Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
RESEARCH TOOLS › MRSC INQUIRIES › Parks & Recreation
MRSC Inquiries - Parks & Recreation
 

MRSC Inquiries

Parks & Recreation

Contents:

Golf Courses

  1. Request for information on "green golf courses."

    See the following links to green golf course related information on the Web:

    For more information on this are related subjects see our new Golf Course Facilities and Green Golf Course Development Web pages.

    In addition, the following items are available from the MRSC Library.

    • Excerpt from forthcoming MRSC publication, Master Planned Resort Developments - "Special Environmental Concerns Related to Golf Courses," and Appendix D, "Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States."
    • "Golf Gets Back to Nature, Inviting Everyone to Play," by Jan Stuller, Smithsonian, April 1997
    • "Right on Course," by Michael Leccese, Landscape Architecture, April 1998
    • "Working with Nature for Better Golf Developments," Miles M. Smart et al., Urban Land, March 1993
    • Excerpt on "Environmental Issues," from Golf Course Development and Real Estate, by Desmond Muirhead and Guy L. Rando, Urban Land Institute, 1994
    • "Seeking Sanctuary," by Steve Bergsman, Urban Land, January 2001
    • "A Natural Approach," by J. William Thompson, Landscape Architecture, September 1996.
    • Golf Course Management & Construction: Environmental Issues, James C. Balogh and William J. Walker, editors, United States Golf Association, 1992
    • "An Environmental Approach to Golf Course Development," by William R. Love, American Society of Golf Course Architects, 1992
    • "Best Management Practices for Golf Course Development and Operation," King County, 1992

Metropolitan Park Districts

  1. Is the formation of a metropolitan park district limited to cities over 5,000 population?

    No. The establishment of a metropolitan park district in a city is governed by the provisions in Ch. 35.61 RCW. Previously, this option was only available to cities of five thousand or more. With the passage of SHB 2557, Chapter 88, Laws of 2002, one or more cities and/or counties may create such a district for "the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, and boulevards...." The size restriction no longer applies.

    Ch. 88, Laws of 2002, now specifically authorizes a metropolitan park district to be formed that includes areas outside of the city, or even in another city or county. Previously, the statutes relating to formation of such a district only permitted creating a district that was "coextensive with the limits of the city." (RCW 35.61.020) Any territory annexed to a city that lies entirely within the limits of a metropolitan park district shall be deemed to be within the limits of the (expanded) park district. Formation or extension of park district boundaries is no longer subject to boundary review board (BRB) review if only city territory is involved, independent of the board's review of the city annexation (RCW 35.61.250). (A proposed district that involves area within a county will still be subject to a BRB review in counties that still have a BRB).

    There are two basic methods for the formation of a metropolitan park district. The city may initiate council district formation by adopting a resolution submitting a proposition for its formation to voters within the district boundaries. If the district includes area within the county or other cities and counties, the legislative body of each city and/or county which includes a portion or all of the area in the district must adopt a resolution submitting the proposition to the voters.

    Alternately, a metropolitan district may be initiated via a petition with the signatures of fifteen percent of the registered voters of the city (or area of the proposed district). The petition must be submitted to the county, and the proposition is then submitted to the voters of the city at any general, special, or city election (RCW 35.61.020). Where the petition is for creation of a district in more than one county, the original petition is filed with the county having the greater area within the district and a copy filed with each other county auditor.

Park Financing

  1. Request for information on funding sources for the acquisition of parks and open space

    This is in response to your inquiry requesting information on funding sources for the acquisition of parks and open space. You also indicated an interest in non-monetary options to acquire and protect open space. The following is a list of the primary options that we've identified:

    Funding options for park and open space acquisition

    • Impact fees
    • Real estate excise tax
    • Conservation futures tax
    • General obligation bond
    • Fee-in-lieu of dedication of parks and open space
    • Grants
    • Purchase of development rights program (would still need funding, e.g., bond measure)

    Non-monetary options for park and open space acquisition

    • Parks and/or open space dedication requirement as part of subdivision
    • Density bonus or clustering for preservation of open spac
    • Density transfer
    • Development agreements (not involving fee-in-lieu of dedication)
    • Transfer of development rights program
    • Less than fee simple - purchase of development rights; conservation easements
    • King County four-to-one program

