For members of the effort against the creation of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) as a funding mechanism for the Aquatic and Recreational Community Center (ARC) it’s not about whether to fund the ARC but how.

One of the leaders of the “no” vote against Proposition 1 includes Rick Whitney, who served on the city Parks Board for nine years as well as on prior committees dedicated to getting park bond measures passed.

Both Whitney and Ken MacKenzie, another Prop. 1 opposition organizer, agree that there is a strong need for an aquatic center.

“The need is not the issue,” Whitney said. “It’s about how it’s [ARC] being funded.”

An MPD is a junior taxing district that sets a fixed tax rate all property owners pay per $1,000 in assessed valuation (AV), with a maximum rate of 75 cents per $1,000 AV. A bond, on the other hand, raises a fixed amount per year and the tax rate changes accordingly. Under the proposed ordinance, the MPD’s boundaries would be the city limits. The city has estimated that the tax rate would be around 25 cents per 1,000 AV.

City officials and proponents of Prop. 1, including the political action committee (PAC) Yes on Prop. 1, Build the ARC, believe an MPD is the most practical way of funding the ARC after searching for both locations to build it, as well as ways of paying for the associated costs. With many of the costs still uncertain, including the purchase price for a specific property on which to site it, the MPD would enable the city to raise as much as needed to cover the final bill, while a bond measure would require more certainty as to the final cost.

From Whitney and MacKenzie’s perspective, however, the measure offers a lack of specificity, certainty and accountability.

Whitney stated one of his main apprehensions is the permanency of the taxing district; under state law, only the district’s governing body can abolish it, while voters can only vote for the board to consider the matter, albeit no action is required by the board.

“This is something we’re committing to forever,” Whitney said.

Under the proposed park district, the council would act as the governing body, rather than a separate governing board of directors, as 11 of the 17 existing MPDs in the state have. The board would approve the district’s six-year budget, which would be updated annually and include a public hearing prior to adoption of the annual budget. The council also approved an ordinance that authorizes the city manager to enter into an interlocal agreement with the MPD. The interlocal agreement would allow the city to run the district directly.

Concerns have also been raised as to how the ballot measure is being presented to the community. Whitney says he hopes to find a solution for aquatics in Kirkland but feels there is too much emphasis on the ARC as part of the Prop. 1 vote and how the council intends to use the MPD funds.

“I have high regard for the current council, but that’s not what we’re voting on,” he said.

Voters are deciding on a related but more specific issue, the creation of the MPD to fund the ARC project, Whitney said.

The inability of voters to directly control the district or how the money is spent leaves a large potential problem, he said. Should a new council come in and misspend the money or fail to use it as the residents approve, the only way to get rid of the MPD would be to vote out enough councilmembers to get a majority willing to dissolve the park district.

Additionally, he said, a future council could possibly alter or remove the proposed interlocal agreement with the park district, which is not a part of Prop. 1, and change the circumstances under which the district is run.

Prior to approving the MPD measure for the November ballot, the council added language that states the district board could not increase the levy rate in any one year for purposes other than financing the ARC by more than five cents per $1,000 AV without first placing an advisory ballot measure to a public vote. In response, Whitney and MacKenzie both said the vote is advisory only and the council could still choose to raise the tax rate even if voters refuse to approve it.

While proponents see the MPD as flexible enough to provide funding for the ARC, Whitney and MacKenzie view it as too vague compared to the 2012 Parks Levy, which raises a specific amount, $2.35 million annually, for a specific purpose, to fund maintenance of Kirkland’s parks and natural areas.

The bond levy was passed after city budget constraints affected their ability to maintain the city parks during the economic downturn.

In contrast, the MPD gives the council the ability to spend revenue not just on the ARC but on other potential park-related projects both in and outside the park district.

Instead, MacKenzie said that that the community should know just how much they will end up paying for the ARC before voting on a tax measure, rather than leave it up to the council to decide in perpetuity.

“The taxpayers in Kirkland have always had the ability to control how much money the city spends in taxes,” he said. “Every large project that requires a capital investment is paid for with a bond. Operations that are not self-sustaining are subsidized with levies. That gives the city a fixed pool of money to spend. And that’s worked really well for the city. It’s got a great credit rating. The MPD takes that control away, because the city council has the ability to set whatever tax rate they wish without going back to the taxpayers and getting agreement. And so issues like building an ARC means that it’s impossible for the taxpayers to control the amount of money spent. You need to be careful, because once you allow a group of people to control the amount of money, it becomes easier to have projects maybe not as controlled as they could be.”

They also questioned whether the ARC, estimated to cost $48-67 million, would be as big of a project as it is if the city intended to fund it through a bond levy.

“There’s been some concern that maybe this ARC thing has gotten kind of big,” MacKenzie said. “It’s gotten to be an enormous project. It’s accumulating more and more features as the studies go on and a broader and broader vision. I think it is a result of the funding mechanism.”

For more information, go to no-kard.org.