Tumwater parks tax is an investment

Tumwater voters have a pivotal choice to make on the Nov. 6 ballot. Do they raise property taxes to help buy, develop and maintain city parks or reject it?

On the face of it, Proposition 1 should be easy to support.

If approved, Prop. 1 lets the city create a new Tumwater Metropolitan Parks District serving all property inside city limits.

The council, acting as the parks-district board, would set park development priorities. And under Prop. 1, the parks board could impose a tax increase on property of up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation for parks for collection as soon as 2020.

The money would be used to add four neighborhood parks, fix up existing parks, improve and extend trails including along the Deschutes River, improve recreation programs for the young and old, and eventually build a new community center for a city of 23,800 that expects to grow by almost a third over the next 20 years.

Metropolitan Parks Districts are getting popular for cities that struggled to maintain their parks after the Great Recession. An MPD ensures a viable, long-term funding stream for parks and recreation amenities, and it restricts use of this new money — for land purchases, parks projects, recreational programs and maintenance.

Olympia voters approved an MPD three years ago. This fall, Lacey voters are considering one.

Tumwater’s Prop. 1 would authorize a property tax increase of up to 45 cents per $1,000 of assessed property over the first five years through 2024. That works out to $135 a year, or a little over $11 a month, for the owner of a $300,000 home and lot.

Initially this tax may add about $1.5 million yearly to city parks funding, according to Erin Carrier, chair of the pro-parks campaign and leader of the city’s advisory commission on parks and recreation.

The tax rate could increase with council members’ approval to a maximum of 75 cents per $1,000 starting in 2025, in effect giving the city a $2.5 million a year revenue stream, according to city parks director Chuck Denny.

The 30-cent tax would to be used to pay for a future community and senior center, Mayor Pete Kmet told The Olympian Editorial Board last week in a meeting with advocates from both sides of the issue.

The city has a small and poorly located center for seniors in a former city hall structure near the brewery, Kmet said.

Prop. 1 would also let the city acquire land for a swimming pool if that becomes an option.

None of this sounds unreasonable, but the tax increase may hit some residents harder than others.

And it comes at a time Intercity Transit is asking for a sales-tax increase for expanded service. Also, the need to raise revenue all across Thurston County to deal with a regional homelessness crisis is getting acute.

Some of these concerns are being raised by Ed Hildreth, a former member of the City Council and Planning Commission, who is leading the committee against Prop. 1.

Hildreth correctly says the tax is regressive, hitting those hardest who have the least money to work with. Some retirees on limited incomes could be forced to sell, or young families seeking to acquire a new home may not be able to afford them, he said.

But in a South Sound housing market with prices surging due to heavy demand, the tax increase looks like the least of a new buyer’s worries.

Hildreth also contends the city has enough parks already, including a privately owned Tumwater Falls Park that is open to the public.

But Tumwater has just 12 parks — equivalent to about one acre per 112 residents, according to a city analysis. That compares with one acre per 42 residents in Olympia and one acre per 49 residents in Lacey, according to the city. And parks impact fees collected on new construction in Tumwater provide too little — an estimated $500,000 a year on average.

Hildreth’s proposal to sell the city-owned golf course at Tumwater Valley is interesting. But it might not raise a lot of funds — especially if the city put restrictions on the land deed, as Hildreth suggests, to protect the open space.

Tumwater is still paying for the property and subsidizing its operations costs. The subsidy is about 8 percent of the golf course budget.

Many residents may prefer to see a specific community-center project — spelled out with a draft design and cost estimates — before having to vote on a tax.

But Prop. 1 does gives Tumwater valuable options it would not otherwise have. These include the capacity to make timely purchases of park land and the revenue to pay for better recreational and cultural or historical offerings.

Kmet says Prop. 1 will also provide neighborhood parks in the south end where the city has none.

Taking everything in to account, Tumwater voters should vote yes on Proposition 1 for parks.

This story was originally published August 16, 2018 at 4:28 PM.