Grandstanding and channeling Tim Eyman

Young, Halvorson proposal to lock in property tax limit would impede Longview's efforts to restore financial stability

Longview and cities across the state are in financial trouble, and City Council members Erik Halvorson and Keith Young want to take one potential solution off the table.

They are channeling the spirit of Tim Eyman and trying to force their vision of limited government on the city.

At tonight’s (March 13) council meeting, they will seek an ordinance limiting the city to a 1% annual increase in property tax levies unless voters approve larger increases.

The move is a hedge against a bill before the Legislature that would raise the existing 1% cap on annual growth for property tax collections to 3%. As with current law, larger increases would require voter approval.

The bill — H.B.1334 — is awaiting action in the House Finance Committee and faces strong opposition from minority Republicans. Any action on it likely will come at the end of the legislative session, when revenue bills are debated.

The measure has 14 sponsors (none of them local) and is backed by the Association of Washington Cities, which acts as a lobbying arm for the state’s municipalities.

City officials here and across the state blame the 1% limit for the statewide municipal fiscal crisis because it prevents them from keeping up with the rising costs of supplies, wages, services and other expenses. Property taxes — along with business and sales taxes — are one of three main sources of city revenue.

The 1% limit is based on Initiative 747, the Tim Eyman-sponsored ballot measure state voters approved in 2001. The State Supreme Court ruled I-747 unconstitutional, but the Legislature adopted its terms anyway.

Inflation was low for decades but shot up following the COVID pandemic, creating the fiscal crunch that has municipal officials calling for relief. A legislative analysis estimates that H.B. 1334 would raise $818 million for education and nearly $1 billion for cities and counties over the next four fiscal years.

State Rep. Gerry Pollet, the Seattle Democrat who sponsored H.B. 1334, had it right when he addressed the House Finance Committee on February 11.

“When it comes to the basic services that our constituents need in order to do anything, all of these duties have literally been kneecapped by a 1% cap on revenue growth. What else is capped at 1%? Nothing,” Pollet said.

This is not political opinion. It’s mathematical fact. Young and Halvorson should not dismiss it.

The Council already has authority to hold the line on taxes even if the Legislature boosts the amount the city can legally collect. The council must approve property tax rates annually. So Young and Halvorson’s pitch tonight is empty political posturing, except that it would make it politically more difficult on future councils to raise taxes.

They can claim to be defending taxpayers’ wallets — all while making it more challenging for the city to meet its expenses.

Halvorson is good at these grandstanding ploys: Remember how he and Councilwoman/Mayor Pro Tem Kalei LaFave proposed adding six police officers to the city late last year, knowing the city could not afford them?

Perhaps Young and Halvorson are forgetting that property taxes are the least regressive of the city’s taxing options, making budget corrections through this tax easier on low-income people rather than through consumption-based taxes.

Perhaps they don’t know, too, that Washington’s property tax rates are slightly below average nationally. Many of the states with lower rates are poor and decrepit ones that are hardly worth emulating, such as Alabama and Mississippi.

And they are ignoring the advice and warnings of the city’s own budget officials, who say Longview can’t maintain services without additional revenue. Police and fire protection — two departments with ample public support — consume 57% of the 2025 budget. Are we going to close the library? Let weeds take over Lake Sacajawea Neglect the city’s prized urban forest?

Voters don’t like taxes, but they want clean and safe streets and many other basic services the city offers. Rhetoric about cuts and reality about revenue eventually must come into sync.

This proposal creates a public impression that the city can do without significant boosts to revenue. In that respect, it undermines the work of the council’s own revenue subcommittee, which is considering ways to boost city income. Some of its early ideas are creating separate taxing districts to finance fire and parks. What chance will they have of getting voter approval if two council members are in effect saying the city can operate within existing means?

The city just went through a round of budget cuts when it adopted its 2025 and 2026 budget, and further belt tightening may be necessary. Yet, without more revenue, the city eventually will have to shut down services. That, unfortunately, is in keeping with Young and Halvorson’s politics: That government is best which governs least.

It would be best for them to refrain from empty gestures and focus on the real trouble here. In the long run, the city must build its tax base by attracting more employers. It will struggle to do that if it allows its infrastructure and quality of life to deteriorate.