Sometime in the near future, voters may no longer need to concern themselves with the semi-regular chore of deciding on South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District’s four- or six-year levy requests.
Under a proposal being considered by the board of commissioners to become a “metropolitan” district, one that would require voter approval, the public would make the decision once and that’s it — substantial increases would need voters’ OK but the operating budget would largely be set in perpetuity. Such a move would certainly make life easier for district staff, and save money, but it’s not clear whether those benefits justify the stripping of a built-in accountability measure. The commissioners should consider this fundamental change with a wary eye before moving ahead.
Under the current organizational structure, the district’s day-to-day workings are funded by a maintenance and operation levy. It’s the bread and butter of the budget, paying for everything from employee salaries to gasoline. The headache the model creates is that staff must go through the rigmarole of asking the public to approve this backbone funding source even if the amount sought is the same.
The investment in staff time and the actual expense of putting a measure on the ballot make a strong case for a metropolitan designation, as it would remove this seemingly pointless process by allowing voters to OK a single levy request. It would stand until anything more than a 1 percent annual increase allowed under state law was sought. The designation includes a cap of 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed value.
The current rate is 18 cents per $1,000 of assessed value.
Another cost saver is that the model extends the term limits of commissioners from four to six years. That means less elections, less money.
The metropolitan model doesn’t appear to be overly common among parks districts, but it’s not unique. In fact, it would essentially mirror the Port of South Whidbey’s current structure. Standing levies are also used by Langley and Island County.
There are benefits to be sure for such a system, but there’s a price tag as well. Longer term limits may save a few bucks, but six years is a long haul and finding people willing to serve even four-year terms can at times be a challenge. More importantly, however, going through the occasional chore of explaining and justifying a budget should not be considered a meaningless exercise. It’s not. It’s a chance for members of the public to learn about the organization they’re funding and a means of accountability. The circumstances that would justify a maintenance and operations levy rejection are hard to contemplate — it would essentially cripple the district — but what’s important is that the mechanism exists for voters to call upon if ever necessary.
Levy limits exist for a reason. They may be cumbersome, expensive and at times seem silly, but they have their place. The burden of district commissioners now is to decide whether the benefits and savings of a new system outweigh a tried and true safeguard.
