SNOHOMISH — Voters here have to decide whether to approve the creation of a metropolitan park taxing district on the Aug. 4 primary election ballot. But it will not say exactly how much the property tax increase would be and there isn’t an expiration date.
Supporters want the city to use the money from the taxing district to maintain and improve Snohomish parks, even during a budget shortfall. Opponents question the need for a permanent taxing district and favor other ways of getting the money.
If the citywide taxing district is passed, the City Council could levy a property tax of up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value. That’s the maximum amount allowed by state law.
The council could also set a lower tax rate.
If voters approve the district, the amount will not be determined until November 2016, following a public hearing process. The new rate would take effect in 2017.
The city estimates that a 75-cent property tax increase per $1,000 of assessed value would cost $15.45 a month for the owner of a $247,200 home. That’s $185.40 a year for the average Snohomish property owner.
If the council does not levy the maximum 75-cent rate in the first year, the difference could be levied later, as long as it doesn’t exceed 75 cents.
The amount of money the park district can collect can also be limited, depending on how much other taxing districts levy or the total levy increase. The state caps property tax amounts for various districts based on a complicated formula.
If voters approve, City Manager Larry Bauman estimates that a 75-cent tax hike would generate about $834,000 annually for the parks district.
The money would be added to the amount spent on parks from the city’s general fund. That’s about $710,000 annually.
Bauman expects the amount allocated for parks to increase in the 2016 budget, which the staff is to present to the council in September.
Supporters of the taxing district want to protect Snohomish parks from budget cuts and preserve the city’s investment, which is valued at $25 million.
By law, the money from the Metropolitan Parks District could only be used to improve and maintain parks and trails projects in Snohomish. It can’t be diverted into other city funds.
Parks are often the first thing to be cut in the city budget during tough economic times, said Ann Stanton, a retired Snohomish Project Manager and supporter of the taxing district.
During her 24-year tenure with the city, she saw three tight financial times in which the parks budget was at risk of being cut drastically. During the 2008 recession, the city considered closing some parks and laid off maintenance staff.
Morgan Davis, an opponent of the parks district, said he’d prefer to see the city ask voters to pass a measure that includes a set amount and an expiration date, just like a property tax levy or a sales tax increase.
He also suggests the city pay for parks out of its cash reserve. The city had more than $1.2 million in savings as of March.
Stanton contends the cash reserve is intended for one-time emergency expenditures, not ongoing parks maintenance and improvement programs. The money from increasing sales tax or using a property tax levy would not be dedicated solely for parks and could be diverted for other uses, she said.
The City Council has identified four projects to give voters an idea of how it might use the money from the parks district. The city could later change its priorities.
The sites slated for development are the Hal Moe Pool building, 20 acres of riverfront farmland that is to include the city’s new boat launch, the Interurban Trail and creating an off-leash dog area.
Davis worries that the city could change its priorities and pay for projects that he considers “dubious.”
“The council is saying ‘trust us,’” he said. “This is a bad animal.”
Davis also believes there are less expensive options for some of the priority projects. As a landlord, he said, he wants to keep property taxes low to avoid raising rents on his tenants.
Snohomish staffers identified the four projects based on results of a 2014 telephone survey the city conducted before updating its parks plan. Davis points to statistics from the survey as evidence that Snohomish residents don’t want a parks district.
Of those surveyed, 69 percent reported that the condition of Snohomish parks was good or excellent. Only 36 percent said the city was doing a good or excellent job of responsibly spending tax dollars.
Stanton said she believes people haven’t noticed problems because city maintenance has done its best to keep the parks looking nice. But, she said, much of the work needed has been deferred until more money is available.
“The parks look great, until you look closer,” Stanton said. “The sad truth is that what we have for maintenance is what we have left in the budget. And our crews just make it work.”
Across Washington, 18 other taxing districts have been created to pay for parks in cities and unincorporated parts of counties, including in Tacoma, Seattle and Tukwila.
Amy Nile: 425-339-3192; anile@heraldnet.com. Twitter: @AmyNileReports
SnoCity Parks, a pro-Metropolitan Parks District political action committee in Snohomish, has scheduled two public meetings about the measure.
— 7 to 8:30 p.m., July 21, Snohomish Senior Center, 506 Fourth St.
— 7 to 8:30 p.m., July 22, Snohomish Carnegie Building, 105 Cedar Ave.
For more information about the ballot measure, visit vote4snohomishparks.org, look for SnoCity Parks on Facebook, or email questions to snocityparks@gmail.com.
Opponents of the measure have not scheduled any public meetings or formed a political action committee.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
