Seattle Parks District Tax

[JayDee]

Currently the O&M costs for Seattle Parks are borne by the City’s general fund. I don’t see the problem with this as parks are a basic amenity of living in a city to keep the citizenry pacified. For instance, sell off part Lincoln Park to a private developer, and see what happens…wait, we tried that.

–

I see no reason we should vote for a special parks district to pay for general municipal expenses unless an increase in my taxes = a reduction in my taxes. Because surely the city won’t use these liberated funds for their own pet causes, right?

–

Please convince me I (or any other property tax payer) should pay for this. Don’t get me wrong, I love my parks….but I am already paying for them.

Share This

[metrognome]

The Parks Legacy Plan, developed by a citizens’ advisory committee, was released in March. It includes a proposal to seek voter approval to create a Parks District; this could include a tax increase. It will be up to the City Council to develop and approve an actual ballot measure for an August vote. It is a much more complex issue than raising taxes.

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/legacy/committee.htm

Share This

[skeeter]

This will be an interesting discussion. I’d like to hear more pro and con of forming a parks district.

JayDee – in answer to your original question, my guess (and it’s only a guess) is that if parks are funded by a new revenue source (ie, new tax) and the general city budget was relieved of this obligation then there would be a decrease in city taxes – either a decrease in B&O or sales tax. However, my understanding is the tax increase would be greater than the tax decrease since overall park spending would increase.

Share This

[Ms. Sparkles]

JayDee – part of the creation of the parks district would be that City of Seattle would still have to allocate funding for the parks at 2014 levels UNLESS the City Counsel votes by a 3/4 majority that a natural disastor or exigent circumstances prevent them from doing so.

But yes, we will pay more. The gist is that because Washington State law limits property tax increases to 1% a year, the city can’t raise enough revenue to allocate to all the needed programs (which ones are needed is a debate for another time). Parks, because we enjoy them but no one’s life depends on them, generally get the short shift in that equation.

This would create a separate taxing district not subject to the 1% state law that would tax up to $.75 for every $1,000 of assessed value of property. It would create the stable funding source “needed” (because the Parks Dept can’t rely on the city to fully fund them) to take care of the maintence back log (which I fully approve of) increase operating hours at the community centers (sure, sounds good / necessary) and plan a bunch of programs for the future (meh – some I really don’t get…like women’s only swim – why?).

Share This

[skeeter]

Women’s only swim – probably so Muslim women have an opportunity to swim while respecting their faith requirements.

Share This

[HMC Rich]

Been to the South Seattle Community Center Pool lately I see. I would like an over 50 fat guys only swim fund started too!

Share This

[JayDee]

I think that since my annual raise averages 1%/year, then the City should have to live within it’s means as well–including Parks, transportation, and police/fire. Don’t even get me started on City Light’s rate increases.

–

If the City is limited to a 3/4 majority to cut funds from 2014’s levels, then it is slightly more palatable. I know Washington is the most regressive taxed state in the Union, so we should have a progressive income tax, but again, I don’t expect to get a break on property taxes or sales tax if one is enacted.

Share This

[Author]

Posts