HomeMy WebLinkAbout073126 email - Fw_ Observations about the Parks Levy info flyerGreetings Commissioners:
In Mr. Thiersch's comment below, his reference to the Resolution in question is to Section 2. Purpose. The basis of my statement last week is Section 3. Limitation on Use of Revenues,
which expressly limits the use of funds generated by this levy to the purpose described in Section 2. In other words, Per Section 3, the funds generated by this levy shall only be used
for the facilities and programs listed in Section 2. The second sentence in Section 3 is not a qualifier for the first sentence; that second sentence addresses prospective situations
in which revenues are received by the county through other sources (such as a Municipal Parks District established in Port Townsend, as referenced in a Whereas clause in the Resolution)
for specific facilities and/or programs listed in Section 2. Nothing in that second sentence in Section 3 changes the fact that the first sentence in Section 3 directly and unequivocally
limits use of funds generated by this levy to the purpose described in Section 2.
Thus, I stand by my statement and assert that Mr. Thiersch is incorrect in his interpretation of the Resolution, which was approved as-to-form by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Based
on my consultation with our Chief Civil Deputing Prosecuting Attorney (DPA) about the relationship between Sections 2 and 3 of the Resolution, I am confident that it is precisely as
described here, meaning that the funds are limited by Section 3 to being used only for what's listed in Section 2.
Mr. Thiersch's also references a statement that the Finance Director made last week, alleging that the statement is confirmation that, "The Prop 1 funds will be simply become part of
the general fund and most likely be used for purposes other than those listed."
First, nothing that the Finance Director said (or that I or anyone else said or will say) alters the limitation expressed in Section 3 of the Resolution and the effect described above.
Second, I agree with Mr. Thiersch that other funds would be affected by failure of the levy lid lift on the August 4 ballot. Apparently, our understanding of why and how other funds
would be affected differs, however.
The notion that the results of the August 4 levy lid lift would have reverberating effects on the county budget has been openly discussed numerous times in public meetings. The basic
reason is that even if substantial and severe cuts were made to funds supporting Parks & Rec, the fairgrounds, community centers, and 4-H, it would be virtually impossible to eliminate
all future expenditures related to those facilities and programs. Why? Because those parks and facilities will still be there, and there would need to be some level of expenditure to
manage those assets, even if related services were drastically reduced or eliminated. That lesson was learned regarding Parks & Rec specifically during and in the aftermath of the recession
of 2007-2009. (I.e., people will continue to use parks that are "closed.") Thus, without levy lid lift funding dedicated to those facilities and programs listed in Section 2 of the
subject Resolution, in order to reduce or eliminate deficit spending, broader cuts will be needed in the 2027 county budget that would impact other funds. The extent of those impacts
would be determined in the budget process and, ultimately, by the budget that the Boards adopts before year's end. The Finance Director's statement speaks to the process that we would
use in that challenging budget environment to carefully consider proposals for any General Fund transfers to any funds.
If you have any questions, please advise and/or consult with our Chief Civil DPA. Thank you.
Regards,
Josh
Josh D. Peters, AICP (he/him/his)
County Administrator
Jefferson County <https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/> , Washington
360-385-9100
Note: email subject to disclosure per Public Records Act, RCW 42.56
________________________________
From: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2026 7:12 AM
To: jeffbocc <jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: Observations about the Parks Levy info flyer
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
County Administrator Josh Peters’ non-response (see below) to my concerns is troubling.
At 9:24 a.m. during the July 20, 2026, regular meeting of the Board of County commissioners, Josh Peters (responding to public comments) said:
“So, the revenue received pursuant to the [Parks and Rec] resolution can only [emphasis added] be used to fund county-owned park facilities, including over 20 parks countywide, campgrounds
days, parks, and playgrounds, Memorial Field, and the fairgrounds, recreation programs, including the countywide basketball, soccer, and related programs, the Port Townsend Recreation
Center activities, and 4-H youth development and community centers facilities and programs in Brinnon, Quilcene, Tri-Area, Gardiner, and Port Townsend.”
