Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutor: Lopez group appears to want park-and-recreation powers; council warned Metropolitan Park District law differs
Summary
The county prosecutor told the council a proposed Lopez Island ballot measure as drafted mixes authorities of metropolitan park districts and park-and-recreation districts; the two statutory entities have different powers and formation processes, the prosecutor said.
The San Juan County prosecuting attorney’s office told the council that a community group seeking a Lopez-Island taxing district may be pursuing the wrong legal vehicle for their stated goals, potentially delaying the community’s effort to place a measure on the April special election ballot.
John Kane of the county prosecutor’s office said the draft resolution before the council described powers and activities characteristic of a park-and-recreation district — including funding leisure activities and supporting school athletic programs — but the draft also invoked the creation of a Metropolitan Park District, a different statutory entity. Kane told the council the entities have distinct powers and different formation procedures.
"A Metropolitan Park District may be created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards and recreational facilities," Kane said. "A park and recreation district, by contrast, has broader authority to provide leisure-time activities and recreation facilities as a public service to residents." Kane advised the council that only a Metropolitan Park District can be placed on the ballot at the council’s request; a park-and-recreation district typically must be placed on the ballot through a citizen petition process (statutory petition thresholds apply).
Council members and staff said they had understood residents’ stated goals included funding for school athletics and recreation services. Council member Fuller, who has been working with the Lopez formation committee, said the group spent more than a year researching district options and had consulted multiple jurisdictions. Kane repeated that the prosecutor’s office advises the county and cannot act as legal counsel to private citizen groups, but he invited the committee to contact the prosecutor’s office for explanation of the statutory distinctions.
Council members urged staff to quickly notify the Lopez committee and elections staff about the legal distinction and the petition requirement if the group wishes to pursue a park-and-recreation district. County staff said they would follow up with the formation committee and with the auditor’s office to explain petition thresholds and available special-election dates.
Ending: The council did not approve formation language at the meeting; staff and the prosecutor’s office will communicate the statutory distinctions to the Lopez formation committee and the county auditor to clarify next steps and petition requirements for a park-and-recreation district if the committee chooses that path.
