West Richland officials told to study three council-level taxes as budget gap widens

West Richland officials opened a daylong budget workshop with a stark message from finance staff: the city’s general fund relies on three primary revenue streams and the gap between projected revenues and rising costs has widened substantially.

“'The city's general fund rests on three legs,'” Finance Director Aaron Gwyn told the council, explaining that property tax, sales tax and local utility/B&O tax together funded roughly 75% of the city's approximately $10 million general fund in 2025. Gwyn said property tax growth on existing parcels is capped at 1%, sales tax is volatile and linked to local construction activity, and utility taxes are steady but regressive.

Gwyn reviewed recent budget history, saying the 2023–24 biennium required roughly $7 million in cuts and deferrals and the 2025–26 biennium required roughly $13 million — a trajectory he said staff could not close with efficiency measures alone. He said the council should consider revenue tools alongside cuts and gave an initial estimate of what each option might yield.

The three councilmatic options presented were: - Transportation Benefit District (TBD): a 0.1% local sales-tax add-on dedicated to streets and pavement preservation. Based on the 2025 taxable sales base, staff estimated this option could generate about $271,000 per year. Department of Revenue timing rules require roughly 75 days’ notice for a January 1 effective date, so council would need September action to meet that schedule. - House Bill 2015 (criminal-justice sales tax): a separate 0.1% local sales-tax add-on restricted to criminal-justice uses, also estimated at about $271,000 per year on the 2025 base. Gwyn said adopting HB2015 could make the city eligible for grant dollars that subsidize officer salaries for up to three years, which staff viewed as a compelling reason to prioritize this option. - Admissions tax: a levy on ticketed events (statutory maximums apply). Staff described this as a smaller, more targeted revenue source that would flow to the general fund; sample scenarios produced widely varying results (an illustrative example showed about $6,000 in one hypothetical case).

Gwyn summarized the arithmetic: the two 0.1% sales-tax options together could yield roughly $540,000 annually, plus potential grant funding tied to HB2015, but even both together would not close a multi-million-dollar biennial shortfall.

Council members pressed staff for department-level cut detail and debated whether to prioritize further belt-tightening or new taxes. Several members — while expressing reluctance to raise taxes permanently — said they wanted to see analysis of both additional cuts and each revenue option before making decisions. Mayor Prom Bloom and other councilors stressed the city must balance growth-dependence with service needs.

The council reached consensus to direct staff to prepare more detailed analyses and return with workshops and public hearings on the TBD, HB2015 criminal-justice sales tax and an admissions tax so council can weigh trade-offs, legal requirements and timing. Staff flagged Department of Revenue filing deadlines if council wishes changes to be effective in early 2027.

What’s next: staff will deliver detailed cost and revenue projections, ordinance drafts and implementation timelines for the three options in follow-up workshops so council can decide whether to pursue one or more changes for the 2027–28 budget cycle.