If groups or government officials can't get money for a project, a little ingenuity can pay off.

By Vicki Hillhouse of the Union-Bulletin

Homework was the last thing Staci Wanichek expected as she prepared for her daughter's first day of kindergarten. Least of all, an assignment for herself.

But when the mother of two left Prospect Point Elementary that September day in 2006 she had a nagging concern about the age of the playground equipment, which dated before she attended the same school three decades prior.

Her concern turned into a campaign. With the help of a committee, Wanichek led a fund-raising effort to replace the equipment. Now her daughter and other young students at Prospect Point can spend this school year playing on it.

The needs of a community vary in size, cost and importance. So do the ways to pay for them.

Public officials may seek voter support for major projects through general obligation bonds. But what about smaller projects, like playground equipment? Or those that benefit a limited segment of the community, such as municipal golf course improvements?

Sometimes existing taxes can pay for such improvements. Other times, enough money may not be available, officials say. In those cases, alternative funding mechanisms must be explored.

In 2001, Walla Walla County commissioners found the answer for one project in the county's own savings account. Ten years of saving money allowed the county to construct a new Public Safety Building, 240 W. Alder St., at no additional expense to taxpayers.

The 15,000-square-foot building on the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue, was paid for with existing building funds saved for just such a need.

Pre-built and assembled on land the county already owned, the $2 million building paired together the sheriff's and prosecuting attorney's offices, the latter of which had previously operated out of rented space in the Drumheller Building.

Contrary to common perception, however, government officials say they don't collect enough tax money to pay for all the needs of the community as they arise.

Sometimes it takes the help of a caring group of fund-raisers, a special taxing district or an innovative combination of financial sources to get a project funded.

A blend of those kinds of efforts are being used by local residents spearheading a number of projects, including a new dog park at Fort Walla Walla Park, a bowl/pool area at the Walla Walla Skate Park and playground equipment at Washington Park.

If the Prospect Point example shows anything, it's that a group of impassioned citizens can make a difference.

At the time Wanichek first broached the playground issue, the Walla Walla School District had focused its efforts and resources on a $19.5 million bond campaign to replace Edison Elementary School. It had no immediate plans to add new Prospect Point playground equipment to its list of needs.

Furthermore, while the bond proposal will probably bring into the district $3.4 million in state matching funds to be used for projects at other facilities, the need for a repaved busing area and expanded gym at Prospect Point were considered more pressing than playground equipment, Wanichek said.

Nevertheless, the old swings, slide, monkey bars and other equipment were a significant concern for Wanichek. When she began asking other parents about it, she found many of them were also bothered because they had used the same equipment in their own childhoods.

"That's really how it got its start,'' she said. "We all saw the need, and we formed a committee.''

Whether through a special tax or a donation, local residents often make the final decision in which projects see the light of day.

For local governments, funding sometimes is a matter of ingenuity.

"It's just called being creative,'' said Walla Walla Parks and Recreation Director Jim Dumont.

Creativity helped the Parks and Recreation Department devise a plan for a $1.1 million replacement irrigation system at Veterans Memorial Golf Course last year.

After the 1948 pipes had deteriorated, the city sought the help of an ad hoc advisory committee to come up with ideas on how to help pay for the new system.

With guidance from the golfer-comprised committee, the city implemented a $1 surcharge for every nine holes of play and $2 for every 18 holes. The charges help repay 20-year bonds that fronted the costs. Other funding sources include $5,000 annually from the municipal course's private operator, revenues from a cell tower lease on the property and income from the operator's lease on the course.

Although he doubts every golfer is thrilled with the surcharge, Dumont said it ensures the costs are passed to those who benefit most from the improvement.

As with that surcharge, not every solution is met with open arms from those footing the bill.

In the early 1990s, the formation of a local improvement district to fund more than $2 million in downtown upgrades proved an effective way to pay for street lights, trees, wider sidewalks and new curbs and gutters for the central business district. But it was also a major source of frustration for some property owners.

The special taxing district was divided into two assessed areas. Properties from Main Street between Palouse Street and Fourth Avenue, where the majority of improvements took place, were assessed $2.50 per square foot. Properties bounded roughly by Cherry and Birch streets and Seventh Avenue and Palouse Street were assessed 41 cents per square foot.

