Jeff Hays is part of the committee of three, chosen to write the Con statement for the voters pamphlet on Shoreline Prop 1
Many residents are rightfully questioning the creation of a new tax district and a permanent overall tax increase of 5.5% to 7.5% to finance $100 million in new debt for the construction and operation of a city-run pool. The City of Shoreline acknowledges that this initiative carries significant risks and yet placed the measure on the ballot anyway.
Financial and Taxpayer Risks
Interest-rate risk
Local and national news are dominated by concerns about rising interest rates and increasing debt costs. The City plans to issue bonds for pool construction in late 2027. If interest rates are higher than currently projected, the cost of servicing the debt over the next 20 years will increase dramatically. This could require the MPD to raise its tax rate beyond the initial proposed rate.
Rising property taxes and taxpayer fatigue
The proposition would add at least 33% to current city property taxes and increase total property taxes by approximately 5.5% to 7.5%. Property taxes in Shoreline have already increased much faster than inflation over the past eight years and are expected to continue rising.
Furthermore, the City is forecasting significant operating deficits by 2030. The City also plans to seek approval for another levy-lid lift (tax increase) in 2028—the same year the new MPD taxes would begin.
This raises an important question: Will the city be able to address its projected deficits, fund essential obligations, including sidewalks, public safety, existing park measures and successfully raise taxes further to pay for future public school projects?
Construction and Operating-Cost Risks
The $100 million construction estimate
The City’s current estimate for the pool is $100 million, or more than $1,500 for every Shoreline resident. However, the project is only approximately 10% designed. At this early stage, the cost estimate may not be sufficiently reliable. Continued inflation, changing construction costs, and design revisions could cause the final price to easily exceed $100 million. It is not too late to pause and find a viable solution that makes more sense.
Operating and maintenance costs
The City projects that operating and maintaining the pool will cost nearly $4.4 million annually on average during the first five years. If inflation or other factors push these costs above projections, the City may need to increase user fees, the MPD tax rate, or a combination of both.
Equity Concerns
The financial burden would not fall only on property owners. Those least able to absorb higher costs could be affected most severely. Property owners would pay the tax directly. Landlords will likely pass the increased cost on to renters through higher rent. Low-income seniors and people with disabilities will also be required to pay the new MPD taxes.
Some residents note that the new taxes could more than double what they currently pay in city taxes.
Other Aquatic Options
Shoreline residents currently have access to public pools in neighboring jurisdictions. The $100,000,000 question is: does the city of Shoreline need to be in the pool business? Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and North Seattle all have viable options that charge daily access fees similar to those projected for the proposed Shoreline pool. Private options are also available, including the McMenamins Swimming Pool in Bothell and the Dale Turner YMCA.
These options allow Shoreline residents who want pool access to attain it for generally what it would cost them to do so with a new Shoreline pool, but without burdening all taxpayers with the proposed huge new tax obligation.
A Possible Public-Private Partnership
Alternatively, the City would be wise to further explore a public-private partnership with organizations like the YMCA, which have extensive experience developing and managing recreational facilities. Working with these organizations could include offering vouchers to aid in providing additional programming or staff support. Several Washington cities have successfully used public-private partnerships to provide recreation facilities while sharing development, operating, and financial responsibilities.
Conclusion
Everyone appreciates the value of added amenities and recreational facilities. This is not an argument against recreation or community pools; it is an argument for being fiscally responsible and keeping Shoreline affordable.
The City has more pressing priorities that should be addressed before taking on a new, long-term obligation. Proposition 1 involves substantial debt, uncertain interest and construction costs, ongoing operating expenses, and a permanent increase in property taxes. Sensible Shoreline voters should understand that Proposition 1 is too costly and financially risky at this time.
For more information, please visit our website at:
shorelineprop1.com -Shoreline Citizens for Responsible Spending.
Read more...
%20v2.png)
Posts
