Council hears hours of testimony on emergency services sales tax; item continued to March 11 for more public hearing and discussion

Washington City’s Feb. 25 meeting featured an extended public hearing on a proposed emergency services sales and use tax under recently enacted state law. City Manager Jeremy Redd told the council the city’s growth and changing service demands have pushed combined fire and police costs to consume a large share of general revenues, and noted that the legislature in October 2025 authorized local option sales levies dedicated to emergency medical and fire services of up to .33%.

Redd said a .33% local option tax in Washington City would generate an estimated $2.7 million annually and would reduce the share of combined property and sales tax devoted to public safety from an estimated 87% toward about 75%, while a property‑tax alternative that raised an equivalent amount would require an estimated 50–58% increase in the city’s property tax levy and would fall entirely on residents. ".33% would generate approximately $2.7 million in new sales tax revenue for Washington City each year," Redd said in the presentation.

Public testimony was strongly mixed. Longtime public figure Jeff Turk reminded councilmembers of earlier campaign statements opposing tax increases and urged elected officials to use existing revenue and cuts first. Several young residents and households raised concerns that sales taxes fall on residents who shop locally and that higher sales taxes can be regressive; one speaker, a homeowner and parent, said family budgets are already strained and urged the council to pursue impact‑fee changes and other cost‑savings first. A Gold Cross Ambulance representative said Gold Cross currently covers ambulance service under emergency contract arrangements and reminded the council that ambulance fee billing is regulated and charged to users; Gold Cross said it would consider contracted ambulance placements if the city pursued them.

Council debate tracked multiple options: approve the .33% now by council action; place a broader 1% voter‑approved emergency sales tax on the ballot; pair any sales‑tax step with a city property‑tax reduction to offset resident costs; or rely on impact fees and slow budgetary adjustments. Several council members said they were reluctant to raise taxes without public input; others said the city has a near‑term budget gap and that doing nothing would require reductions in services or dipping further into reserves.

After extended deliberation the council first rejected a substitute motion to deny the .33% option outright; the council then voted 4‑1 to table the item and to continue the public hearing at a March 11 council meeting. The mayor said staff will prepare two resolutions for that meeting: one placing a 1% voter option on the ballot and a second committing the council to reduce the city’s property‑tax rate if voters approve a larger sales‑tax package. The council asked staff for additional modeling (resident vs. non‑resident sales tax incidence, projected commercial revenues from upcoming projects, TRT and impact‑fee detail) before the March 11 hearing.

Next steps: the council’s March 11 agenda will include a continuation of the public hearing and the two requested resolutions for discussion. Staff said any locally imposed .33% sales tax requires a public hearing before council action; a voter‑approved 1% measure would be placed on the ballot by council action and the ballot process would serve as the public hearing.

Quote that captured the debate: "If the voters decide, they shouldn't get something for nothing — they shouldn't have to give on a sales tax and not get anything for it. So my proposal is we cut 50% of property taxes if the 1% goes through," Councilman Belliston said as he proposed an offsetting cut to protect homeowner burdens.

The public hearing remains open and will continue on March 11, when council members said they will review staff modeling and proposed resolutions before any final action.