Meridian council continues process to place public-safety levy question on ballot; details on prosecution staffing discussed

The Meridian City Council discussed a proposal June 17 to ask voters to approve a local-option levy intended to fund firefighters, police pay increases and a city prosecution team. The council continued the public process and scheduled additional public hearings before deciding whether to place the question on the ballot.

Kurt Stein, city attorney, and public-safety leadership described the levy’s function and the process if voters approve it. Stein told the council the levy would provide funds for “those 13 firefighters” (a staffing level discussed in prior briefings), salary increases for sworn police officers, and funding to establish an in-house prosecution unit. He emphasized that the council retains annual budget authority to change any appropriation: “The very next year, you could reduce it down. You have the authority to set the budget or wherever you want.”

Prosecution staffing: Assistant city leaders outlined the anticipated size of an in-house prosecution unit. Mr. Neri (county/city legal liaison) said the contract with the city of Boise currently provides prosecution services; moving in-house would require staffing daily court coverage. “We’re looking at somewhere in the area of 5, potentially 6 [prosecutors], depending on… court calendars,” Neri said, and added the in-house team would also need roughly four to five support staff for discovery and administrative duties.

Council discussion centered on process, transparency and public input. Council members said they support giving voters the choice and asked staff to ensure two public hearings are widely publicized. Mayor Robert Simison and several council members framed the levy as a way to preserve response levels and retain personnel in a competitive labor market; Councilman Overton said he was “completely in support” of the levy on the reasons presented.

Why it matters: If approved by voters, the levy would change the city’s recurring revenue base and finance ongoing public-safety operations. Council members asked legal staff to clarify that the levy’s revenue could be reduced or eliminated by future council action should needs or circumstances change.

Next steps: Staff scheduled two opportunities for public comment (the council referenced dates in early July) and said the council would take a formal direction from the public before deciding whether to place the question on the ballot.