June 12, 2026

Reliable transit is essential to a thriving region. But so are Spokane’s other urgent needs. Core transit service is not at risk, and voters should say no to this new billion-dollar tax.

This August, the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) is asking voters to approve what it calls a “renewal” of its 2/10ths (0.2%) sales tax. Don’t be misled by the label. The tax voters approved in 2016 expires at the end of 2028 — that was STA’s own promise, written into the ballot. What is actually on the August ballot is a new 20-year tax, running through 2048. It will cost Spokane-area taxpayers roughly $1 billion, on top of STA’s permanent 6/10ths (0.6%) sales tax, which remains in place whether the measure passes or fails.

It is natural to assume that supporting public transit means supporting this new tax. But a billion dollars is not a routine ask, even for those of us who strongly support transit. Before committing local taxpayers to that level of funding, voters should ask two questions:

1. Does STA actually need this money, and
2. Should another billion dollars in local taxes for expanded transit        projects take priority over Spokane’s other urgent needs?

To answer the first question — does STA actually need this money? — it makes sense to go back to 2016, when STA persuaded voters to approve the temporary sales tax to fund a package of more than 25 projects. Today, by STA’s own account, those projects have been delivered. But did STA actually need the tax to finish them?

The short answer is no. STA’s own financial records clearly show the temporary tax was not necessary to finish those projects.

Here is the simple math:

• What STA took in: Between 2017 and 2024, the "temporary” tax collected $169 million.
• What STA saved: Over that same period, STA’s accumulated reserves grew by $234 million, according to financial reports filed with the Washington State Auditor.

In plain English: STA delivered the projects it promised — and still added $65 million more to its reserves than the temporary tax brought in.

That is the part voters need to understand: STA did not need the temporary tax to build the promised projects. While those projects were being completed, STA's savings were growing even faster than the tax was coming in.

How did that happen? As the City of Spokane’s Chief Financial Officer for 17 years, part of my job was to guard against ‘budget padding’: using overly conservative financial assumptions to make a government entity appear to need more taxpayer money than it actually does.

In STA’s case the pattern — intentional or not — is unmistakable: for years, STA’s financial forecasts have been far too conservative, and year after year, the agency has ended up with far more money than its own budget forecasts projected.

Over the nine years from 2017 through 2025, STA's actual results beat its own forecasts by a staggering $320 million.

That is not a small accounting matter. It is the difference between telling voters, “We need this tax to finish the job,” and admitting, “We want this tax to build a large reserve for future, not-yet defined projects.”

Now, STA is using those same flawed forecasts — combined with a new list of projects voters never approved in 2016 — to justify a new 20-year tax, sold under the old “temporary” label, with a sunset so far away (2048) that many of today’s voters will never vote on it again.

What happens if voters say no?

Quite simply: if STA focuses on its current core services, no new tax is needed at all. Voting no does not eliminate STA’s local sales tax funding. It simply lets the temporary tax expire — exactly as voters were promised in 2016.

STA will still keep its permanent sales tax, and that tax alone will generate roughly $3 billion over the same 20-year period. STA also receives tens of millions more each year from fares, investment income, grants, and other revenues. Add $274 million in reserves, and STA has more than enough money to maintain its existing core services and remain financially healthy.

That answers the first question: No. STA does not need a new tax to maintain core transit service.

That brings us back to the second question: should another billion dollars in local taxes for expanded transit projects take priority over Spokane’s other urgent needs? Even if STA genuinely wants the money for future expansion, that is the trade-off on the ballot.

Spokane is facing extraordinary pressure around mental health treatment, addiction recovery, public safety, homelessness, and downtown revitalization. Those are not abstract concerns. They are daily realities affecting families, neighborhoods, businesses, transit riders, and the future of our city.

If voters say no, it creates an opportunity for Spokane to consider those other urgent priorities. That same $30+ million a year could, for example, be directed by the community toward mental health treatment, addiction recovery, public safety, and downtown revitalization.

Those priorities also matter to transit. A safer, healthier downtown, stronger neighborhoods, and better services for Spokane’s most vulnerable residents would support transit ridership, improve rider safety, and strengthen public confidence in the system.

The most pro-transit choice Spokane can make is not to write STA another blank check. It is to let the temporary tax sunset, require STA to live within its substantial permanent funding, and refocus taxpayer dollars on more urgent community needs.

That is not anti-transit. It is good government. It is stewardship.

And it is exactly what voters were promised when the tax was called temporary.

THANK YOU to our Sponsors

PINNACLE Sponsors

DIAMOND Sponsors

PLATINUM Sponsors

GOLD Sponsors

SILVER Sponsors

BRONZE Sponsors

www.SBAspokane.com