an average Kenmore homeowner (staff noted current local average assessed values near $1 million) would face between roughly $130 and $440 per year depending on the scenario chosen.

Consultants and timing were central to the discussion. Kilgore summarized outreach interviews with four consultants, who said a 2026 measure is “doable” but will be fast and require a primarily informational, rather than deliberative, outreach approach. “You don’t need us for 26,” Kilgore said the consultants advised, adding that a grassroots effort plus basic city communications could suffice for a 2026 effort and allow a different measure in 2027 if desired.

Council debate split along timing and scope lines. Supporters of the 2026, single‑measure, 36¢ option argued acting now reduces the total future ask and preserves programs staff identified as climate action, affordable housing and human services (examples staff listed include urban forest management, housing trust fund contributions and pooled human‑services funding). “I would like it to be one ballot measure … at the 36‑cent level so it addresses the structural deficit through 2032,” said the council member who made the motion, arguing the measure would preserve services and avoid repeated urgent asks to voters.

Other council members urged delay for more community engagement and budget clarity, including waiting for CAPE (the city’s grant/funding inputs) and budget‑process results. “I have a major concern about the lack of community engagement in the 2026 approach,” one council member said, arguing the city might do better in 2027 with more time to test priorities.

A procedural amendment to request staff also prepare a separate scenario‑two ballot option failed on a 3–4 roll‑call vote. The main motion — to direct staff to prepare a 2026 measure at the 36¢ permanent six‑year level — then passed 5–2. Roll‑call votes were recorded in the meeting minutes; the motion was moved and seconded in open session and adopted by the majority present.

What the measure would fund and next steps: staff told council the modeled 36¢ option would make current “special projects” permanent funding in addition to enhanced programs and would close the modeled general‑fund structural gap through 2032. Staff emphasized that multi‑year legal rules changed under recently enacted state legislation effective July 1, and that measures adopted before that date will be limited to the older terms; because of that timing and King County’s August 4 deadline, staff said the schedule to support a 2026 ballot is compressed.

City staff will return to council in the coming weeks with draft legal documents, a proposed resolution for formal council action, and outreach/communication materials necessary to meet King County deadlines. The council adjourned after confirming those next steps.

Notes on attribution and limits: quotes and attributions come from the council’s study session transcript. Where the transcript contained misspellings or transcription artifacts, proper names and place names (for example, “Kenmore”) have been normalized for clarity. Details not specified in the record (for example, precise final ballot language, or which programs would receive exact dollar amounts) will be included in staff’s forthcoming resolution and ballot materials.