Ballot Issues Report

• Summary
• Arguments For
• Arguments Against
• Analysis

SUMMARY

The Metropolitan King County Council has proposed a 30-year $215 million bond and accompanying maintenance and operation (M&O) levy to acquire and develop parks, recreation facilities and resource lands. The proposal is called the Recreation and Conservation Legacy ("Legacy.")

The bond would increase property taxes by $.01433 per $1,000 of assessed value on average for 30 years, and requires 60 percent voter approval to pass. The M&O levy, a separate ballot issue, would be a one-year $.25 per $1000 of assessed value excess levy also requiring a 60 percent vote. Levy revenue would be distributed over a ten year period. Issuance of the Legacy bonds would raise county general obligation debt from $412 of debt per capita to $546 of debt per capita. The debt issuance schedule incorporates an arbitrage strategy for the first year to generate interest earnings, and proceeds are invested for the first two years after bond issuance.

Capital bond projects are proposed in two categories:

1. Seventy percent of the funds ($150 million) will be provided to local programs for parks, recreation and open space as determined by each city and by the County for unincorporated King County, including approximately $15 million to be allocated to a new partnership program.
2. Thirty percent ($65 million) is allocated to acquire or restore critical resources lands including the purchase of development rights from farms threatened by development, conservation easements along salmon streams, or critical open space land, many of which connect regional green ways and wildlife systems.

The proposal includes 161 park-related and 63 critical resource projects. The majority of proposed recreation facilities are located in incorporated local jurisdictions. Critical resources proposed for preservation are located primarily in unincorporated rural areas. Under local programs, the measure would fund the acquisition of 385 new acres of local parks, the development of 47 projects and the renovation of 33 projects. Under the critical resources program, the measure would fund 10 farm and forest projects, 9 regional open space projects and 28 regional waterways projects.

If the M&O levy passes, but the bond measure does not pass within five years, M&O funds collected and held will be transferred to the county's current expense fund and used to reduce regular property taxes collected in 2002. If the bond passes but not the M&O levy, alternative maintenance and operations funding must be approved by 30 percent of the jurisdictions in the county representing 70 percent of the population.

Through past measures, including the 1989 Open Space Bond and 1993 Conservation Futures bonds, and funds leveraged from other sources, a total of $260 million dollars has been generated for open space and critical resources in the past six years, with acreage acquired surpassing goals. The proposed Legacy is the first attempt at a comprehensive package that addresses all of these types of needs and adds local parks and recreation projects in a single county-wide proposal.

Back to the Top

ARGUMENTS FOR

Proponents of the Legacy bond and levy argue that this proposal represents a broad based, inclusive consensus based on historical precedent as well as present and future need. Historically, King County voters have embraced similar ballot issues, including the Forward Thrust proposal of 1968, the Farmlands Preservation Program of 1979, the open Space Bond of 1989, and the Conservation Futures Bond of 1993. The Legacy proposal reflects the high priority placed by the community on recreation, open space, and natural resources, and the willingness of King County residents to address present as well as future community needs.

Proponents stress that the proposal was developed over the past two years by a Citizens Oversight Committee supported by elected officials, parks experts, wildlife and salmon biologists, farmers and recreationists, and was regionally balanced among geographic areas and categories of need. This regional approach was also utilized to allocate funds to projects, in an attempt to balance urban and rural interests. Since the County has already been moving strongly on acquisition of natural areas through past measures, and current demands for recreation areas outweigh supply, proponents feel the majority of funds should be dedicated to active recreation needs. Projects proposed address some of the highest priorities in many cities' master recreation plans.

Proponents argue that critical resources projects address some of the highest priority needs for the natural environment and land resources. The projects are aimed at protecting salmon runs, supporting farms and working forests, and adding to the regional open space system. Much of the money requested will be used to leverage funds from other sources through matching programs, a strategy which has been used successfully in past bond measures. The proposed financing plan uses 30- rather than 20-year bonds, which proponents note will hold down annual debt tax required to fund the proposal. In addition, proposed projects have a long useful life, and a 30-year bond allows the debt burden to be shared by future generations. Although Legacy will increase King County's general obligation debt, retirement of certain other bonds between 1997-2000 will allow the county to maintain a good bond rating. The planned arbitrage strategy and the timing of the bond issuance and the expenditure of bond proceeds create opportunities to maximize interest earnings. Further, the majority of the proposed projects are anticipated to be completed within three years, which will minimize inflation effects.

