Lacey council narrows timeline for metropolitan parks district ballot, debates 45¢ levy and project priorities

Lacey City Council members on March 20 reviewed a plan to ask voters this summer to create a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) coterminous with city limits and debated how large an initial levy to propose and which park projects to prioritize.

The council and staff focused on two numbers the Parks Improvement Funding Work Group recommended: a 45¢ per $1,000 assessed valuation levy (estimated to generate roughly $5.9 million annually today) and a smaller 30¢ scenario. The work group recommended directing about 60% of levy revenue to capital projects and 40% to operations and maintenance; staff presented a six‑year comparison that illustrated what each rate would produce for capital and for operations.

The discussion turned on tradeoffs between a higher, immediate funding level that would deliver more projects early and a lower rate that would be less costly to the average homeowner. City staff’s illustrative figure for an average Lacey homeowner (assessed value $500,000) was $225 per year for the 45¢ rate and $150 per year for 30¢. Several council members said they prefer staging investments to avoid a large “sticker shock”; others said the difference of about $6 per month between the two scenarios would be acceptable to secure the broader, long‑term capital program.

City staff and the council also discussed the list of capital and replacement projects that the work group prioritized. Projects highlighted in staff materials included indoor family/play facilities and aquatics-related items tied to the Edge Health and Family Center, new and expanded spray/play areas, trails and open‑space access improvements, neighborhood parks development (including some undeveloped parkland the city already owns), and targeted upgrades such as field resurfacing and accessible picnic & amenity improvements. Staff said the MPD provides flexible, long‑term funding to both develop undeveloped park properties and maintain existing facilities.

City staff emphasized that a number of detailed decisions remain: finalizing the levy rate that will appear on the ballot resolution, drafting ballot language, and completing a communications plan. Staff proposed a timeline that would place a resolution establishing the ballot measure before the council in early April and, if adopted, would allow filing with the County Auditor by the May 2 statutory deadline for an August election date.

City legal staff reminded council members of statutory limits on use of public facilities, staff time and city resources for campaign activity. Legal counsel said state law (RCW 42.17A) allows the city to provide informational materials but prohibits using public facilities to advocate for or against a ballot measure and warned that penalties for violations can be significant. Counsel flagged that staff, advisory boards and public property may be used to distribute factual information but cautioned elected officials and staff to separate personal advocacy from official‑resource use.

City staff said they will return with refined ballot language, a more detailed communications plan and proposed “supplanting” language (to address public concern that the MPD would replace rather than supplement existing parks funding). Council members requested additional clarification of the supplanting language and asked staff to prepare alternative levy scenarios and renderings/visual materials the council could use as factual information in public outreach.

The council did not vote on a ballot measure at the March 20 meeting; staff set a target to return with final resolution language and materials in April so the council can act within the Auditor’s filing deadline if it chooses to proceed.

Ending: Staff will refine levy/ballot language, finalize a factual communications plan and return with those materials for council consideration before the filing deadline. If the council adopts a resolution, the target ballot date is Aug. 8, 2025.