City of Lake Forest Park - Proposition No. 1 · King County

Committee: Marty Ross

Lake Forest Park faces the same difficult choices that other communities across the state face, concocted by Tim Eyman and maintained by the State Legislature. While inflation has increased annually by 2.8% and by over 5% recently, revenues have been hamstrung by a 1% annual cap on property tax increases. As the years have ticked by, cities have struggled to fund basic operations. Some have reduced staffing. Brier cut police department funding. Edmonds explored selling off parks. Lake Forest Park staff project that our status quo will exhaust the general fund by 2031. While the city has cut costs by closing City Hall on Fridays, preserving current services requires further action. Our city government listened to feedback when designing this levy, ensuring transparency by moving the process through the Finance Committee. The City Council recognizing this crisis, unanimously voted to send this levy to us. In voting down levies for decades, our beloved Lake Forest Park has been borrowing against the future. We are lucky to live here, and it is time for our votes to reflect the best of our values. To preserve our commitment to safety, community policing, and our environment, please vote Yes on Proposition 1.

Rebuttal of argument against

Inflation has hit the city’s public safety budget hard. The costs of 911, jail, legal services, and policing have risen dramatically recently, and the city has drawn down one-time general funds to fill the gap. Maintaining our service levels requires additional revenue. We vote our values when electing a council to protect what we care about. Let’s give city government and staff the tools to deliver these priorities and hold them accountable to it.

Committee: T.J. Fudge

Fully funding public safety in Lake Forest Park is critical. As I told the police before last year’s vote, I’d happily vote for the tax increase if would increase the police budget. I support raising taxes to increase funds for public safety; unfortunately, the city has not committed to do that. Instead, they have only committed to spend the $1M per year tax increase on public safety, with no commitment to add this additional amount to the current spending for public safety from the general fund. The City exaggerates the budget struggles. The unrestricted general fund revenue increased by about $4M total, $1M per year, from 2021 to 2025, vastly more than the $35k the city implies because property tax is not the only source of general funds. The City describes a ~$400k structural deficit, yet has added, rather than cut, non-safety personnel. New hires cost an amount similar to the current deficit. A ‘no’ vote does not threaten our public safety. It directs the city to restrain non-safety spending and commit to increasing funds for our police and public safety personnel.