Lake Forest Park council signals support for six‑year levy lid lift; staff asked to draft 24¢, 26¢ and 28¢ options

Lake Forest Park City Council on June 26, 2025 held an extended policy discussion over a proposed six‑year multiyear levy lid lift and directed staff to prepare ballot resolution drafts showing three options — 24¢, 26¢ and 28¢ per $1,000 of assessed value — with a majority of councilors indicating support for the 24¢ option.

The item, presented as Resolution 25‑20‑21 in the agenda, would authorize the city to levy property taxes in excess of state limits under chapter 84.55 RCW for up to six years beginning in 2026 if voters approve a proposition. City Administrator Hill and Finance Director Vaughn walked council through a spreadsheet showing the general‑fund projections, the biennial budget through 2032 and how different levy rates would affect the running fund balance.

Vaughn explained the mechanics: the packet used a 2025 median assessed value figure and showed how plugged‑in levy rates translate into homeowner impacts and the city’s running balance. The staff spreadsheet identified a biannual shortfall of $822,699 in the 2025–26 biennium under current budget assumptions; split annually, that is about $411,349.50. Vaughn noted the sheet can be run with different levy rates so council can see the effect on the running balance.

Council members and staff emphasized that some city revenue streams are legally restricted and cannot be used to plug the general fund gap: Vaughn said traffic camera revenue is restricted by state law to public safety and processing ticket costs, and the sewer bond reserve must remain within sewer capital and cannot be transferred to the general fund. “Those funds cannot flow into the general fund,” Vaughn said.

Councilors debated the appropriate size of the levy. Mayor French and several councilors argued for a larger levy to provide a cushion in case of unexpected cost increases (example categories raised included jail, insurance, dispatch and other “foundational” expenditures). Several council members said they preferred a smaller levy or to rely more on unallocated fund balance before asking voters for new recurring revenue. Council members repeatedly raised the prospect of an upcoming increase in public defender costs under new caseload rules: Vaughn and councilors noted the city currently pays about $10,000 per month for public defense; councilors estimated a potential threefold increase if caseloads are reduced for public defenders, which could add roughly a quarter‑million dollars a year to the general fund need.

Council used a series of informal “head nod” checks on amounts, starting at 32¢ per $1,000 assessed value and stepping down. After the exercise a majority of councilors supported a 24¢ proposal as the option to move forward for staff drafting; staff agreed to return on July 10 with draft resolution language and versions showing 24¢, 26¢ and 28¢. Administrator Hill said staff will prepare the materials required by the county elections office and the assessor’s deadlines if council confirms a final number.

Councilors and staff also noted the levy being discussed is a temporary multiyear lift: the levy would collect the increased amount for six years and then expire, returning the city’s levy rate to its previous trajectory unless the council sought a renewal.

No final ballot decision was made at the meeting; staff will bring draft resolutions and supporting financial exhibits back to council for formal action at a future meeting.