    Other incentives for land preservation in open space

    • Current use tax assessment

    More detail on these options is presented below:

    Impact Fees

    Impact fees are charges assessed against newly-developing property that attempt to recover the cost incurred by a local government in providing the public facilities required to serve the new development. For counties and cities planning under the Growth Management Act, impact fees are specifically authorized under RCW 82.02.090(7) only for: "(1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; (3) school facilities; and (4) fire protection facilities in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district." (emphasis added) Typically, if impact fees are imposed, these take the place of a fee-in-lieu program (see below). Impact fees are also authorized under SEPA. The Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW, grants broad authority to impose mitigating conditions relating to a project's environmental impacts. Some cities have interpreted SEPA's authority to mitigate environmental impacts to include authority to impose impact fees. A municipality pursuing this course must establish a proper foundation. Local SEPA policies authorizing the exercise of SEPA substantive authority must be adopted and fees imposed must be rationally related to impacts identified in threshold determination documents (primarily environmental checklists) or environmental impact statements. Fees collected under SEPA may not duplicate fees collected under other sources of authority.

    Also see the MRSC Web page on Impact Fees.

    Real Estate Excise Tax

    A real estate excise tax (REET) is levied on all real estate sales measured by the full selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages, and other debts given to secure the purchase. (See Ch. 82.46 RCW.) Also see the discussion of the "Real Estate Excise Tax," in A Revenue Guide for Washington Counties.

    • First Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax (REET 1). These funds can only be used for capital projects identified in the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan and housing relocation assistance in GMA counties and counties with a population greater than 5,000.
    • Second Quarter Percent Additional Real Estate Excise Tax (REET 2). The legislative authority of any GMA county may impose an additional excise tax on each sale of real property at a rate not exceeding 0.25 percent of the selling price. These revenues are also restricted to capital projects identified in a capital facilities plan.
    • One Half Percent Real Estate Excise Tax in lieu of Optional Sales Tax. This may be used for any governmental purpose and can only be levied in unincorporated areas.
    • One Percent Real Estate Excise Tax for Conservation Areas. A county legislative authority may submit a ballot proposition to the voters for an additional real estate excise tax on each sale of real property in the county at a rate not to exceed 1 percent of the selling price (see RCW 82.46.070). The revenue is restricted to the acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas. Only San Juan County has authorized the one percent REET for conservation areas.

    Conservation Futures Tax

    See RCW 84.34.200 - 84.34.250. This levy money may be used solely for the purpose of acquiring rights and interests (such as easements) in real property. Counties that have adopted this tax levy include Clark, Ferry, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, and Whatcom.

    Open Space bond

    These would be general obligation bonds, either limited tax general obligation - also called councilmanic bonds - which may be issued by a vote of the county commissioners or unlimited general obligation bonds, which must be approved by 60 percent of the voters, with a voter turnout that is at least 40 percent of those voting in the most recent general election. The county would need to hire a bond counsel if the county decides to issue bonds. If the county decided to authorize the one percent real estate excise tax for conservation areas, the county would probably want to issue councilmanic bonds, pledging the tax receipts for debt service. It would also have to pledge to use general fund monies as a backup, in case the real estate excise tax receipts were insufficient. For more information on bonds, you may want to talk with Judy Cox, MRSC's public finance consultant.

    Fee in Lieu of Parks and Open Space

    The fee-in-lieu of parks and open space option must be voluntary and is authorized in RCW 82.02.020.

    In Washington, local governments have two basic sources of authority for requiring developers to dedicate land for parks: Ch. 58.17 RCW, the State Subdivision Law, and Ch. 43.21C RCW, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Under the state subdivision law, cities and towns can insure that developers install appropriate improvements, including parks, recreation, and playground improvements, through their power to approve or disapprove proposed subdivisions. When the dedication of land is not practical or feasible, some cities and counties have provided for the collection of fees from developers in lieu of land dedications pursuant to "voluntary agreements" adopted under RCW 82.02.020 or as part of a mitigation condition imposed under SEPA.

