Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Funding Mpd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After MPD loss, Lacey council weighs alternatives: bonds, partnerships, maintenance priorities
Summary
Council members reviewed the failed Metropolitan Park District (MPD) ballot measure and discussed next steps, including smaller bond measures, public facility district options, partnerships, timing tied to economic conditions, and prioritizing replacement/maintenance over new facilities.
City parks staff reviewed the aftermath of the recent Metropolitan Park District (MPD) ballot measure and asked the council to consider funding alternatives and priorities.
“Moving forward, the needs still exist,” Parks and Culture Recreation Director Jen Burbage said, noting the August proposal “did not receive the necessary votes” to form an MPD and that the city continues to face aging park infrastructure and a growing population. Burbage and staff summarized outreach done prior to the ballot — including 27 community presentations — and said the city will need a dedicated sustainable funding source to address replacement and maintenance needs.
Council discussion focused on options and timing. Staff identified possible alternatives to the MPD: a more narrowly focused Public Facilities District for a single project (for example a museum or aquatic center), a smaller general obligation (GO) bond targeted to capital replacements (not maintenance), or considering debt if the city’s fiscal position allows and interest rates become more favorable. Council members emphasized the need to prioritize replacement projects rather than new amenities that would increase ongoing maintenance costs.
Several council members described the failed MPD vote as affected by timing and economic conditions. One council member said the city should wait “at least 3, 4, or 5 years” before making a similar ballot effort; another suggested exploring partnerships with other jurisdictions or nonprofit groups to spread cost and increase chances of voter support. Council Member Stedman and others urged staff to continue communications about the value of parks and to keep park advocates engaged.
Council opinions diverged on taking on debt. One council member said they would consider borrowing for targeted capital work if the city’s debt load remained low and interest rates fell; another said taking on debt in the face of an operating deficit would be inadvisable. Staff noted any general obligation bond would be limited to capital projects and could not be used for routine maintenance.
Burbage outlined next steps: reevaluate the parks capital improvement program, prioritize replacement projects that do not expand maintenance burdens, continue outreach to maintain community and partner support, and position potential ballot or financing options for more favorable economic windows. No formal action was taken at the meeting.
