Council holds public hearing on proposed public safety levy; $5.02 million request would cost about $20.11 per $100,000 of taxable value

The Meridian City Council held a public hearing on June 24 to gather community input on a proposed property tax levy that would raise approximately $5,018,125.71 annually to fund firefighters, police recruitment/retention and a city prosecution unit.

Staff presentation: City staff explained the statutory mechanics under Idaho law and read the proposed ballot language. Staff said the proposal — if placed on the November 4 general-election ballot and approved by voters — would become effective Oct. 1, 2026, and noted Idaho law requires 60% voter approval for the increase described. The presentation included required disclosures: the purpose of the levy, estimated collection amount, estimated annual cost to a taxpayer ($20.11 per $100,000 of taxable value, subject to exemptions and property valuation changes) and the effective date.

Public comment: Two residents spoke. Terry Dennington urged the council to include a sunset clause or stronger earmarking to ensure funds remain dedicated to public safety and to reduce the risk that future councils could divert the revenue. Ryan Shackleford supported the levy as a tool to attract and retain public safety staff and said that declining services could reduce property values and public safety.

Council discussion: Council members asked staff whether future councils could reduce or eliminate the levy revenue in subsequent budgets. City staff and the city attorney said the legislative branch can always set the budget each year and that any future council could reduce budgeted spending; staff also said the council could adopt internal budget documents or even local code to track or earmark levy revenue but that future councils could change those rules. Several council members suggested the current council could adopt reporting requirements or an earmark in budget documents to signal intent.

Timeline and next steps: Staff said tonight was the first hearing and that a second public hearing is scheduled for July 8; if the council directs staff to proceed, the council would adopt a resolution around Aug. 12 and must finalize ballot language with the county by Aug. 29 for the Nov. 4 ballot. The city will limit its communications to educational materials; any advocacy must come from outside groups, as required by the Public Integrity in Elections Act.

What wasn’t resolved: Council did not decide whether to place the question on the ballot; council members asked staff to compile submitted written comments and public testimony for the record and to provide more detail on options such as sunset clauses, earmarks, or budget-account tracking before the July 8 hearing.