Proponents state that the need for maintenance and operations funding is recognized and adequately addressed through the one time levy. Jurisdictions with proposed projects that have a relatively high maintenance cost have committed to meeting these costs when levy funds run out through mechanisms such as the use of existing revenues, partnership cost-sharing, private funds or user fees.

Finally, proponents stress that the project will be adequately monitored because the King County Open Space Citizens Oversight Committee will continue as the local advisory group for all King County and regional projects. In addition, each jurisdiction will have its own identified local advisory group that will recommend any reallocation of unanticipated earnings between projects, or abandonment of projects that are later determined to be unfeasible.

Back to the Top

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Opponents of the measure argue that the Recreation and Conservation Legacy Bond and Levy is an over-expansive luxury we cannot afford, and that it is another example of putting popular, emotionally charged issues on the ballot, while not addressing basic infrastructure needs.

Opponents contend the need for recreation and open space has not been gauged against other public needs including schools, transportation, water resources, health and public safety. Likely future proposals requiring public funding include emergency medical services, automated police records, the zoo, affordable housing, health facilities, a regional justice center and a youth detention facility. Opponents maintain that the potential costs of regional transit must also be considered, and that recent federal changes in the welfare system that limit federal benefits and funding may dramatically increase King County's financial burden.

Opponents argue that local projects should be funded locally, and that there is no need for a regional plan to fund local park projects; they note that some city councils, such as Federal Way, have agreed and voted not to support the measures. Regionalizing local problems also means political negotiations replace reasoned policy decision-making. Local projects will receive 70 percent of the funds, and regional critical resources the remaining 30 percent. Opponents contend that these figures reflect negotiations rather than county-wide need.

Opponents have expressed concern that the M&O levy will only provide 10 years of funding, with no guarantee that local jurisdictions will allocate, or even have, sufficient funds to maintain these facilities. Some of the recreational facilities will be associated with school systems, and opponents argue that there are no assurances that these facilities will remain open to the public at large.

Opponents also argue that one of the purported reasons for the Legacy is to accommodate projected growth in King County. However, by splitting local project funds among jurisdictions using a formula combining population and assessed value, there is no relationship between where the money will be spent and where the growth is expected. Further, opponents assert that the Legacy proposal should be put off at least until the Growth Management Planning Council has completed developing a strategy and plan for regional finance.

Opponents argue that the Legacy proposal is too expensive and will unfairly compensate some property owners and not others. Financing the $215 million bond requires increasing already high property taxes. Legacy bonds issued by King County will be 30-year bonds; the county normally issues 20-year bonds. By increasing the term by 50 percent, taxpayers must pay an estimated 60 percent more in interest charges. Opponents also stress that the county has adopted critical area and resource land regulations which have down-zoned some property without the kind of compensation proposed under the Legacy bonds, raising questions of equity.

Opponents argue that the Growth Management Act calls for cities to be the providers of urban services and counties to focus on regional needs. Although open space and habitat conservation are arguably regional needs, active park programs are not. Also, the county's tax revenues are expected to shrink, not expand, with future incorporations and annexations and the county's bonding capacity and limited sources of future tax revenues should not be used to meet local needs.

Back to the Top

ANALYSIS

While the Municipal League acknowledges the importance of the natural environment and wholesome recreational opportunities as elements of community quality of life, the League finds that there are compelling "good government" issues and arguments on both sides of the measures. The measures failed to command sufficient consensus among Board members to warrant a yes or no recommendation. The Municipal League concluded that voters should make their decisions on the Recreation and Conservation Legacy bond and levy measures based on their personal priorities for how public funds should be expended for capital projects.

For an excellent analysis of capital finance issues related to these measures, voters are encouraged to review the report prepared by the Capital Finance Review Board (CFRB). The CFRB is a project jointly sponsored by the Municipal League, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and the League of Women Voters.

Back to the Top
Back to Ballot Issues
Home