James Galuso is apparently unaware of the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Olympia and the Olympia Metropolitan Parks District. That agreement requires the City to appropriate 11% of the city's revenues from property tax, sales tax, business tax, and utility tax for parks purposes.
That mandate was insisted upon by parks supporters as a condition of working to pass the metropolitan parks district measure in 2015. There was mistrust, because the City Council had not fully maintained general fund parks funding as expected with the Parks and Sidewalks measure was passed in 2004.
The MOU is available online, and the relevant language is in Paragraph 4.1.1 on Page 2. https://cms7files.revize.com/olympia/Do***ent_center/Government/Metropolitan%20Park%20District/24198%20-%20City%20and%20MPD.pdf
This is highly unusual. I do not know of other cities with a contractual obligation to dedicate a specific percentage of the property tax to parks. But this is the case in Olympia. A reduction in the City property tax, as proposed by the Regional Fire Authority proposal as now written, would therefore directly result in a reduction in the City's obligation to appropriate general fund money to parks. And, to my knowledge, no other department has a fixed share of the general fund budget; the Fire Department has been gradually getting a larger and larger share of the general fund budget.
I certainly support adequate funding for fire services. Don't get me wrong on that. But it should come through a voter-approved increase in the property tax, through what is known as a "levy lid lift" not through a diversion of funds to a less-accountable special government agency.
Mr. Galuso owes an apology to the readers of Jolt for his misinformed comment.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