    Under RCW 82.02.020, a county or city may enter into a voluntary agreement with a subdivision developer to allow a payment in lieu of a dedication of land or to mitigate any direct impacts that have been identified as a consequence of the proposed development or subdivision. The permitting agency must be able to establish that an impact fee collected pursuant to a voluntary agreement is "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat." Funds collected under voluntary agreements must be held in a reserve account and expended on agreed upon capital improvements. Fees must also be expended within five years or be refunded with interest. Court decisions, such as Vintage Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 83 Wn. App. 605 (1996), have required cities to demonstrate that the fee be related to the value of the land that might otherwise be dedicated.

    You may also be interested in the Washington Supreme Court decision, Isla Verde v. Camas, 146 Wn.2d (7/11/02) (majority opinion) (dissenting opinions). This decision addresses the nexus between an open space requirement for a subdivision and the impacts of a particular development.

    Grants

    See these two links for potential grants for acquisition of park land and open space:

    Purchase of Development rights

    Many purchase of development rights programs (as well as transfer of development rights programs) have been used to preserve farmlands. Bainbridge Island and San Juan County have developed programs to purchase open space, which may include environmentally critical areas such as wetlands. A funding source, such as a bond issue, would need to be identified for a purchase of development rights program.

    Park or Open Space Dedication Requirement

    The dedication of land for parks or open space is a typical requirement of subdivisions, as noted above under "Fee in-lieu-of parks." King County requires open space for residential developments of more than four lots, and Sultan requires open space for more than 10 lots.

    Density Bonus and Clustering

    A density bonus allows the granting of additional dwelling units or floor area beyond the maximum allowed under the zoning in exchange for preserving an amenity at the same or a separate site.Density bonuses are used for many purposes including the preservation of open space and protection of critical areas as well as to promote affordable housing. Density bonuses are built into planned unit development, planned residential development, and cluster subdivision provisions. Cluster provisions in rural areas may focus on conserving resource lands and promoting larger open space areas consistent with rural character.

    Density Transfer

    Density transfer involves the transfer of all or part of the permitted density on a parcel to another parcel. Density transfer is also used to protect critical areas and preserve sensitive areas in a natural state.

    Development Agreements

    Developers may also enter into other agreements with cities that do not involve the payment of money in- lieu-of open space. Such SEPA mitigation agreements might include deferral of subdivision improvements and possibly involve future dedication of land. MRSC legal consultants have advised that these voluntary agreements are not subject to the five-year limitation in RCW 82.02.020.

    Conservation Easements

    A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect its conservation values, typically preserving the land as open space or resource land. Conservation easements may be acquired through a purchase or transfer of development rights program or donated on a voluntary basis to a land trust or government agency.

    Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program

    TDR involves the removal of the right to develop from land in one area or zoning district and the transfer of that right to land in another area or district, where development is permitted. This is somewhat similar to the density transfer (which is usually limited to a specific adjacent site or development project), although typically TDR involves transferring development rights to other sites (receiving sites), which are sometimes distant from the sending site. TDR programs are commonly used to preserve agricultural lands but may also apply to open space preservation, historic sites, and affordable housing. King County, Spokane County, Bainbridge Island, and Redmond have TDR programs.

    King County Four-to-One Program

    King County's four-to-one greenway is an innovative program that allows, via a development agreement, the development of one acre of land as urban for every four acres donated as open space. For further information, contact Kim Claussen, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, 206-296-7167 or E-mail: kimberly.claussen@metrokc.gov.

    Current Use Assessment - Open Space

    The Washington Open Space Taxation Act (Ch. 84.34 RCW) allows property owners to have their open space, farm and agricultural, and timber lands valued at their current use rather than at their highest and best use. The current use assessment program helps to preserve private land in open space, farm and timber use.

