Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Metropolitan Park District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lacey staff outlines proposed Metropolitan Park District ahead of Aug. 5 ballot
Summary
City staff presented details of a proposed Metropolitan Park District (MPD) that would levy up to $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed value to fund parks capital and maintenance. Staff emphasized the proposal is intended to supplement, not replace, existing general‑fund park spending and noted the proposal is informational only at board meetings.
Lacey Parks, Culture & Recreation staff presented a factual briefing to the Parks Board on June 4 about a proposed Metropolitan Park District (MPD) that, if approved by voters on Aug. 5, would provide ongoing funding for parks, trails and recreation facilities.
The MPD proposal would authorize a levy up to $0.45 per $1,000 in assessed property value; staff estimated that rate would generate roughly $5.9 million per year based on last year’s assessed values. City staff said the ballot measure would be limited to the formal city limits and that, by law, Lacey City Council would serve as the MPD’s governing board if voters approve it.
Jenny Wilson, the city’s parks planner, emphasized the briefing was neutral and informational only, noting state law restricts use of public meetings to promote or oppose ballot measures.
“This is meant to be neutral and factual only,” Wilson told the board. “The city is prohibited from using public meetings to promote or oppose any ballot measure.”
Staff presented community outreach that preceded the proposal: the city’s 2023 Parks, Culture & Recreation Comprehensive Plan included about 8,700 comments on park priorities and a Parks Improvement Funding Work Group of 15 community members recommended pursuing an MPD in 2024. Staff said the most commonly requested amenities in that outreach were spray parks/water features, trails, indoor play and additional sports fields and courts.
Wilson and Jamie Oakland, parks maintenance supervisor, laid out how MPD funds could be used for both new capital projects and ongoing maintenance. Staff stressed that the MPD is intended to supplement — not supplant — current general‑fund park operations.
“If an MPD were to be approved, the intent is to supplement, not replace, existing parks and recreation funds,” Wilson said. “The city council has stated its intent to continue providing general service support.”
Staff listed potential projects that could be funded by an MPD, including additional phases of Cuyo Park (trails, dog park, future playground or zip line), senior center parking and expansion, improvements at several neighborhood parks, a new south‑Lacey spray park, and replacement or renovation of aging playgrounds and court surfacing across the system.
Staff noted the city issued a $10 million bond in 2002 to make a large set of park investments; many of those assets are aging at similar rates and will require replacement over the coming years. The MPD was presented as a mechanism to provide steady ongoing funding to address that backlog and to accelerate projects that otherwise could take many years.
Staff pointed board members to a city webpage with details and to outreach materials that will be shared with community groups. No formal board action was requested at the meeting; staff said they will continue community briefings through August.
Ending: Staff reiterated legal limits on advocacy in public meetings, said the city will continue outreach, and noted council will ultimately decide whether to place the measure on the ballot (the city has scheduled Aug. 5 as the election date).
