Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stanwood council narrowly sets a 2% levy increase after contested public hearings
Summary
After multiple public hearings in January and February, the council debated several levy levels and ultimately approved a 2% property-tax levy increase to help cover projected insurance and other cost increases; the council also advanced budget amendments and set budget hearing dates.
The Stanwood City Council opened and closed multiple public hearings on the city’s maximum property-tax levy in early 2022 and approved a 2% levy increase after debate and roll-call votes.
At the Jan. 10 meeting the council opened a public hearing on a proposed maximum levy of 10.89547 per $1,000 taxable valuation to address a forecasted 12%–15% insurance increase; no final action was taken at that meeting when an initial motion to adopt a resolution failed. The matter returned to the Feb. 14 meeting where residents and property owners spoke against raising taxes. Resident Destiny Brumbaugh told the council she did not want property taxes increased and asked that revenue not be wasted.
Council debate produced a sequence of roll-call motions: an attempted approval of Resolution 2022-04 failed (with Councilmember Jones voting no), a motion to keep the levy at 0% also failed, and a subsequent motion to set the levy at a 2% increase passed by roll call. The council scheduled additional budget hearings and set a budget-committee meeting to finalize department forms and timelines.
Why it matters: the levy decision affects property owners’ tax bills and funds basic municipal services including insurance, public safety and capital repairs. Council members asked for clearer explanations of assessed-value changes and insurance-cost drivers, and asked staff to return with more detailed budget justifications.
Votes at a glance: Resolution 2022-04 (initial levy attempt) — motion failed (Nays: Jones; Ayes: Tharp, Rottman, Deppe). Motion to keep levy at 0% — motion failed. Motion to set levy at 2% — approved by roll call (Tharp, Deppe, Rottman aye). The clerk was directed to submit a revised max levy for public notice and to set the next public hearing.
Next steps: staff will prepare more detailed budget explanations, complete department budget forms by early February deadlines and return to the council at the scheduled budget hearing (various meetings through March were set in minutes).
