Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Facilities Districts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rural leaders back bill to let public facilities districts cover parts of a county for recreation centers
Summary
The committee considered Senate Bill 5053, which would allow public facilities districts to be formed over part of a county so rural communities can finance and operate regional recreation centers and event facilities.
The committee took testimony on Senate Bill 5053, which would allow the creation of public facilities districts (PFDs) that include only part of a county rather than requiring a district’s boundaries to match the creating jurisdiction. Committee staff said a PFD is a municipal corporation with independent taxing authority, authorized to build and operate regional centers and finance them through admission, parking, sales and lodging taxes.
Supporters said the change would let rural communities form targeted PFDs to build indoor recreation centers, pools and regional event venues that are not feasible under current law. Matthew Lund, Mayor of Cle Elum, and Claire Nichols of the Upper Kittitas County Community Recreation Center Alliance described a multi‑jurisdictional project that would serve Cle Elum, Roslyn, South Cle Elum and adjacent unincorporated areas; they told the committee a PFD tailored to the Upper Kittitas area would tap tourist sales and lodging taxes and issue bonds to support capital and operations.
Why it matters: proponents argued that current RCW language effectively bars rural, geographically dispersed communities from forming PFDs that cover only a subset of a county. They said a local PFD would expand year‑round recreation, youth programming, and senior services in places that now lack indoor facilities and pools. Nikki Pasi of Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust and several local elected officials and nonprofit leaders testified in favor.
Concerns and next steps: witnesses and committee staff said the bill needs drafting work to ensure the statutory changes match the sponsor’s intent and to address governance and fiscal questions. Committee staff identified RCW 37.57 as the chapter to be amended. Several county leaders said they support the concept but want the bill to be project‑agnostic and carefully drafted so that it can be used statewide.
Where it stands: No vote occurred; supporters asked the committee to advance a revised draft after additional staff work.
