The Lake Forest Park City Council voted to place a temporary property-tax levy lid lift on the Nov. 4, 2025 ballot, authorizing an additional 24 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation beginning with collection in 2026 and limited so future annual increases tied to the CPI-U will not exceed 5 percent. The council approved the measure after lengthy discussion of the city’s general fund, staffing and public-safety costs; a roll-call was taken and the motion was recorded in the meeting transcript as passing.

City Administrator Hill told the council that, without voter approval, the city may raise revenues by only 1 percent annually under state law: "without a vote of approval by LFP residents, you are limited as a council to a 1% increase in your revenues," she said. Hill outlined a series of cost pressures cited by the administration — a $284,000 annual increase for 9-1-1 dispatch after the prior provider withdrew, rising jail costs, and higher insurance premiums — and said public safety accounts for about 34 percent of the city’s budget.

The measure as drafted would authorize a temporary levy lid lift of 24 cents per $1,000 and, if approved by voters, would set a new levy rate for the city beginning in 2026. During deliberations council members and staff used modeling spreadsheets to show how different levy amounts and start years would affect the city’s cumulative general fund balance through the end of the levy period. Hill said the city’s general fund balance was "about 9,000,000" and that a 24-cent rate would increase the cumulative balance over the six-year span relative to lower rates; she also explained the county-driven mechanics by which assessed-value growth changes the levy rate the county calculates.

Councilmembers debated how large an unallocated general fund balance the city should maintain. Several council members and the administrator stressed that some other funds—traffic, sewer, and certain restricted grant or capital funds—cannot legally be used to solve general-fund shortfalls. Council discussion repeatedly returned to the council-adopted 16 percent reserve policy (the administration said the 16% reserve equated to roughly $2,405,000 in the city’s current numbers) and to whether a larger cushion was prudent given uncertain state and federal grant availability and rising public-safety costs.

Public comment at the meeting included several residents who urged caution and more analysis and others who supported a levy. Jeff Sneddon urged the council not to pick a levy amount without giving every councilmember access to shared decision tools that model levy scenarios. Bryce James, a financial analyst, asked the council to model base-, best- and worst-case scenarios using the general fund policy as a starting point and recommended a revived citizen budget committee. Nate Herzog said a middle-ground increase of 10–12 percent (of the levy lid) would be reasonable for his family; Ken Casover and David Pyle spoke in favor of funding public-safety services. Alan Kiest urged transparency about funds that residents already pay to fire, library and surface-water districts and urged council to use existing council contingency and strategic opportunity funds before asking voters for a permanent increase.

Councilmember Lebo moved an amendment to cap any future annual levy increases tied to the June-to-June Seattle–Tacoma–Bellevue CPI-U at 5 percent; the amendment was seconded and adopted. The council then moved and seconded the resolution placing the 24-cent levy on the ballot; a roll-call vote was recorded in the transcript. The clerk called the roll; each councilmember’s individual recorded response appears in the minutes. The meeting transcript also records the chair announcing that "I believe the motion passed, 4 to 3," and the clerk’s roll-call statements as captured in the audio text; the transcript contains an internal inconsistency between the spoken roll-call answers and the chair’s subsequent statement of the margin. The council recorded that the measure would appear on the Nov. 4, 2025 general-election ballot with the explanatory statement to be finalized by the city attorney’s office.

Action required: the council adopted resolution 25-2021 (as amended) providing for the levy lid lift ballot proposition. The resolution sets the levy rate, duration, the ballot language and the administrative steps to transmit the proposition to King County for the Nov. 4, 2025 ballot. City Attorney Pratt and the clerk will finalize the 75-word ballot-title language and related explanatory materials for the county filing.

Why it matters: Council members said the levy would provide ongoing revenue to stabilize operations, preserve public-safety staffing and cover durable costs that the administration maintains cannot be absorbed under the state’s 1 percent property-tax limitation. Opponents and some councilmembers urged caution over the levy size and preferred drawing down unallocated one-time funds or pursuing alternative revenue (for example sales-tax options) before asking voters for a multi-year commitment.

At this meeting the council did not finalize implementation steps beyond approving the ballot measure; if voters approve the measure in November, future councils would annually decide whether to accept the consumer-price adjustment up to the cap adopted by the council.