About 125 different property owners were assessed in the project, according to reports at the time. The city contributed an additional $200,000.

Many property owners were divided. Some believed the city should have contributed more than it did. Some worried the assessments would hurt them more than the improvements would help. Property owners had 20 years to pay the bill on what was just the start of needed improvements.

In a random survey of 35 property owners, following the initial improvements that had been made in 1992, 63 percent told the U-B they would not be willing to pay another assessment in a local improvement district.

At the same time, the majority also said they believed the improvements would attract additional business revenue.

Fifteen years later, Walla Walla's downtown has become a major attraction for tourists visiting the community. The improvements were also widely credited in 2001 when Walla Walla was one of five communities in the country to receive the Great American Main Street Award by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Though finding ways to pay for projects may be an arduous task, officials say it's much easier when everyone works together.

The Jefferson Park playground improvements are a recent example, Dumont said. As part of ongoing efforts to reclaim the neighborhood, area residents secured a $100,000 grant for new playground equipment from the Donald and Virginia Sherwood Trust. The grant was contingent on the city of Walla Walla providing another $26,000. Neighbors raised another $13,000 from grants and donations.

Dumont said the project demonstrates the willing participation of government when local citizens take initiative to improve their community.

"Anybody who goes by Jefferson Park sees the impact. It's jam-packed, partly due to the fact that it was the neighborhood that came forward and took ownership to improve the park,'' Dumont said.

"That's what we want in government. You're certainly going to get a significant amount of support from elected officials when you're stepping forward with a solution, rather than just coming in and asking for a handout.''

Consequently, private/public partnerships, public/public partnerships and public/nonprofit partnerships have joined the ranks of the latest and greatest buzzwords for municipalities.

While projects can take place without a vote of the public, they always need help from the community, Dumont said.

"The public certainly appreciates when we find alternative means - including fund-raising - without going back and saying we need to raise property taxes.''

LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAXES

There are four restrictions that affect how high property taxes can go.

1) The 1 percent constitutional limit:

The primary limitation was established by the 17th amendment to the Washington State Constitution in 1972. It limits the total regular property tax levy to a maximum of $10 per $1,000 of the market value of property. Excluded from this $10 limit are levies for ports and public utility districts.

2) Statutory maximum rates for districts:

State law establishes maximum levy rates for various types of taxing districts (the state, counties, cities and towns, fire districts, etc.). In addition, the law sets a maximum total rate of $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed value for counties, cities, fire districts, library districts and certain other junior taxing districts. The state levy for support of common schools is not subject to the $5.90 limit, although it is subject to the constitutional $10 limit.

3) The 101 percent limit:

In 1971, the Legislature established a limitation on the increase in regular property taxes for taxing districts. The current limitation each year for most districts is 101 percent of their highest lawful levy since 1985, plus an additional amount to allow for new construction within the district. The 101 percent limit applies to the total amount of property tax for a taxing district, not to individual properties. Districts may raise that limit with voter approval, but cannot exceed other legal restrictions.

4) Excess levies:

Most districts can submit proposals for additional property tax levies to a vote of the people. Local school districts have no regular levy authority (although they are allocated funds from the statewide school levy) so they receive a substantial portion of their funding from voter-approved excess levies. Excess levies must be authorized by a 60 percent majority of the voters and are not subject to any of the limitations described above. The county assessor uses a taxing district's budget request, the total assessed value of the taxing district and the limitations to set the levy rate. Rates are expressed in an amount per $1,000 dollars of assessed value.

WHEN LEVY LIMITS ARE EXCEEDED

The regular levy for each taxing district is reviewed by county authorities to make sure it complies with the 101 percent limit, the district's maximum allowable rate, and the $5.90 and 1 percent limits. If limits are exceeded by an individual district, then its levy is reduced to a lawful amount. Laws establish a district hierarchy for rate reductions if the total limits are exceeded and rates are reduced accordingly.

CALCULATING YOUR TAXES

You can estimate what your property taxes will be if you know the assessed value of your property and the tax levy rate. For example, if the assessed value of your property is $200,000 and the levy rate is $15 per $1,000 of value:

Value - $200 ($200,000 divided by $1,000)

Times the levy rate - times $15

Equals $3,000 in estimated tax.

Source: Walla Walla County Assessor's Office Web site