Tensions bristled at the March 26 Bonney Lake City Council meeting as a former council member took the podium to oppose the upcoming Metropolitan Park District vote. His statements led to an increasingly heated exchange with Councilman Jim Rackley, ending with the suggestion that Rackley should watch his mouth.

Dan Decker approached the dais during public comment to express his concerns about Proposition 1; he said he was opposed to an unexpiring property tax, and disagreed with the combination of recreation and parks issues in one vote.

Current Councilman Jim Rackley countered several of Decker’s points as mistruths and questioned why his arguments were being targeted at the council.

“You’re lecturing to the wrong people,” Rackley said toward the end of their exchange. “All we’re doing is asking the people if they want to do this. That’s all we’re doing.”

Proposition 1 — ballots for which are being mailed by the Pierce County Auditor Friday for the April 23 special election — would form a municipal corporation assuming control of “some or all of the City’s parks, trails and other recreational facilities,” according to the ballot’s explanatory statement. The park district would be a government technically separate from the city, yet connected in certain fundamental ways: the members of the city council would fulfill dual roles as parks commissioners, and city staff would fulfill support roles such as accounting and legal management.

If formed, the parks district would have authority to levy a general property tax at a rate up to $0.75 per $1,000 of assessed property value, the maximum rate state law allows. However, the estimated  effective tax rate is expected to be $0.44-per-thousand, due to limits on junior taxing districts when senior tax jurisdictions are at the full statutory limit. The rate would be able to be set by the parks commission after a Metropolitan Park District was formed.

Opponents of the proposition — including Decker and opposition organization Families For A Responsible Bonney Lake, represented at nonewparktax.com — have voiced concerns about the uncertainty of the rate and the lack of a built-in expiration date on the property tax — such as what would be seen with a property tax servicing a bond — dubbing it the “Forever Tax.”

Supporters of the proposition — represented at yesmpd.com and blparks.org — point out the tax will provide a needed steady revenue source for the maintenance and expansion of parks, and that the district and its supporting tax can always be dissolved by popular vote in a future election.

“We do not need any feel good taxes in Bonney Lake,” Decker said, opening his comment. Decker continued that he opposed a non-expiring property tax, and that he saw a Metropolitan Parks District as a means to prop up the city general fund.

“Then this tax will go to the city general fund,” he said. “A Bonney Lake parks department is created and that would do nothing more than just take care of the stagnant tax rate we have now, and does nothing better than inflate, inflate, inflate and give the city more and more money to spend on whatever they decide.”

On the general fund point, Rackley raised his hand to make a brief rebuttal, but was asked by Deputy Mayor Dan Swatman to wait until Decker’s comment time was finished.

Decker went on to argue that families were already burdened with the city of Bonney Lake’s property tax and East Pierce Fire and Rescue’s Fire, Emergency Medical Services and Maintenance and Operation levies.

“My point here is clear,” Decker said. “No, we don’t need to add to our property taxes with another $0.50 or $0.45 per thousand, that can be raised to $0.75 at any given moment. You guys can enact that $0.75 any time you feel like it.”

As he closed, Rackley was able to rebut the point regarding the general fund.

“Any funds collected by the Metro Park District cannot be commingled with city funds,” Rackley said. “It will never end up in the general fund. That part is totally wrong.”

Decker denied the point, stating he’d “seen a lot of things happen.”

“That’s the law,” Rackley said.

“Well I’ve seen the law and how it’s manipulated,” Decker said. “And changed at any time by those in charge of the law.”

Decker thanked the council and began to excuse himself.

“None of us are going to risk going to jail over that,” Rackley said.

“Excuse me?” Decker said.

Rackley stated his point that council comment was not the place to bring up opposition, as the issue was going to county election.

“No, I’m telling you that it’s wrong,” Decker said. “You did it, it’s your game. It’s your game: You brought it forward … to spend another $25,000 to $50,000 on an election. Hey. You guys did it, you’re spending the money.”

“Well, I wish you would get your facts straight,” Rackley said.

“Well, I wish you would too sometimes,” Decker said. “Oh, if I had a mirror I’d be watching my mouth right now.”