I want to share why I am voting no for the Metropolitan Park District (MPD) measure April 23.
First, I am a small-government guy and this measure will create a bigger, more-expensive government. The question is does the government need to grow to provide adequate services? The obvious answer is no. We currently have wonderful parks and are able to maintain them. Actually, over the last decade the city has increased the total acreage devoted to parks. Furthermore, the city’s comprehensive plan, in chapter six for parks, reports that the city government is not the only park builder in Bonney Lake. That is right, the recreation needs of citizens’ is being met by home owner association (HOA) facilities, county facilities and yes even private facilities.
It is actually quite startling that given all of those resources, Bonney Lake has a surplus of neighborhood parks. So, based on all of this, I don’t believe that we need bigger government to provide the needed services. The city’s comprehensive plan identifies that the city does not have a youth center or pool and has a slight deficit on ball fields. The city needs to address these deficiencies but does not need a MPD to accomplish it.
That brings me to the second reason why I am voting no for the MPD. I believe that the city can pay for the facilities that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan in other ways without creating a brand new tax authority. One consideration is that the city could immediately issue a bond for the youth center, pool or ball field improvements. This city-issued bond can be created by a vote of council as simply as the council voted to put the MPD on the ballot. Why doesn’t the council do it? This is an excellent question. Is it because they have already posted bonds for the building previously known as the “Interim Justice Center” and the for water/sewer improvements? A council-issued bond is not the only way to fund a large capital project like a youth center; the council could put a bond (tax levy) on the ballot for voters to approve. The bond would last a certain number of years, and then the bond-issued tax would go away. Another, more creative, funding mechanism is to amend the city charter to establish a park department and a fund it based on a percentage of the cities revenues.
The third reason I am voting no for the MPD is that it is the easy way for the city but at the expense of every Bonney Lake household. A park board authored presentation entitled “Creation of a Metropolitan Park District in Bonney Lake” dated Aug. 16, 2011 is very clear that a bond is too difficult to pass but a MPD is easy. A bond is difficult because it requires 40 percent voter turnout, and then 60 percent voter approval; a MPD is easy because it only requires 50 percent approval and does not require minimum voter participation. Additionally, the idea is to put the MPD on a ballot in an election with low voter turnout, the presentation states “Non-school bond issues have the best chance of passing in a February or March special election.” So, the easy scenario is that in a special election only a few people, for example 70, turnout and then all 40 people interested in the MPD vote yes. The MPD would pass because it received 50 percent of the vote. In that scenario, only 40 Bonney Lake citizens created a new government tax authority for the 17,000 citizens. I hope a large number of citizens participate in this election, but this example illustrates that the MPD measure is the easy way to tax you.
The fourth reason I am voting no for the MPD is because the only thing we can guarantee if the MPD is approved is that your taxes will increase and the city council will run the board initially. There is no guarantee what the MPD will decide to develop, or how much money it will spend. The city won’t even guarantee how the current parks will be sold, leased or given to the MPD. I can’t give my approval to a plan that says it will establish a board and the board members will be paid $6,000 dollars a year, but I don’t know how they will spend my money, except that they will spend it.
The fifth reason I am voting no is that I will now be taxed twice for parks. That is right, the money the city currently spends on parks will return to the general fund. So the city will essentially get a windfall revenue source if an MPD takes over. This is not all bad, but it is also not good given my third and fourth reasons. I do not feel comfortable giving the council, who clearly wants easy, more of my hard earned money without receiving a concrete, measurable plan for how they will spend it.
The sixth reason I am voting no for the MPD is that it creates a forever tax. That is, once the MPD is created it will not expire after 20 years like a bond; a MPD collects the taxes forever. The proponents will say that the people can vote to dissolve the MPD if the MPD does not accomplish its goals. While that may be possible, this argument does not pass the giggle test. MPD proponents also say the MPD has something for everyone, but the council won’t guarantee what we will get. The only thing we are guaranteed is a tax increase (see my fourth reason above). The truth is that an MPD will take some money from everyone and may give us …what? Forever is too long, I can’t support such an open ended deal.
In closing, I encourage everyone to take the ten to twelve hours it takes to read all of the city’s documents, listen to recorded testimony and piece together all the pieces to this MPD puzzle. Once you finish putting the puzzle together, the choice will be clear: No new forever tax.
James McClimans
Bonney Lake
