Lacey work group recommends metropolitan park district, council weighs levy, project priorities

Lacey — The Parks Improvement Funding Work Group recommended that the City Council pursue a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) funded initially by a 45¢ per $1,000 assessed-value levy to provide predictable, dedicated funding for parks maintenance, operations and capital projects, staff told the council at a Jan. 14 work session.

The recommendation, presented by Parks staff, would generate roughly $5.9 million a year under current assessed values, the work group said. The group advised allocating about 40% of MPD revenue for maintenance and operations and 60% for new capital projects, and it suggested a phased increase over time to protect revenues from inflation.

Why it matters: Lacey’s parks budget and capital needs have outpaced current general-fund and user-fee revenue, staff said. The work group prioritized projects and funding so the city could fund several major projects within about five years without issuing debt if the levy passed, and provide stable money for ongoing repairs and high‑use facilities.

City staff summarized the city’s current parks funding and needs, noting roughly $7.6 million in parks, culture and recreation operating expenses and a parks capital-improvement program (PCIP) with roughly $72 million in new and replacement projects at the time the group ranked projects. The work group’s top priorities included completion of Meridian Park, development of elements at the proposed Young Child and Family Center site (spray park/indoor playground and a possible future pool), advancement of Greg Keough Park phases, spray parks distributed across the city, and additional fields and amenities at the Regional Athletic Complex (RAC).

Public comment and maintenance concerns: Jack Kriegelst, representing the Thurston County Pickleball Club, urged the council to treat resurfacing of the Rainier Vista courts as an urgent maintenance item. “My name is Jack Kriegelst. I'm here representing the Thurston County Pickleball Club…our issue is with the tennis court resurfacing project not making the list,” Kriegelst said, describing cracking surfaces and trip hazards and offering the club’s assistance with costs. Staff told the council that resurfacing at Rainier Vista has been added to the PCIP as an emergent need and that the city has applied for an RCO grant for a related project.

Project timing, partnerships and equity: Council members asked for clearer project commitments and renderings to present to voters, and emphasized geographical equity across north, central and south Lacey. Several members favored naming a few visible, geographically distributed projects that voters could identify, rather than only listing themes. Staff stressed that some projects — notably an indoor pool at the Young Child and Family Center — depend on partner participation (North Thurston Public Schools, YMCA) and interlocal agreements before the city would commit funds for design or construction.

Governance and boundary questions: Staff said an MPD can follow city boundaries or include a broader area such as the urban growth area (UGA); inclusion of the UGA or county areas would require interlocal agreements, different governance options (either an elected five-member board or appointed representatives), and additional review steps. Staff noted county commissioners have discussed county-level options for parks funding and that coordination would be necessary if jurisdictions sought overlapping or joint districts.

Levy mechanics and risk: Finance staff explained the practical difference between a levy rate and the dollar amount the council seeks: the ballot would authorize a levy rate (the work group proposed 45¢ per $1,000), but the final rate depends on certified assessed valuation. Staff warned that valuation changes, annexations and other taxing jurisdictions’ choices affect the rate and the city’s “bank capacity” to raise the levy later. The work group recommended the 45¢ rate as the level likely to fund the prioritized projects, while council asked staff for additional scenarios, including UGA assessed-value calculations.

Next steps and council guidance: Council members asked staff to provide (1) assessed‑valuation figures for the UGA to quantify how including the UGA would change the initial levy rate and revenue, (2) project-level timelines and renderings for a handful of candidate projects that would be emphasized to voters, and (3) a clearer schedule and decision checklist if the council wants to proceed toward a ballot measure. Council discussion favored targeting an August special/primary ballot if the measure is limited to city boundaries because including the UGA or county partners would likely require more time and negotiation.

Ending note: Staff said the work group’s prioritized list and MPD proposal are a starting point; the council did not adopt any formal levy resolution at the meeting. The council approved the meeting agenda at the start of the session; no other formal votes on MPD formation or a ballot measure were taken.