Lake Stevens considers public-safety sales tax to offset rising prosecution and public-defender costs

Deputy Chief Dean Thomas presented the city's draft public-safety sales-tax ordinance and summarized early cost estimates and program uses during a Lake Stevens City Council workshop.

What staff presented: Dean Thomas said the sales-tax revenue would first cover mandated costs for prosecution and defense counsel, and that any funds remaining would be available for hiring or for program support such as a domestic-violence coordinator. “It was originally put out at about 800,000. The Barb changed our numbers to about 750, 700,000,” Thomas said. He gave itemized estimates: the prosecutor's cost was reported at about $206,000 and defense-attorney costs had risen toward $300,000; staff summarized those two categories together as roughly $606,000 annually.

Why the tax is proposed: Thomas and other staff said the increases in public-defense and prosecution costs are largely being paid now out of the general fund, and a dedicated public-safety revenue stream would prevent those recurring costs from displacing other general-fund priorities.

State grant and timing issues: Council discussed compliance and timing requirements. Staff said certain compliance work required by CJTC must be completed before collection; department-of-revenue notification is required and collections would begin about 75 days after notifying DOR, with staff giving a range of January–February or, in some timelines included in the packet, July 1 as a possible start. Staff noted there is a competitive statewide grant program that could provide two years of hiring funding; Dean and council referenced a $100 million statewide program and an illustrative $125,000 per position estimate, but staff said the grant magnitude and the city's potential award were unknown.

Budget and risk discussion: Council members expressed concern about timing and long-term obligations. Some council members supported the idea of a public-safety revenue source but suggested rolling the question into the broader budget process rather than voting on a standalone tax next week. Concerns included how the city would fund positions when temporary grant funding ends ("in 2028, we have to figure out how to fund that without that grant"), and whether the tax would simply replace general-fund spending already covering prosecution and defense costs.

Staff leave and contracts: Thomas acknowledged he lacked certain contract detail and that Barb and Jean were the staff leads on contract negotiations: “the public defender is handled by Barb, and the prosecutor's office is handled by Jean.” Staff said the prosecutor had proposed a 3–4% increase, while public-defender contracts were signaling a need for additional full-time-equivalent positions and higher dollar amounts once negotiated.

Next steps: Council did not vote on the ordinance at the workshop. The mayor suggested folding discussion of the sales tax into the overall budget process so the council could see the tax alongside other budget trade-offs; staff said they would not prepare a final ordinance for a vote the following week. Council asked staff to return with firm dollar amounts and contract details before finalizing any ordinance vote.

Bottom line: Staff estimates for covering prosecution and public-defense cost increases are on the order of roughly $600,000 annually; council prefers more detailed contract numbers and budget context before taking a formal vote on a public-safety sales tax.