Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed police levy and fields objections to ballot language
Summary
City staff described a proposed local-option levy (proposed $1.46 per $1,000 for five years) to sustain police services; citizens and a written commenter objected that parts of the ballot title (including references to child-exploitation investigations) are not impartial and may be emotionally charged; legal counsel advised further review and possibly an executive-session legal memo.
City staff briefed the council on a proposed local-option tax levy to stabilize police services and sustain 24/7 patrol staffing, a detective position focused on child-crime investigations, and continued conversations with the school district about a school resource officer.
The proposal under discussion is a five-year levy at a proposed rate of $1.46 per $1,000 of assessed value. Staff said the levy would not add staff beyond maintaining services but would fund a dedicated detective to initiate investigations of child exploitation and help maintain patrol coverage.
During public comment and council discussion, multiple citizens and one written commenter objected to the wording in the ballot title and explanatory materials. A citizen at the microphone and a written submission argued the ballot language — specifically phrases referencing “child exploitation” and “stabilize police services” — could be non-neutral and emotionally charged, which conflicts with state requirements that ballot titles be impartial.
City legal counsel advised council members that the comments raise legitimate concerns about the neutrality of the ballot statement and recommended legal review. Counsel said it would be appropriate to organize and itemize the comments and prepare a confidential legal memo; the city attorney also reported a preliminary legal review from outside counsel could be discussed in executive session. “There is an opportunity to have legal counsel review and make a suggestion,” counsel said.
Council members discussed whether to proceed with the ballot language as drafted, make edits now, or convene a special meeting to finalize the title after counsel’s memo. Mayor and several councilors agreed to have legal counsel synthesize the comments and either reword the ballot title or present recommendations before final approval. No formal vote on the levy occurred at the work session.
Councilors and staff also noted that the proposed levy would sustain existing services — not add services — and that a school resource officer remains a separate negotiation with the school district, which is also managing budget constraints.
