Sequim city councilors by a 4-3 vote passed a resolution on Nov. 22 stating their opposition to any future income tax in the city.

Councilor Keith Larkin said his intent for the resolution follows the Kunath v. City of Seattle decision, that affirmed a city could not levy an income tax ordinance on wealthier residents because it violates Washington state’s constitution.

Larkin said if the state’s Supreme Court changes its mind, it “obviously would have a detrimental impact on small businesses and anyone with employees trying to keep a workforce.”

He said, “I felt it was important to make a stance on this issue from the City of Sequim. We are opposed as a city to any local income tax on our citizens.”

The resolution states: “ … local income tax may generate additional revenue in the short term, but would most likely result in less long-term revenue due to the dampening effect it would have on our businesses.”

It states that the council prohibits sales tax because it would be “in direct conflict with the high value the City of Sequim places on promoting economic development through the attraction and expansion of financially healthy, family wage paying employers.”

Deputy Mayor Tom Ferrell said he and Mayor William Armacost had a “vigorous discussion” about the resolution at their agenda meeting and that he couldn’t support the resolution.

“All it does is shame council members,” Ferrell said. “It’s not the way to run the city.”

Councilor Brandon Janisse asked where the resolution came from.

“The Washington state constitution says income taxes are not allowed. The Supreme Court said numerous times they’re not allowed,” Janisse said.

“We’re passing a resolution on something that’s not even there. As much as I’m against income tax, it’s legislating the legislature.”

Armacost said one of the attractive factors of Washington state is no income tax, and that city officials in Seattle knew the Constitution and still attempted to pass the ordinance.

“It’s not designed to shame, or put light on one side or the other of the city council,” Armacost said. “I commend councilor Larkin for doing his due diligence for the citizens of Sequim to get in front of it … We will keep our eye on this and continue to work for citizens and small businesses.”

Armacost added that resolutions and proclamations “do not carry much weight” but that they “create a strong ear so the public knows we’re listening to them and looking out for their best interests and not our own.”

Three of the four councilors who voted for the resolutions were voted out of office in the November General Election, and Nov. 22 was their final council meeting.

The council’s September resolution expressing support for our small businesses and essential workers’ individual rights — also proposed by Larkin and passed by a 4-3 council vote — stated the council’s intent to “uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington and to stand in strong support of the people in the City of Sequim and anyone else in the County, and the State that believe their constitutional rights are being violated.”

It also condemned “any form of discrimination towards any person that does not possess or present proof of COVID-19 vaccine.”

City staff said after the resolution’s passing that it is a position statement and does not override state and local law including Clallam and Jefferson Counties’ health officer Dr. Allison Berry’s vaccine mandate to dine in restaurants/bars.

Larkin said the resolution recognized people for having a choice not to get the vaccine under Constitutional law and that a “State of Emergency does not diminish the rights of the people” either.

Janisse said the resolution was “walking a dangerous line,” and he didn’t support it because he didn’t want to be subjected to a recall and malfeasance.

Armacost said the resolution did not suggest going “against any professional as an expert in their field” nor “suggesting breaking any law.”