Lake Forest Park council debates six-year public safety levy as costs for dispatch, jails and prosecution rise

At a June 12 work session, the Lake Forest Park City Council discussed a proposed six-year public safety levy to close a projected gap between revenues and increasing public-safety costs, including 911 dispatch, jail services, prosecution, mental-health crisis response and police staffing.

Council members and staff said the city faces steep year-to-year increases for some externally provided services and presented levy-rate scenarios to cover shortfalls. Director Vaughn explained modeling that showed three rate options (16¢, 24¢ and 32¢ per $1,000 of assessed value) over six years; the 32¢ scenario would produce the largest projected fund balance over the six-year period. Staff also gave an example that a median Lake Forest Park home value of about $914,000 would pay roughly $292.48 per year, or about $24.37 per month, at the 32¢ rate.

Supporters of a levy urged clarity for voters. Councilmember Goldman said messaging should tie the levy to tangible consequences — for example, whether failing to pass the measure would mean three fewer officers or reduced membership in regional public-safety organizations the city currently funds. Councilmember Lehi urged broader, descriptive levy language that would allow the city to match revenues with anticipated expenditures without being legally constrained to an itemized dollar list. Several council members and staff warned that items such as jail fees and some insurance or prosecution costs are set by outside agencies and can jump sharply, limiting how much the city can reduce costs by internal action alone.

Councilmember Rullibo shared a spreadsheet of multi-biennium forecasts showing how different levy rates would affect the general fund and reserve balances. Staff noted the projection assumptions are forecasts and can change; council members asked for downloadable one-page and FAQ materials that show both the levy’s local tax-rate change and what that change represents as a percentage of a resident’s total property tax bill.

The council did not take a formal vote on any levy language. Members asked staff to prepare clearer revenue and expenditure models, an FAQ for voters, and examples that show service-level consequences tied to specific levy amounts. Staff also discussed bringing the sales-tax and real-estate-excise-tax options back for analysis as alternative or complementary revenue sources.

Councilmembers agreed to continue the discussion at the next governance meeting where new council ideas are considered; staff will bring updated models and materials for review before any ordinance or ballot measure is drafted.