The actual wording of the referenced portion of RESOLUTION NO. 23-0427- 26R is:
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is provide funding for all county- owned park facilities (including over 20 parks countywide, including campgrounds, day- use parks
and playgrounds, Memorial Field, and the Fairgrounds), recreation programs (including the countywide basketball, soccer, and related programs; Port Townsend Rec Center activities; and
4-H Youth Development), and community centers (facilities and programs in Brinnon, Quilcene, Tri-Area, Gardiner, and Port Townsend).
Note that Josh Peters chose to insert the word “only” into what the resolution says, and the addition of that one word says it all: The county will rely on the letter of the Resolution,
regardless of such misleading claims. The Prop 1 funds will be simply become part of the general fund and most likely be used for purposes other than those listed.
This was confirmed later in the day (at 03:09:58.000 into the official recording of the meeting) by Finance Director Shepherd, who said:
“So, if the ballot measure doesn't pass, transfers from the general fund will be set to zero and re-evaluated following the general fund assistance policy and then any general fund transfers
to other funds for discretionary services will likely be reduced or eliminated.”
Commissioners then confirmed that “other” discretionary programs (i.e., other than those enumerated in the resolution) would be impacted if the Prop 1 levy does not pass.
The inescapable conclusion is that funding for those “other” programs would be affected – only differently – if the levy does pass.
If the levy passes, the levy money will become part of the general fund (i.e., not managed in a separate account such as the road fund) and there will be no practical way to trace (audit)
how that money is used.
Despite the good intentions of the current commission, future commissions will not be able to resist using all available funds as the county’s budget situation worsens.
Tom Thiersch
From: Josh D. Peters <JDPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:JDPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:12 AM
To: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com <mailto:tprosys@gmail.com> >
Subject: Re: observations about the Parks Levy info flyer
Thank you, Mr. Thiersch, for taking the time to share your thoughts on this subject.
________________________________
From: Tom Thiersch <tprosys@gmail.com <mailto:tprosys@gmail.com> >
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2026 12:39 PM
To: Josh D. Peters <JDPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:JDPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Subject: RE: observations about the Parks Levy info flyer
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hello, Mr. Peters. Sorry for the delayed reply, but I wanted to give you a thorough answer to your question.
Your question highlights the limitations of 3-minute public comment periods. With more time, I could have gone into some detail about what I could only briefly describe as non-facts,
by which phrase I tried to encompass statements that are either false or misleading.
The county is, of course, motivated to promote the passage of the levy lift – otherwise, the BoCC wouldn’t have put it on the ballot. It’s also clear that the facts which the county
chooses to present to the voters, along with the manner of such presentation, will naturally be biased in favor of passage.
Slanted advertising in politics is nothing new, and low-information voters are easily manipulated by skilled practitioners of the art of constructing effective political ads; just look
at who’s in the White House.
FLYER
My concerns about the flyer that was sent with the PUD bills and has been widely distributed elsewhere include the flyer itself (both versions now), by reference to Proposition 1 as
it appears on the ballot, and by reference the in the flyer to the county’s website.
The county’s Parks and Rec department has absolutely nothing to do with the Fairgrounds or any programming there. For the flyer to prominently refer to it as a “County Parks and Rec
levy” is misleading, particularly considering that more than 25% of the money (as shown on the pie chart) is intended to be spent outside of the county’s Parks and Rec department.
One non-fact is the flyer’s extensive use of photos of children. That’s a classic, and in my opinion cynical, tactic because so many voters will knee-jerk approve anything that’s “for
the kids” without reading any further.
Then there’s the fluctuating number of parks. “23”, “20”, …? Matt Tyler’s count is 22 (see attached).
WEBSITE
In addition to the understandably biased perspective of the ‘fact sheet’, the county’s website contains some simply false statements
https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1969/Parks-Rec-Levy <https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1969/Parks-Rec-Levy>
If the Levy Lid Lift, Proposition No. 1, passes, Parks and Recreation, Community Centers, 4-H, and the Fairgrounds would receive a dedicated 6-year funding source beginning April 2027
- just in time to prevent any service disruptions and sustain operations. In addition, GF dollars previously allocated to fund those programs can instead be used to help fill the currently
projected GF budget deficit for 2027, and potentially restore some of the previously reduced services in GF-supported departments and funds.
