Collaboration in Civic Spheres

Public Data Ferret: Lake Forest Park Tax Hike Arguments

by Andrew Hart May 26th, 2010

After a vote on May 13, 2010, the City of Lake Forest Park adopted Resolution 1209: “Appointing committees to prepare written arguments advocating approval and rejection of proposed levy lid lift ballot measure.” The aim of ballot measure Proposition 1 is to close the budget gap that is making the provision of police, parks and other governmental services difficult for the city of Lake Forest Park. The arguments for and against the local tax measure – and rebuttals by each side – will be prepared by city residents and published in the King County Election Voters Pamphlet to help inform the public prior to the vote.

BACKGROUND

To address budgetary needs of the city, the Lake Forest Park City Council voted April 22, 2010 to place Proposition 1, “a levy for retention of basic public safety and other services,” on the August 17, 2010 ballot via (Resolution 1202. The economic downturn has made it more difficult for the city to provide public services. Despite a City Council budget cut of $931,00 in 2009-2010, the budget gap persists. Approval of the proposition would increase property tax levy above $1.85 per $1000 of assessed value, the limit currently set by I-747. The increase would equate to approximately $11.53 per month for the first year for an average household in Lake Forest Park.

Proposition 1 will determine whether or not basic public safety, parks, community and other services will be retained in Lake Forest Park. But before Proposition 1 can be added to the August 17 ballot, committees to prepare arguments for and against the measure must be formed (by mandate of RCW 29A.32.280). During a May 3, 2010 public meeting, three members expressed interest in serving on the levy approval committee, and three expressed interest in serving on the levy rejection committee.

KEY DOCUMENT

Resolution 1209: Appointing Committees to Draft Written Arguments Advocating Approval and Rejection of Proposed Levy Lid Lift Ballot Measure for Inclusion in August, 2010 Voters’ Pamphlet. City of Lake Forest Park City, City Council, 5/13/10.

KEY PROVISIONS

On May 13, 2010 the Lake Forest Park City Council adopted Resolution 1209 by a vote of 6-0. The resolution authorized the appointment of committees to draft written arguments advocating approval and rejection of the proposed levy lid lift ballot measure for inclusion in the August 17, 2010 King County voters’ pamphlet. As a result of the adoption of Resolution 1209, the individuals selected at a May 3, 2010 public meeting to represent the opposing sides of adoption of Resolution 1202 were appointed to their respective committees. The committee to prepare arguments advocating approval of the tax increase called for in Resolution 1202 are: Roger Olstad, Philip Sluiter, and Teri Howatt. The three individuals selected to serve on the committee advocating rejection of the tax hike measure are: Ned Lawson, Carolyn Armanini, and Donovan Tracy. The two committees are to submit their written arguments to King County Elections by June 2, 2010. Rebuttal arguments are due no later than June 4, 2010.

“PRO” AND “CON” ARGUMENTS IN VOTERS PAMPHLET AND ONLINE

The King County Elections Voters Pamphlet will be available approximately three weeks prior to the August 17, 2010 election. The pamphlet will be mailed to every household and post office box. It will be available online at King County Elections (text and audio version), and additional hard copies will be available at libraries and post offices.

RELATED: “City Of Lake Forest Park Resolution 1202 Would Set Property Tax Hike Vote For August 17, 2010,” Public Data Ferret, 3/28/10.

2 Responses to “Public Data Ferret: Lake Forest Park Tax Hike Arguments”

  1. I chair a committee to oppose this unprecedented Lake Forest Park tax increase. It is the largest tax increase ever requested by the City of Lake Forest Park. The tax increase is not what it appears to be, it is too big, it is not the right time, and it is too confusing with several assumptions and indices over which we or the City have no control. Please see http://www.nolfpprop1.org for more information.

  2. Makes sense. I love your form of writing, its unique, in a good way! Keep it up