Kent City Council approves budget, property tax hike

City property taxes will go up 5.5 percent next year as the Kent City Council unanimously approved its 2015-16 biennial budget.

The council voted 7-0 on Tuesday night to adopt an $81 million general fund budget for 2015 that includes the controversial property tax increase but no business and occupation (B&O) tax increase and no vehicle license tab fee.

Prior to the budget vote, the council voted 6-1 to approve the property tax increase that goes beyond the 1 percent state cap by using what’s called banked capacity. Councilman Les Thomas voted against the tax jump.

“Last month it was told to us that we had a little bit of excess (in reserve funds) of around 15 percent and it’s been our goal to have a safeguard around 10 percent,” Thomas said. “Things are looking good. I felt that if the money is there available it would be better used to not have the citizens of our community pay a higher property tax. We could increase property taxes by 5 percent or use some of this extra money and I felt we’d be better off using our own money.”

The property tax increase will bring in an estimated $999,170 in 2015 and $1.1 million in 2016, according to city documents. The city would use about $1 million of its $7.5 million banked capacity.

Kent has saved its millions in banked capacity because the city reduced its property tax levy by $1.00 per $1,000 assessed valuation in 2011 after voters in 2010 approved the formation of the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority (RFA), which levies a property tax of $1.00 per $1,000 assessed valuation.

The tax jump will cost the owner of a $300,000 home about $25 more per year in city property taxes. The increase would have been about $5 with just the 1 percent hike.

Kent resident Eric Bernard told the council during a public comment period before the budget vote that he and his wife this year paid $321 in city property taxes and paid another $389 in taxes to the Kent RFA.

“We pay over $700 for those two combinations, the city and the fire, two separate taxing entities,” Bernard said. “You keep turning the screws on us and our piggy banks are empty… We now bear the burden of two monster tax entities. Will you please reconsider and not increase the property tax? No more property tax. Can you give the citizens a break?”

Councilman Dennis Higgins said it’s not an ideal budget but the council needed to take some steps to bring in more revenue. He said the property tax impact will hit him as well.

“We’re looked on as outside actors on the city,” Higgins said. “We live here and are taxpayers in this city. We walk out our front doors and meet our neighbors and they ask us, ‘What the heck is going on down there?’ We have to be able to look them in the eye and say we’re doing the best we can do and trying to find the least expensive way to keep the services going in this city.

“We’re not trying to stick it to anyone….We have fully funded public safety in this budget and continued our plan to grow our police department (three new officers for 2015) so that in several years we will be at the average of our peer cities.”

Higgins and other council members plan to form a citizens budget committee early next year to help figure out city priorities in services and how to pay for those services or where to make cuts.

The council changed the budget a lot from what Mayor Suzette Cooke proposed in September. The council shot down her proposal to increase the B&O tax to raise about $3 million in general fund revenue. Council members also turned down the mayor’s plan to start up a city FM radio station and didn’t consider her unfunded request for a pay raise. The council delayed any decision about Cooke’s proposal to charge a $20 vehicle license fee in 2016 to help pay for street repairs.

“This is not an easy process,” Council President Dana Ralph said about adopting a budget. “This is the stuff that keeps you up at night. This budget as Councilmember Higgins pointed out is not perfect. This is a compromise on so many levels for each and every one of us. There is the need to move this city forward and continue to meet our obligations but not because it’s the ideal way to do that.

“As a city we are limited in the options we have to pay our bills and provide our services. The city has done a good job to provide the services for our residents even though our ability to pay for them has diminished substantially because of things like streamlined sales tax….We are doing the best to meet the expectations of our community.”