City staff outline Metropolitan Parks District proposal, estimate $6 million a year at 45¢ per $1,000 assessed value

Scott Ager, the City of Lacey public works director, briefed the Planning Commission on June 25 about a proposed Metropolitan Parks District (MPD) that the City Council has placed on the August 5 ballot for voters to consider.

Ager said the MPD would be a junior taxing district whose boundaries follow the city limits and that the council would act as the district’s governing body if voters approve. The proposal on the ballot would set a maximum levy of up to $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed property value; Ager and staff estimated that a levy at that level would generate roughly $6,000,000 per year based on 2024 assessed values. Ager gave an example: a property with a $500,000 assessed value would pay about $225 per year at a 45¢ rate.

Ager described current parks funding and needs. He said the parks and recreation operating budget is about $10.4 million annually, roughly split between recreation programs and parks maintenance; about 74% of current parks funding comes from the city’s general fund (about $7.8 million). He said Lacey manages about 1,270 acres of parkland (518 developed, 751 undeveloped) with roughly 40 full‑time staff across the parks and recreation and maintenance functions (18 recreation, 22 maintenance). Ager said the MPD is intended to create a dedicated, ongoing revenue source to preserve and expand parks services without relying solely on the general fund.

Ager outlined priorities identified through public outreach: spray parks and water features, trails, sports fields, pickleball courts, playgrounds, pump tracks and other amenities. He said city outreach since 2021 produced roughly 8,700 comments and survey responses (including a 2021 Lacey Cares survey with 6,000 open‑ended responses, outreach team responses, parks and rec surveys and a parks improvement funding work group made up of citizens and staff). He listed candidate projects and program priorities that the MPD could support, naming Quito Park Phase 1 (a roughly $6,000,000 initial phase with playground, disc golf and trails), Long Lake Park master planning, senior center expansion, Brooks Park improvements, Rainier Vista upgrades and a future young child and family center being led by North Thurston School District.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about governance, levy limits and fund protection. Spencer asked whether the 45¢ limit on the ballot could be increased administratively; staff answered that any increase above 45¢ would require another public vote. Commissioners asked whether the city council would govern the district and why the council, rather than a separately elected parks board, was listed as the district’s governing body. Ager explained that the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows either an independently elected district board or governance by the city council when the district boundaries match the city limits; he and others said city council oversight simplified budgeting because the council already manages the city’s overall budget.

Commissioners also pressed the city on the risk of supplanting existing general‑fund parks dollars. Ager said the council resolution sending the measure to the ballot specifies that MPD funds will not supplant existing parks funding and stressed that voter credibility depends on following the ballot language. Another commissioner asked what would happen to unused MPD funds in a year; staff replied the district’s funds would be kept separate and not co‑mingled with the city general fund.

Ager emphasized that the MPD, if approved, would provide a steady revenue source for maintenance, operations and capital projects that might otherwise be delayed or not funded. The presentation did not include a final council ordinance or a binding project list; Ager and staff said detailed procedures, budgets and specific project phasing would be developed after voter approval.

The commission did not take a formal position during the meeting; Ager reminded members that advocacy for or against the ballot measure is not allowed while conducting official city business.