I’d like to raise another fiscal concern. Back in May, this chart was posted on the Rally for the Rec website. Out of the proposed $826,000 yearly tax levy, the chart shows 8.91% — or $73,597, allocated to Capital Investment. This category is separate from recreational programming.
At the recent town hall, if I remember correctly, members of the Formation Committee stated that no funds would be used for capital expenses (I don’t recall the exact wording). Yet, their own budget breakdown clearly includes nearly $75,000 earmarked for capital spending. That’s a significant contradiction.
And guess what? Their legal charter, based on Chapter 36.69 RCW, Paragraph 130 Powers of Districts, grants commissioners broad powers:
“…including, but not being limited to, the power: (1) To acquire and hold real and personal property; (2) to dispose of real and personal property only by unanimous vote of the district commissioners; (3) to make contracts; (4) to sue and be sued; (5) to borrow money to the extent and in the manner authorized by this chapter; (6) to grant concessions; (7) to make or establish charges, fees, rates, rentals and the like for the use of facilities (including recreational facilities) or for participation; (8) to make and enforce rules and regulations governing the use of property, facilities or equipment and the conduct of persons thereon; (9) to contract with any municipal corporation, governmental, or private agencies for the conduct of park and recreation programs; (10) to operate jointly with other governmental units any facilities or property including participation in the acquisition; (11) to hold in trust or manage public property useful to the accomplishment of their objectives; (12) to establish cumulative reserve funds in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by law for cities; (13) to acquire, construct, reconstruct, maintain, repair, add to, and operate recreational facilities; and, (14) to make improvements or to acquire property by the local improvement method in the manner prescribed by this chapter: PROVIDED, That such improvement or acquisition is within the scope of the purposes granted to such park and recreation district.”
So let’s be clear — forming a Parks and Recreation District isn’t just about organizing community programs. It’s about establishing a new junior taxing district with broad authority to buy property, construct facilities, borrow money, charge fees, and make contracts — potentially with limited community oversight once approved.
A vote FOR the formation is not simply a vote for more recreation; it’s a six-year commitment that grants commissioners far-reaching powers to act — with or without further public input. And while the Rec District’s initial commissioners might not see a need to immediately buy property, construct, etc. any time soon, future commissioners could.
To the members of the Formation Committee –please let us all know whether this is consistent with your understanding of the law. I am not a lawyer, but the language seems very clear to me.
You’re right that the proposed budget includes a 10% allocation for capital investments. (For clarity: we initially called it “capital investment,” but after community feedback that the term was confusing—sounding like new construction—we renamed it “sustainable investments.”)
However it’s labeled, this line does not fund new buildings or property purchases. It’s meant for basic, program-related needs—things like replacing worn-out equipment, updating safety gear, or contributing to facility improvements in partnership with existing spaces.
For example, the school track is beginning to show damage from tree roots. Lopez Rec could, in collaboration with the school, help fund repairs like that. These are the kinds of practical, small-scale improvements this fund is designed to support.
At the town hall, we said levy funds are not for new construction or land acquisition—and that remains absolutely true. The proposed levy focuses overwhelmingly on programming and staffing: the work that keeps youth sports, after-school activities, and summer programs running.
Regarding the RCW language you mentioned: that language wasn’t chosen by us. It’s the standard enabling language written into Washington State law (Chapter 36.69 RCW) that applies to all Parks and Recreation Districts. It describes what could be done under law—not what Lopez Rec will do. Any future decisions about property, borrowing, or major projects would require a public process, commissioner approval, and community oversight. Commissioners are publicly elected and directly accountable to Lopez voters. To be clear, there is NO plan or intention to build new infrastructure.
Like other junior taxing districts—library, port, school, or hospital districts—Parks and Recreation Districts are legally empowered to purchase or lease real property. But that’s never been our committee’s vision for Lopez Rec. Property purchases rely on voter-approved bonds, not general levies. Bonds (which require a 60% supermajority to pass) fund major construction or long-term capital improvements. Levies, on the other hand, provide short-term funding for annual operations, programming, and maintenance.
The idea to set aside 10% for sustainable investment came from Kit’s decades of experience as a Parks and Rec Director. It’s good practice to be able to reinvest in the upkeep of shared community resources. Our vision is that this fund would be awarded through an open application process, guided by an advisory panel and community input. The exact process will ultimately be determined by the future elected commissioners.
That’s why voting for commissioners who reflect your values and priorities is so important. These are your neighbors—Lopez residents who will be directly accountable to the community. And even if you don’t serve as a commissioner, there will be opportunities to participate through advisory roles and public engagement as Lopez Rec develops.
Rally for the Rec © 2024 Lopez Island Parks and Rec District Formation Committee | Website and Branding by Stephanie Cariker
