Leo for Pasco

Pasco City Councilman Leo Perales Potential Drawbacks of Councilmember Leo Perales’ Proposed 51-Cent Levy Lid Lift in Pasco, Washington Councilmember Leo Perales has proposed increasing property taxes by approximately $0.51 per $1,000 of assessed property value, with an estimated $6.5 million in additional annual revenue for public safety. Here are the potential problems and unanswered questions surrounding the proposal: 1. It doesn’t solve the immediate 2027 budget shortfall. If voters approve the levy in February 2027, the additional revenue wouldn’t begin arriving until January 2028. Pasco would still need to address its 2027 funding gap. 2. It significantly increases the city’s property tax rate. Adding 51 cents to Pasco’s estimated $1.14 general city levy rate represents an increase of approximately 45% in that particular rate, not the entire property tax bill. 3. Homeowners would pay more annually. A property assessed at $300,000 would see approximately $153 in additional annual taxes. A $500,000 property would see approximately $255. 4. Renters could also be affected. Landlords may attempt to recover increased property taxes through higher rents, adding to housing affordability concerns. 5. The $6.5 million revenue estimate needs clarification. Based on approximately $13.74 billion in taxable assessed property value, a 51-cent increase calculates to roughly $7 million before adjustments. The difference should be explained. 6. Pasco is already considering other revenue increases. The city’s budget planning includes additional sales tax revenue, development fees, and departmental reductions. The public needs to understand how the proposed levy interacts with those measures. 7. It doesn’t necessarily prevent cuts to other city services. Police and fire staffing could be preserved while parks, recreation, maintenance, and other municipal departments still experience reductions. 8. Maintaining employees doesn’t guarantee maintaining emergency coverage. Earlier budget alternatives included closing Fire Station 82 and two police mini-stations while preserving most public safety staffing. 9. The proposal doesn’t explain long-term sustainability. Salaries, benefits, equipment, and operating expenses will continue changing. A $6.5 million annual increase may not be sufficient indefinitely. 10. The duration of the tax increase is unclear. Residents need to know whether the proposed levy would be temporary, permanent, or incorporated into future property tax calculations. 11. Protections for financially vulnerable homeowners aren’t specified. Washington offers certain property tax exemptions, but the proposal doesn’t explain how qualifying seniors, disabled homeowners, or veterans would be treated. 12. It raises questions about previous financial planning. Pasco received temporary federal SAFER grant funding that helped hire 15 firefighters. The expiration of that funding was foreseeable, raising questions about the original plan for covering those positions afterward. 13. It could create another funding problem in future years. Washington generally limits annual growth in regular property tax levy revenue, while municipal expenses can increase faster. A levy lid lift does not automatically eliminate that mismatch. 14. It doesn’t establish a clear plan for reserves. Pasco would still need to explain how it intends to cover expenses before the new revenue arrives and maintain adequate emergency reserves. 15. Voter approval isn’t guaranteed. Other Washington communities, including Tacoma, Burien, and Lake Forest Park, have rejected public safety levy proposals. Pasco would need a contingency plan if voters reject the increase. 16. The proposed revenue allocation isn’t fully explained. Pasco’s preliminary budget materials identify approximately $4.89 million associated with maintaining certain police and fire funding levels. A detailed breakdown is needed to explain the full proposed $6.5 million. 17. The proposal doesn’t establish measurable service guarantees. Residents have not been shown exactly how the additional revenue would affect staffing, station operations, emergency response times, or future service reductions. The central unanswered question: Would an additional $6.5 million annually resolve Pasco’s structural budget problems, or would it preserve current operations while leaving the city vulnerable to future deficits?

No! We cant afford health insurance. We cant do this and I know I am not alone! Whats wrong with you? You’re worried about their benefits and jobs? What about us? We the people are trying to survive and YOU want us to suffer and pay for their screw up! Their irresponsible over spending? Lay off the ones responsible FIRST then come back to the table! Accountability MATTERS!

No lid lift!

THE CITY NEEDS TO CUT AT THE TOP!!!! I WILL NEVER STOP SAYING THIS. STOP PASSING YOUR MISTAKES ONTO OTHERS!!!!

That's to high of a levy lid lift. I'm close to retirement and I'd like to be able to afford to stay in my home.

Our property taxes are so high now we might as well be paying rent for a home we house. Ridiculous. No to property tax increases. Most of it goes to these elaborate grossly over priced schools being built. Go check out Sageview HS. Unreal.