Lake Forest Park weighs temporary public‑safety levy; council delays final ballot language

Lake Forest Park councilors on June 16 continued a multi‑session discussion about a draft resolution (25‑20‑21) that would place a levy lid lift before voters to fund public safety services. The draft would authorize a temporary levy collected annually for six consecutive years (budget years 2026–2031) to address an operating shortfall identified in the city’s general fund.

Deputy Mayor Tani introduced the item and asked Finance Director Vaughn to brief the council. “One of [the assessor’s office] recommendations was instead of trying to quote all the numbers…state the intent of the levy and then drop the number in once the council settles on it,” Director Vaughn said, describing ongoing coordination with the King County assessor and the assessor’s caution about inserting fixed maximums into the resolution. Vaughn said staff will continue working with the assessor and asked Attorney Pratt to review any recommendations before the resolution is finalized.

Why it matters: councilors described a roughly $1.5 million gap the city needed to cover to maintain current service levels, driven by higher costs for police staffing, jail and prosecution fees, dispatch, and other public safety‑related expenses. The levy discussion would determine whether to seek voter approval to raise property taxes in excess of the statutory lid in RCW 84.55 to sustain public safety services.

Key policy and technical points discussed

- Structure and term: Council discussed a six‑year temporary levy (a multi‑year lid lift) and the so‑called “levy cliff” that occurs if a multi‑year levy is not renewed. Attorney Pratt and the assessor’s office advised removing draft language that implied the levy would become permanent after the term; council agreed that language should be struck or rephrased.

- CPI and annual increases: Staff and councilors debated whether to allow annual CPI (or another index) increases on the levy portion and whether the city’s usual 1% regular levy increase would apply in year one. Director Vaughn said the assessor’s office advised the resolution should capture the council’s intent for CPI or a capped annual increase and that staff would confirm how the assessor would implement CPI on the levy portion.

- Dollar amounts and communication: Council members discussed using a working draft that lays out order‑of‑magnitude allocations (for example, maintaining police staffing was shown at $450,000 in the working draft) as a tool to explain the top‑line need to voters, while avoiding fixing line‑item dollar amounts in the ballot resolution. Several councilors urged a clear, simple explanation for voters that connects the top‑line levy amount to the city’s operating shortfall.

- Outreach and schedule: city staff said they will issue a press release and enews and will prepare explanatory materials after the council agrees on the levy rate. Staff described a public hearing and final action steps: a June 30 council meeting to refine language, a public hearing (noted in staff comments for the July timetable), and county filing steps including designation of pro/con committees (city clerk to forward candidate lists to the county; a July 24 deadline for committee appointment was referenced).

Council directions and next steps

- Staff was directed to continue coordination with the King County assessor and Attorney Pratt to produce a clean resolution that reflects council intent (including striking the clause implying permanence and clarifying whether CPI applies to the levy portion).

- Council agreed to hold formal review of the Whereas clauses until staff receives assessor input; staff will return a revised resolution in the next committee/Council of the Whole meeting to allow the council to set a final rate and language.

- Staff will prepare outreach materials (press release, explanatory statement showing estimated homeowner impacts once the final rate is set) and will advertise the public hearing and required filings with the county if the council moves forward.

No formal council vote was recorded at the June 16 special meeting; the item remains under staff revision and return to council for final action.