    Additional Web Resources:

    In addition, the following items are available on loan from the MRSC library:

    • Protecting Open Space: A Review of Successful Programs and Landowner Perspectives, Portland (OR) Metro, 1999
    • Open Space: Preservation and Acquisition, by Ronnie Anne Weiner, Center for the Study of Law and Politics, 1991
    • Open Space Conservation, Investing in Your Community's Economic Health, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1998 (see "Alternatives for Open Space Financing," pp. 10-23)
    • "Increasing Public Investment in Parks & Open Space," Vol. 1, The Trust for Public Land, 1998
    • "An Open Space Framework for Pend Oreille County," by Lee Nellis for Pend Oreille County, 1995
    • Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances, by Randall G. Arendt, Island Press, 1999 (see pp. 48 - 49 regarding density bonuses)
    • "Financing Land Conservation," by Kim Hopper, IQ Service Report, ICMA, vol. 33, no. 5, May 2001
    • "Parks & Recreation: One way to pay for the places we play," by Nancy Gladwell and James Sellers, American City & County, October 1997
    • "Winning Pocketbook Support for Public Facilities," by D. Scot Hunsaker, P & R, February 1997
    • "Funding Plan," from Edmonds Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan, 2001
    • "Park Funding and Land Acquisition," from City of Puyallup, Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, 2002
    • "Appendix B, Funding Strategies," from Kirkland, Comprehensive Park, Open Space, and Recreation Plan, 2001
    • Conservation Toolbox: A Handbook for Community Action, produced by the Evergreen Agenda Project, 1996
    • Open Ground: Effective Local Strategies for Protecting Natural Resources, by John R. Nolon, Environmental Law Institute, 2003 (see "Part Four: Strategic Acquisition of Open Lands")

Park Foundations

  1. Request for information on friends of parks groups and park foundations

      This is in response to your research request about "friends of parks" groups and park foundations. If you haven't seen it, take a look at MRSC's information on park foundations. This includes links to several park foundations in Washington cities and counties.

      Here are some additional links on park foundations and friends groups:

      King County

      Out of State

      "Friends" groups and park foundations are becoming increasingly common, as park departments seek additional financial support and advocates for their programs and services. In Washington, cities and counties with park foundations or friends groups include Everett, King County, Seattle, San Juan County, Skagit County, Spokane, Vancouver-Clark County, and Whatcom County. Apparently Edmonds and Kent also have park foundations, but we do not have specific information on their organizations. Other cities that have considered establishing their own local foundations are Enumclaw and Lynnwood and may be worth contacting. Most park foundations are found in larger cities and counties. It may be possible to work with an existing foundation, such as the Northwest Parks Foundation, since it covers the Northwest (mostly Washington State). Kristen Bush is executive director - (206) 838-7550; E-mail: krisb@nwparks.org. The Northwest Parks Foundation is working with Mercer Island, Kirkland, Woodinville, and other Washington cities.

      Some friends organizations are established for specific parks or types of parks, such as Seattle's Friends of Seattle's Olmsted Parks. The King County Parks Division Business Plan includes discussion of creating a parks foundation and includes names of additional foundations.

Skateboard Parks

  1. Request for sample skateboard park rules and regulations.

    See the following links relating to skate park rules & regulations from out-of-state parks:

    We also have sample skateboard park rules from several Washington cities including Bellevue, Des Moines, Everett, and Port Angeles, available through our library.

    For more information, see our Skateboard and Skate Park Information Web page, which includes a sample participant waiver and release form, a skateboard park medical information form, and the results of a 1997 Association of Washington Cities survey on skateboard facilities.

Swimming Pools

  1. What taxes does the city pay in connection with swimming pools?

    The examples in WAC 458-20-189(9) are helpful on swimming pools and other recreation activities.

    First, is the pool a governmental or an enterprise activity? An enterprise activity is one where user fees cover more than 50 percent of the direct and indirect costs as defined in WAC 458-20-183(2)(d) and (h).

    If it is a governmental activity, the only tax due is sales tax on admission fees. Physical fitness classes (here, it would be water exercise classes) are considered a "retail sale" (RCW 82.04.050(3)(g)), but municipalities' physical fitness classes are exempt from the sales tax. RCW 82.08.0291.

    If it is an enterprise activity, all revenue is subject to the B&O tax. Retailing B&O must be paid on all revenue except lessons. That includes the exercise class. Lessons are considered a service and so B&O tax must be remitted at the service rate. WAC 458-20-189(4)(a)(v). Sales tax must be collected on admissions.