My public comment to the Washington County Commission at their meeting on Thursday, August 13, 2026
Mayor, Commissioners, Staff: Good afternoon.
My position on this tax ordinance is straightforward: I understand why some additional revenue is needed. But I do not believe the full tax increase before you today is necessary or justified. And I believe you still have the ability to change course.
There are several different things wrapped into this tax rate, and I think we need to separate them.
- First, our employees. I support appropriate salary increases for City staff. We need good-paying jobs at City Hall, and we need to retain good people.
- Second, the normal rising cost of doing business. I understand that, too. I’m a director in a small business. Insurance, supplies, services… everything costs more. You cannot run a 2026 organization on 2022 dollars.
- But then we get into choices.
One choice is replenishing the City’s reserves. Last summer, after reserves were depleted substantially to pay the Sean Williams settlement, I came before this Commission and specifically asked whether taxpayers would face a tax increase to replenish those reserves.
The answer was no. I asked repeatedly afterward: Then what is the plan? I never received a clear answer. So I have a real problem asking taxpayers now to pay more for reserve replenishment. I understand the fiscal argument for rebuilding reserves. My objection concerns the commitment made to the public and the lack of a transparent plan afterward. Trust depends on us meaning what we say.
Then there are new capital expenses. Some are worthwhile. Others deserve another look. Do we need to spend $800,000 demolishing the old post office right now? Do we need roughly $200,000 in signage right now? Could some projects wait?
And finally, the aquatic center. There’s no doubt Johnson City will need a long-term replacement for Freedom Hall. The public (including me) has suggested alternative financing, partnerships, phasing, and revenue sources. Have those been considered?
I have heard the argument that the budget has already been adopted, so the tax rate now has to fund it. But an adopted budget is not immutable. You have the authority to amend it. The question before you is whether every expenditure in that budget is important enough to justify the tax rate you are asking residents to pay.
So I leave you with three questions:
- First: Can you clearly remind the public how much of this increase is state-directed vs. paying for basic operations and employees vs. rebuilding reserves vs. new discretionary spending?
- Second: What reasonable options have you considered to delay, reduce, phase, or differently finance expenditures that are not immediately necessary?
- Third: How do you reconcile using additional property-tax revenue to replenish reserves with the commitment made to residents last year that replenishing those reserves would not require a tax increase?
I understand that governing requires tradeoffs. But there are choices. And you still have a choice today.
Thank you for your time.
