Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses options to fund parks; public opposes new tax
Summary
Councilmembers debated options to create a dedicated parks revenue stream (property-tax increment, real estate excise tax, or utility surcharge) and agreed to ask the budget lead to research precedents; a public commenter urged a user-fee model and opposed creating another tax.
Councilmember Steve Johnston opened a discussion on creating a dedicated revenue stream for parks, saying park maintenance currently relies on the general fund and suggesting options such as a small property-tax levy, a retail/real-estate excise tax, or an added line item on utility bills. He asked the budget office to research feasible models and precedents in other jurisdictions.
Johnston and other council members discussed the restrictions on enterprise funds (water/sewer revenue must remain dedicated to those utilities) and noted that grants have historically covered many park projects. Council asked Sarah in the budget office to investigate and report back on mechanisms used elsewhere, including retail real estate excise taxes (REET) and whether wider state changes have expanded allowable uses.
During open public comment, Larry Hawker urged the council not to create another tax for parks and instead recommended a user-fee model similar to national parks where visitors pay to use certain facilities. Council members acknowledged his concern and noted the policy trade-offs between user fees and broad-based public funding.
No formal revenue measure was proposed or adopted at the meeting; council directed staff to prepare options and examples for future consideration.
