HomeMy WebLinkAbout042726 email Levy lift proposition - must not mention future MPDALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
The following language in your April 27, 2026 agenda item “DISCUSSION re Ballot measure for Levy Lid Lift for Parks & Rec.pdf” reflects the “sense of the board” arrived at during your
meeting on April 20, 2026.
The “ Whereas” clauses of the Resolution would reference the possibility of the formation of a
Metropolitan Park District (MPD) in Port Townsend; state that the county may enter into agreements
with a future MPD for managing Parks & Rec facilities and programs, including how tax revenues
could be shared or redistributed for the purpose of managing Parks & Rec facilities and programs;
and state that the county could choose to forgo collection of a portion of levy capacity authorized by
this levy lid lift if revenue generated through and managed by an MPD would support the same Parks
Rec facilities and programs, but that an MPD could choose to supplement and enhance existing
Parks & Rec facilities and programs with additional revenues.
Public comments were not solicited during that April 20 discussion. If given the opportunity, I would have pointed out that the inclusion of provisions in the ballot measure that would
essentially force the BoCC to enter into an agreement with a future MPD (Municipal Parks District) would be contrary to the well-established principle that a board cannot bind the actions
of a future board.
Please see:
AGO 2012 No. 4 - May 15 2012, Attorney General Rob McKenna, regarding the
“Power Of County Legislative Authority To Enter Into Contract That Binds The County Legislative Authority In The Future”.
https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/power-county-legislative-authority-enter-contract-binds-county-legislative-authority
Placing a levy lift proposal on the ballot is clearly a “core legislative power” of your board. A levy lift, once approved by a vote of the people, establishes a contract between the
county and the taxpayers.
From the Opinion:
“If a contract impairs this “core” legislative discretion, eliminating or substantially reducing the discretion future bodies might exercise, the courts are likely to find that the contract
has improperly impaired the legislative authority of future commissioners.”
If a ballot measure, along with its supporting Resolution, binds the action of a future county commission by essentially forcing (politically speaking) the entering into agreements with
any other entity such as an MPD, that would violate the “no binding future boards” principle which is supported by the case law and decisions of the Washington Supreme Court as noted
in the Opinion.
When drafting your Resolution in support of the levy lift, please resist the temptation to mention, in any way, the possibility of future agreements (e.g. ILA, etc.) with any entity
including but not limited to an MPD, a Park and Recreation District, the City of Port Townsend, etc.
The proposed ballot language is clear: “this proposition provides for dedicated funding for all county-owned park facilities, recreation programs, and community center facilities and
programs in Brinnon, Quilcene, the Tri-Area, Gardiner, and Port Townsend”.
Dedicated funding cannot, therefore, be diverted to any other use. Transferring any funds to an MPD would be illegal.
If voters were to choose to support the creation and funding of an MPD, that decision would have to succeed on its own merits and be independent of any promises of funding by Jefferson
County.
Respectfully,
Tom Thiersch
Jefferson County, WA