Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Forest Park reviews draft levy to raise about $1.25 million for public safety; council to consider ballot language June 25
Summary
City staff presented Resolution 26‑2084 to place a November 3, 2026 measure before voters that would raise about $1,247,153 beginning in 2027 by adding $0.22 per $1,000 (raising the potential levy rate to $0.88920) to maintain current police and public‑safety service levels; council discussed transparency, tracking, and outreach but did not vote.
City Administrator Hill presented draft Resolution 26‑2084 to the Lake Forest Park Committee of the Whole on June 22, asking the council to place a property‑tax levy lid lift on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot to maintain current police and public‑safety services.
Staff described the proposed lid lift as a $0.22 per $1,000 increase that would raise the city's maximum levy rate to $0.88920 per $1,000 in 2027 and estimated additional revenue of approximately $1,247,153 based on current assessed values and a 6% projection for 2027. The resolution language would allow the council in later years to apply CPI adjustments (0.28 through 2032 in staff examples) but does not mandate them. Staff said the numbers were updated after a late King County worksheet revision.
Councilmembers asked for clarification of the levy math and the state's combined tax cap. Staff explained that Washington state taxing districts have a combined statutory cap of $3.60 per $1,000; after accounting for current city, fire district and school district rates, Lake Forest Park had roughly $1.99 per $1,000 of remaining capacity at the time of the presentation, subject to change as other districts set rates.
Semra Riddle urged the council to explain in recitals why the levy targets public safety—she said public safety costs have increased faster than many other city costs—and asked for stronger language committing to track levy dollars and report annually on how the revenue is spent. Staff said ballot‑language constraints limit how much explanatory material can be included in the resolution text but confirmed the city will provide supplemental materials and annual reporting after a levy passes; staff also noted that the resolution's listed permissible uses constrain fungibility.
Josh Rosenau asked whether state mandates that increase costs—such as changes to public‑defense requirements—would be covered by a levy framed to 'maintain service levels.' Staff said the ballot language cannot anticipate future mandates and suggested the levy is intended to preserve current service levels rather than to fund unspecified future obligations. A typographical error in a draft 'whereas' line that read '1.2 million million' was flagged for correction by Vice Chair Goldman.
Councilmembers discussed outreach plans: an ad hoc subcommittee is preparing a roadmap for coffees, town halls and market tabling; staff said the package will be in the June 25 packet and the subcommittee aims to present a fuller outreach plan by July 9. Council agreed members must avoid official advocacy when acting in an official capacity after the resolution is adopted and will consult the city attorney about permitted outreach formats and the use of signage or tables at city events.
No formal vote was taken June 22; staff said the resolution will be scheduled for possible action at the regular meeting on June 25.
