10-21-2025 8:29pm

Prop 1: LFP City Hired Consultant Explains to City Council How You Claim Funding is For Public Safety And Then Use It For Parks

Chris Clasen Editor

A lot of the debate over LFP's Proposition 1, a 6-year tax levy LID lift, revolves around whether it's actually for public safety, as the City claims, calling it a "Public Safety Levy". The video clip below is from the City Council Special Meeting on November 7, 2024 where the consultant, Liz Loomis Public Affairs, hired by the City for approximately $100,000 to market the LID lift to taxpayers, explains:

"But at the point we get money, say for police, right? That frees up money in the general fund to fund parks...So there are a bunch of ways to kind of skin this cat, mayor, deputy mayor, and that's the kind of conversation I hope we can have moving forward".

This concept is also known as "fungibility".

I'm interested

I disagree with this

This is unverified

Spam

Offensive

Replies

Iko Knyphausen Neighbor

10-24-2025 9:41pm

I find the timing of this post a little questionable. We had plenty of time to discus the merits of the proposition. I also think it's disingenuous to claim the public safety levy would be used for parks. If our PD would run a deficit that would have to be covered by the general fund reserves otherwise, and possibly require the cut to spend on other projects, such as the parks or any other lower priority project, does not mean that if we fund the PD through an additional levy, we'd be misappropriating funds to use for other causes. I have voted yes on the levy, and I hope you do to.

I disagree with this

This is unverified

Spam

Offensive

Chris Clasen Editor

10-26-2025 4:09pm

The post is factual, Iko. It's a clip from the stated council meeting of the consultant hired by the city and an explanation of what fungibility because most people don't know what that is. The post doesn't take a stand either way. Inference is up to the individual. As for timing, if the post had been made months earlier, people would have forgotten about it, so yes, since votes are now being turned in, the timing was intentional with the objective being to share facts with voters. What might be questionable is a commenter who has ties to the police department finding the post questionable?

I disagree with this

This is unverified

Spam

Offensive

Richard Saunders Neighbor

10-25-2025 12:04pm

Those comments from Liz Loomis (a consultant hired by the City) were from early exploratory discussions about different approaches to address the budget gap. Following that, the council then went through a formal process to craft Prop 1 with specific legal restrictions.

Regarding how the prop 1 funds can be spent, Resolution 25-2021, Section 4, legally requires Prop 1 funds be used 'exclusively for Public Safety Services.' The ballot language commits to tracking these funds separately. This isn't optional - it's legally binding once voters approve it. It requires proceeds be used exclusively for public safety, the ballot language commits to separate tracking to provide transparency for taxpayers, and state law prohibits these funds from replacing existing public safety spending.