​Title: Prop 1: The Levy is not Fungible, that’s not just a promise, it’s the law.

Thank you, Semra, for helping to set the record straight that Prop 1 is written as law that the funds can only be used for public safety and that the 24 cents per thousand rate was set specifically to close the $1.4M gap based on the numbers at the time. Another misinformation that's being spread is that as the value of your home goes up each year, you'll end up paying more taxes. That's false. In reality, it's just the opposite - as property values go up, the tax rate goes down to keep the amount raised each year to $1.4M. 

It saddens me to read some of the recent articles and op-ed postings from those who are against Prop 1 who have suggested or insinuated that the City Council is trying to mislead voters or is somehow acting in bad faith. Not only is that so far from the truth, it's a dishonest and deceitful tactic that only fosters distrust in our city leaders and leads to an "us vs. them" mentality. Let's not take the bait and go down that path. In our small town, we are fortunate to be able to actually know our City Council members personally, and I do. I know them as mothers, fathers, friends, and neighbors and, as public servants, have nothing but our best interests in their decisions. With regard to Prop 1, they all agreed it was needed but had different ideas for setting the rate. The majority agreed on 24 cents to fill the current gap of $1.4M. Sounds reasonable and rational to me.

I've read through the material on Prop 1 and understand the importance and need for it to keep Lake Forest Park strong financially. I plan to vote YES and I hope everyone reading this will join me to also vote YES.

For more information on Prop 1 and to learn why so many residents are supporting it, please visit YesOnLFPProp1.com.

Semra did a good job clarifying that the money from Prop 1 would be used for public safety. The previous point about money being fungible means that, if Prop 1 passes, the funds that are currently allocated for public safety could be used for whatever the City Council wants to spend it on. I have heard directly from City Council members that, without Prop 1, public safety is already fully funded. What concerns me as an LFP resident is that I don't know what additional projects the Council wants to fund and at what cost, so I can't judge whether or not I think those unspecified projects are a good use of my tax dollars. 

Actually it isn't the law. 

Levy Realities

Proposition 1 is described in the Voters’ Pamphlet as a way to “provide sustainable funding for Public Safety Services,” listing police staffing, training, 911 dispatch, jail services, prosecution, public defense, and mental-health response programs. The phrase “sustainable funding” implies a structural deficit or an inability to maintain essential services without new taxes. In reality, the City’s adopted 2025-2026 Biennial Budget already fully funds these programs without the proposed levy. Police and 911 services are already paid for through existing revenues and a General Fund reserve approaching $10 million—equal to roughly nine months of operating costs, far above the City’s policy minimum of 16 percent. The proposed levy does not stabilize finances; it permanently increases the City’s property-tax base after 2026, ensuring revenue growth that will exceed inflation. “Sustainable” therefore functions as a political slogan rather than a fiscal description.

Although the measure emphasizes “Public Safety Services,” the authorizing ordinance creates no dedicated public-safety fund and imposes no legally enforceable spending limits. The statement that funds “could only be used for public safety” is not binding under Washington law. Under RCW 35A.11.020, a city council possesses full legislative authority, including the power to amend or repeal ordinances. RCW 35A.33.120 further allows any council to amend the budget “at any time” by ordinance. Simply put, one council cannot bind its successors in matters of taxation, spending, or appropriations. Consequently, even if the current council were to adopt an ordinance “dedicating” the levy to public safety, a future council could simply amend or repeal that ordinance by majority vote and redirect the funds elsewhere in the General Fund.

The measure’s reference to a “temporary authorization” is also misleading. Under RCW 84.55.050, only the rate authority expires after six years; the elevated levy amount becomes the new permanent base from which all future property-tax increases are calculated. Once the base is raised, it does not revert. The phrase “up to 5 percent for inflation” further suggests linkage to consumer-price growth, yet the statute imposes no requirement to tie increases to inflation. It merely allows a council to raise the levy by as much as 5 percent each year through 2031, subject only to a public meeting and council vote.

These provisions mean that the real effect of Proposition 1 is not to protect public safety from cuts, but to authorize a permanent structural expansion of the City’s taxing capacity. If the Council exercises the full 5 percent option annually, the cumulative increase in property-tax collections will be roughly 28 percent by 2031, even if property values rise at normal rates. The voter pamphlet provides only the first-year cost—about $219 for the median-value home—but omits the long-term compounding impact.

Finally, while the measure correctly notes exemptions for qualifying seniors and disabled veterans under RCW 84.36.381-.389, those exemptions apply to all property-tax levies statewide; they are not unique to this proposal.

Bottom Line: Proposition 1’s language presents a partial truth. It appears time-limited, inflation-linked, and restricted to public safety, yet in law it authorizes a permanent, discretionary tax increase that future councils may legally reallocate without voter approval.