Cashmere council’s 1% tax debate turns tense before passing on revote

CASHMERE — A routine budget vote turned into one of the tensest moments of the Cashmere City Council meeting on November 10, as members wrestled over whether to legislatively take the city’s standard 1% property tax increase — a move that brings in less than $8,000 but sets the tone for the city’s whole 2026 budget.

The debate began calmly enough. Ordinance 1340, authorizing the 1% increase allowed by state law without a public vote, went to a council vote and split 2–2, with Councilmembers Chris Carlson and Jayne Stephenson opposed and John Perry and Jeff Johnson in favor. Councilmember Shela Pistoresi was absent due to travel, her absence formally excused earlier in the meeting.

Mayor Jim Fletcher started to move on, noting that because the city’s mayor-council structure doesn’t allow him to break ties on revenue measures, the ordinance would have to come back later. But the room stayed quiet — not satisfied.

That’s when the conversation reopened, and voices sharpened. Perry leaned forward and said what several had been thinking: If the city skips the 1% one year, it loses that amount forever. “We don’t get to come back next year and take 2% to make up for it,” he said. Fletcher nodded, calling it “money permanently left on the table.”

Johnson added that the same council has been warning the county for months that Cashmere can’t keep absorbing jail and law-enforcement cost increases. “It’s hard to make that case,” he said, “if we won’t even take the basic 1% that everyone else does.”

Carlson, who had just voted no, sighed and said he still hates raising taxes — but he couldn’t ignore the logic. “I’m not for more taxes,” he said, “but I see the point.” A few seconds later, he asked for a revote. The ordinance passed 3–1, with Stephenson standing firm in opposition.

Stephenson said she wants deeper cuts before any increase, even a small one. She singled out animal control costs as an area the city should re-examine before reaching for new revenue. “I really thought we were all on the same page when it came to [the] Humane Society,” she said. “I just think we’re too happy to raise taxes when we can really dig into our books and see where we can cut some major things. Humane Society is a feel-good thing.”

Fletcher closed the discussion with a reality check for anyone watching: Because property values have risen, the city’s rate per $1,000 will actually drop slightly, even with the 1% increase. For the average $500,000 home, the city’s share of the tax bill will go up by only a few dollars.

The exchange ended with Fletcher repeating Perry’s point for emphasis — the line that had hung in the air all evening. “Once you leave it on the table,” he said, “you leave it on the table.”

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