Lake Forest Park council adopts 2026 property tax levy, utility rates and user fee schedule

At a special meeting required to meet King County filing deadlines, the Lake Forest Park City Council moved and adopted a package of ordinances and resolutions that set the city's 2026 property‑tax levy, general taxes, surface‑water and sewer utility rates, and the 2026 user fee schedule.

Director Vaughn presented the revenue side, telling council the preliminary 2026 levy rate is 0.66908 and that the city’s portion of the property‑tax pie totals about $3,500,000; he noted the 1% levy‑limit increment is valued at approximately $35,000. Vaughn also explained some year‑to‑year one‑time revenue items (new construction, prior‑year true‑ups) and emphasized that King County requires certain property‑tax and surface‑water ordinances to be adopted by the county cutoff in late November.

On utilities, staff explained that King County increased its sewer charge by an additional 0.5 percentage point; the pass‑through change equates to roughly $0.30 per month on the city’s $62.36 baseline (making it $62.66). The proposal for surface‑water included a 15% adjustment (described as 10% operations and 5% to support a stormwater program coordinator). The city also proposed modest user‑fee changes (for example, raising the passport application fee by $5 and aligning building fees with the International Code Council updates).

Council considered motions and adopted by voice vote (recorded as unanimous) the following actions: Ordinance 25‑13‑13 (levy the property tax for 2026), Ordinance 25‑13‑14 (levy general taxes for 2026), Resolution 25‑20‑45 (set surface‑water utility rates for 2026), Resolution 25‑20‑46 (set sewer utility rates for 2026 to reflect County adjustment), and Resolution 25‑20‑47 (adopt the 2026 user‑fee schedule). A separate code change adopting new business‑and‑occupation definitions (Ordinance 25‑13‑15) was also fast‑tracked to comply with state law changes.

Council and staff discussed budget mechanics (use of unallocated general‑fund balances versus budget‑stabilization or council contingency funds), the timing of mid‑biennium adjustments, and the administrative steps needed to allocate funds if council directs transfers. Staff said certain changes (sewer pass‑through) required immediate adjustment while others (user fees, some rate adoptions) could have been delayed to December though staff preferred adoption for clear public messaging.

The council closed the public hearing after receiving testimony and adopted the required ordinances and resolutions by unanimous voice vote. Staff noted additional follow‑up for budget allocations and that some CIP projects shown in the six‑year plan are not yet funded and will be returned to council when contracts or RFPs require expenditure authorization.