Let users pay to keep parks open

Published 12:46 am Friday, October 3, 2008

The million-dollar question coming out of political mouths these days is how do we pay for parks? The response recently from the county level was to raise taxes. Great, the answer to all things involving money is to raise taxes.

But the idea of raising taxes flies in the face of common sense these days. King County is an extremely expensive place to live. I half expect Robin Leach to do remote broadcasts from the streets of Snoqualmie. More importantly, though, is the trend toward self-sufficiency. The bigger debate as the cost of various amenities goes up is: Should they be considered as part of our basic infrastructure, or should usage fees cover the costs?

There are stories every day in the newspapers, on television and on the radio citing instances of some other basic service trying to survive and inevitably passing costs back to the users of the service. My problem is we either have it one way or the other. We either tax to support everything, which means a mass exodus out of King County, or we let those using the services or facilities pay for them. The only exceptions should be essential services such as sewer, water, roads and emergency services. Unfortunately, things like parks are not essential and to ask everyone to be taxed to support them is absolutely ridiculous.

Here is the kicker: There are numerous private facilities that make enough money to survive based on user fees. Why can’t the folks that run our parks start thinking like business owners and figure out creative ways to support facilities? Have they worked in the government sector so long that they do not understand revenue streams and the balance between revenues and expenses?

Locally, the North Bend sports complex was a hub of city revenue. Jerry Venera, one of the original creators of the North Bend sports complex, once told me they estimated that summer tournaments brought $1 million-plus dollars into the local economy. Sports teams needed places to stay, places to eat and trinkets to buy. Usage fees paid for a good chunk of the costs associated with the tournament, and the taxes on food, rooms and other ball-player purchases helped the coffers of the city.

How come we are not thinking along these same lines now? Have we become too uptight to facilitate some good old-fashioned softball tournaments? Why isn’t North Bend considering a recreation league? True, it may not be a money maker, but if it covered expenses the benefit in tax revenue could be well worth the effort.

The new fields being built in Snoqualmie can be another revenue stream for the city. Form a group of interested citizens and get a city-run softball league going. Make the best use of facilities and maximize those areas designated active recreation.

Si View is another example. We keep touting that we, as a Valley, want the facility to remain open. I think it would be safe to say the facility does not pay for itself. But has anyone really sat down and come up with a plan to utilize the facility as though it were a private business? Wedding receptions, ball games, family reunions, business retreats and business parties all are ideas that need to be considered.

And now Snoqualmie is launching the next phase of building its own community center. Will the dreaded “T” word creep into the dialogue of those pushing for the new facility? At one point I mentioned the creation of a taxing district to support Valley recreation facilities. But maybe we are even past that point.

In an era of the public being billed for everything from DUI’s to ambulance services, maybe it’s time we all consider the idea of paying to use. Then we, based on our own personal finances, can make the decision about usage and not pay additional taxes to support nonessential facilities or services.