Cashmere considers tax measure as public safety costs rise

CASHMERE — When Cashmere voters are eventually asked to weigh in on a potential property tax increase, the question may not just be how much, but whether the city has clearly explained why.

That was the underlying focus of a March 23 Cashmere City Council discussion, where Mayor Jim Fletcher walked council members through rising public safety costs and began sketching out what a future ballot measure might look like and how it might be presented to the public.

No proposal has been finalized. But the conversation marked a shift from general concern about rising costs to a more concrete question: what would the city actually ask voters to approve?

Fletcher’s presentation centered on the cost of law enforcement and related services provided through Chelan County, including the sheriff’s office, jail and emergency response functions.

Using charts he prepared for the meeting, Fletcher showed how those costs have increased over the past five years at a pace that outstrips more familiar benchmarks like typical inflation. The result, he suggested, is a growing gap between what the city has historically budgeted and what it is now required to pay.

For residents, the numbers can feel counterintuitive.

Even when the city’s property tax rate declines slightly, individual tax bills can still rise, largely because home values continue to increase. Fletcher emphasized that the city receives only a portion of the total property tax collected, estimating Cashmere’s share at about 17%.

That distinction between what the city controls and what residents ultimately pay became central to how council members talked about a future ballot measure.

Fletcher repeatedly returned to the idea that any proposal would need to be explained in clear, practical terms.

He pointed to a recent social media exchange initiated by councilmember Joyce Williams about the presence of sheriff’s deputies in town. Residents responded positively, Fletcher said, but the conversation also highlighted how visible services are not always matched by a clear understanding of how they are funded. If the city asks voters for additional revenue, he said, it will need to connect those everyday experiences to the underlying costs.

Council member John Perry pushed the discussion further, suggesting the city may need to think beyond simply keeping up with rising law enforcement costs.

Perry said a healthier long-term position for the city might require a larger increase, closer to $500,000, and shared his own examples of what that could mean for a typical home. For a house assessed at around $400,000, he said, the impact could translate to roughly $50 per year, depending on how a measure is structured.

That framing, converting large budget numbers into household-level impacts, reflects the approach the council appears to be moving toward as it considers how to present the issue to voters.

The discussion also touched on whether property tax should be the city’s only tool. Council members noted that other options, such as a sales tax measure or adjustments to fees, could play a role in the future. For now, the focus remains on a potential property tax measure tied to public safety and core services.

City staff indicated that if the council decides to move forward, it would need to hold public hearings and adopt final language by midsummer in order to qualify for a fall ballot.

No decisions were made March 23, and no specific dollar amount was selected.

But the conversation made clear that the city is no longer speaking in general terms about financial pressure. Instead, officials are beginning to translate those pressures into a potential ask, one that will ultimately depend on whether voters are convinced the cost is both necessary and worth it.

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media