No one can flat-out guarantee that Prop. 1 funds would prevent any such thing. At best, it could be said that the funds would be intended to be used to “help avoid service disruptions…”.
Stating as fact anything that has not yet been decided upon by the BoCC, the only authority with the power to make such decisions, is simply unacceptable.
Similarly,
The Levy Lid Lift will expire in 2032, at which point Jefferson County will vote on it again.
Same problem. Only the BoCC can decide whether to attempt a re-up when the time comes.
BALLOT
Regarding the ballot, the title of Prop 1, “County Parks and Rec Levy”, is the first and most obvious example of what I put into the “misleading” category.
Voters who only see the title of the proposition will say, “Sure, I want parks. I love parks.” Voters who actually read the 91 words of ballot language might say, “Oh, and community
centers, too? Sounds OK.” Or “Hmm, only 21 cents – I guess I can afford that.”
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 26-0427-23R, concerning a property tax supporting county-wide parks, recreation and community centers. If approved,
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 by authorizing an additional six-year property tax beginning in 2027 at $0.21 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, which uses the 2027 levy amount to compute
annual increases in 2028-20321 and exempts qualifying seniors, veterans, and disabled persons under RCW 84.36.381.
And those same voters will see that the ballot language uses the word “dedicated”. Almost everyone getting that far will naturally assume that “dedicated” means that the money will be
spent only for the purposes stated when that is, in fact, not at all the case.
Not stated in the ballot language is that Prop. 1 funds are to be used for 4-H and the County Fairgrounds. That information is buried in the Resolution. I think it’s safe to say that
very few voters will make the extra effort to locate that Resolution on the county website. So, the omission of important information from the Prop. 1 language is, at best, misleading
to voters.
The uses of funds from Prop 1 are spelled out in county Resolution 23-0427-26R. But the carefully crafted language of the Resolution contains a great big escape clause which allows the
county to divert funds from the Parks and Rec levy to almost any other purpose deemed necessary by the county, without any approval of the voters.
This is the verbatim text of the county Resolution 23-0427-26R (emphasis added):
“Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is provide funding for all county-owned park facilities (including over 20 parks countywide, including campgrounds, day-use parks
and playgrounds, Memorial Field, and the Fairgrounds), recreation programs (including the countywide basketball, soccer, and related programs; Port Townsend Rec Center activities; and
4-H Youth Development), and community centers (facilities and programs in Brinnon, Quilcene, Tri-Area, Gardiner, and Port Townsend).”
“Section 3. Limitation on Use of Revenues. Revenue generated by this levy lid lift shall be used for the purpose stated in Section 2. In implementing this Resolution, Jefferson County
shall avoid using revenue from this resolution to fund programs at a level already funded by another revenue source.”
“shall be used for the purpose” is not the same as “shall be used ONLY for the purpose, and “shall avoid using” is not the same as “shall not use”.
Unfortunately, the members of the “FOR” Prop. 1 committee made that incorrect reading of “dedicated” funds and included that falsehood on Page 5 of the Official Local Voters’ Pamphlet.
They should be ashamed.
I hope that I’ve answered your question. If not, please let me know and thanks for asking.
Tom Thiersch
From: Josh D. Peters <JDPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us <mailto:JDPeters@co.jefferson.wa.us> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 8:22 AM
To: tprosys@gmail.com <mailto:tprosys@gmail.com>
Subject: observations about the Parks Levy info flyer
Greetings Mr. Thiersch:
I recall you indicating to the PUD Commission that the Parks Levy info flyer that the county produced contains "non-facts" beyond the sentence flagged by the PDC. Would you be willing
to point out what you're referring to specifically?
I am interested in improving our understanding of what type of content stands out for readers. As I reported, when I reviewed the factsheet, I believed it was consistent with state law
and the 2015 PDC Staff Compliance Review Memorandum <https://www.pdc.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/Fact.Sheets.pdf> . However, I am interested to learn what you saw.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Josh D. Peters, AICP (he/him/his)
County Administrator
Jefferson County <https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/> , Washington
360-385-9100
Note: email subject to disclosure per Public Records Act, RCW 42.56