Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Forest Park council discusses levy lift to restore $910,000 in cuts; staff to model options
Summary
Councilors discussed restoring roughly $910,000 cut from the current biennial budget by pursuing a levy lid lift (proposed 32¢ per $1,000 of assessed value), asked city staff to verify financial assumptions and produce updated projections for a June 26 business meeting.
Council members at the Lake Forest Park Committee of the Whole on June 23 discussed restoring about $910,000 of cuts from the current biennial budget and asked staff to review a council member’s spreadsheet and produce modelled levy scenarios.
The discussion focused on a draft levy lid lift that would authorize an additional 32¢ per $1,000 of assessed valuation, a figure Council member Lebo said he supports to avoid “levels of service reductions that I’m not happy with.” The levy would be intended to stabilize the general fund and fund public safety and other services the council trimmed in the current biennium.
The issue matters because the city’s regular property tax rate is currently about 71¢ per $1,000 of assessed valuation and restoring the cuts would increase the city’s portion of residents’ tax burden. Council members asked staff to check the spreadsheet’s assumptions — including a 5.6% annual growth assumption used in the draft projections — and to produce clearer projections for the next business meeting on June 26.
Council member Lebo presented a reconstructed spreadsheet that substitutes the $910,000 in restored funding into the 2027–28 general fund expenses and projects forward. He cautioned the model is simplistic and uses simple-interest style growth formulas. Director Vaughn told the council she is “working with a couple different offices to make sure that we have our intention and that rate,” and that staff will refine the numbers with outside experts before council finalizes any rate language.
Council members raised several technical and policy points: some questioned why the $910,000 did not appear to compound in later biennia in the presenter’s spreadsheet; others asked staff to show scenarios ‘‘with and without’’ restored cuts so the council can compare levy outcomes. Council member McCartney and others emphasized voters will judge the city on whether the money produces promised public-safety outcomes if the levy is approved.
Council members also discussed alternative revenue sources used previously, including utility taxes that together generate roughly $450,000 annually, and cautioned the council has relied on those ‘‘councilmatic’’ taxes and may wish to revisit them separately with the Business & Finance committee to consider equity and predictability.
Members asked for clearer public messaging on scale and impact: council members noted a 45% increase often cited in the draft materials refers to a 45% increase in the city’s roughly 7.7% share of the overall property-tax “pie,” not a 45% increase in a resident’s total tax bill. One councilor provided an example used during the meeting: “32¢ on the valuation of a $914,000 home is $24.37 a month, $292.48 a year.”
No formal vote was taken. The council directed staff to review the spreadsheet assumptions, produce updated projections showing alternative scenarios (including restored cuts and different levy rates), and present those figures at the forthcoming business meeting. Council members signaled a desire to name a target figure at that meeting so the community can be informed ahead of any ballot measure.
