Seattle Park District Board Meeting 9/6/22

September 6, 2022 in this meeting of the Seattle Metropolitan Park District Board will come to order.

Hold on, hold on.

It is 3.50.

Recording in progress.

Oh, okay, there we go.

Sorry about that.

No, no worries.

Thank you.

So given that cue, I'll go ahead and restart the spiel there.

It is September 6, 2022 at 3.53 p.m.

and I'm gonna call this meeting of the Seattle Metropolitan Park District Board to order.

I'm Andrew Lewis, president of the board.

Will the clerk please call the roll of board members?

Board member Juarez.

Here.

Board member Morales.

Board Member Mosqueda.

Present.

Board Member Nelson.

Present.

Board Member Peterson.

Board Member Sawant.

Present.

Board Member Strauss.

Board President Lewis.

Present.

Five present.

And it looks like Board Member Peterson has just joined the meeting.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, six present.

And Board Member Strauss.

Thank you.

Seven present.

And I believe Board Member Morales will be joining us shortly.

Board Member Herbold asked to be excused and let the record reflect that Board Member Herbold is excused from today's meeting.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

The minutes of the July 14th and 18th, 2022 Park District Board meetings have been reviewed and distributed.

If there is no objection, the minutes from those meetings will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are adopted.

And will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes.

At this time, I will open our hybrid public comment period.

While it remains our strong intent to have public comment regularly included on meeting agendas, the Seattle Park District Board does reserve the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods.

We will move forward in the hybrid format that the public is now accustomed to with a two-minute speaking time, and we'll alternate between sets of five in-person and five remote speakers.

Madam Clerk, how many people are signed up today to publicly comment?

We have one speaker.

Excellent, that's what I suspected.

So we will recognize that speaker for two minutes and then we will move on with the rest of the agenda.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Walter, longtime resident of Lake City and an advocate for the funding of the 33 cent solution.

I have provided you copies of my recently updated 33 cent solution spending plan, my 33 cents solution analysis, which documents a major shift in funding from projects to programs.

My summary of refunded projects for parks and a detailed memo of how the 33 cent solution has met the priority needs of the park district board members.

I've documented how the 33 cent solution has met most of your stated priorities in conjunction with the use of REIT funds allocated to parks for funding for the following projects.

Off-leash areas, replacement of existing trees in our parks, replacement of aging community centers, without having to pay or having to borrow funds that will increase future tax bills.

Funding of Smith-Cole phase two, funding replacement of turf fields, potential funding of identified projects with major maintenance funding using either property tax revenue or REIT revenue.

The 33 cent solution has funded a number of other budgeted line items at a lower level based on the need to have a detailed evaluation of how existing and future funds will be spent.

This approach supports the expectation of the Park District Board for safer, cleaner and open parks and facilities and increased hours of operation for our community centers for the next cycle.

I wanna comment about the mayor's draft proposal for the next cycle.

With no additional updates, I find myself disappointed in what I have been provided.

The preliminary numbers would indicate the mayor's funding plan will require either a 39.5 cent or a 42.9 cent tax rate.

The $10 million for opening 12 new parks and only renovating three community centers and a pool seems totally unrealistic.

Finally, the mayor's proposal to cover only two years of funding is inconsistent with the adopted interlocal agreement that calls for a six year spending plan.

In summary, I want to end by saying I have provided the Park District Board with sufficient reasons to consider the 33 cent solution as a better funding solution.

And you all have copies of this.

This is the only spending plan that you have right now in front of you.

Neither the commissioner's recommendation or the mayor's has presented this.

And this is a product that you're gonna have to end up with when you make your final approval.

So thank you for your considerations.

And with that public comment, the public comment session is now closed and we will move on to items of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item one into the record.

Agenda item one.

Resolution 49, a resolution amending the bylaws of the Seattle Park District to modify the process for appointment of the Seattle Park District Treasurer.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

And we have Tracy Rasliff from Seattle City Council Central staff here to walk us through the process of appointing a new treasurer to this position.

So I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Tracy.

Thank you, Council Member, President Lewis and Commissioners, Tracy Ross of Council Central Staff.

You have in front of you two pieces of legislation that are related.

They are Resolution 49 and Resolution No. 50. Both of them have to do with the appointment of the Park District Treasurer.

So for the very first cycle, we had appointed per state law, Glenn Lee as the Park District Treasurer.

We did that with the mandate that existed at the time in state law that that approval be subject to the King County Treasurer.

That state law was changed in 2017. That allows us now to solely appoint the next City Treasurer.

or the park district treasurer, Glenn Lee, as most of you know, has left the city.

And so this is timely in terms of us needing to appoint a new city district treasurer and also to be able to then change our process for doing that to align now with the state law change.

So resolution 49 would change our park district bylaws to allow us to appoint the city treasurer or the park district treasurer and that that individual would be either the permanent finance director for the city of Seattle or in the case of an interim director of finance until the permanent one is appointed.

So the first resolution 49 would make the changes to the bylaws to be consistent with this new change process for appointing the district treasurer.

Do board members have any questions for Tracy about this change to the bylaws?

And then soon we'll move on to the second, Resolution 50, making the appointment in alignment with those bylaws.

Okay, seeing no questions, why don't we go ahead and call the roll on the approval of Resolution 49?

Board Member Juarez?

Aye.

Board Member Morales?

Yes.

Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Board Member Nelson.

Aye.

Board Member Peterson.

Aye.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

We will now move on to the next agenda item.

Will the clerk please read that item into the agenda?

Resolution 50, a resolution appointing the City of Seattle Director of Finance as Seattle Park District Treasurer.

Thank you, and we again are joined by Tracy Brasliff from Council Central Staff.

Tracy, why don't you go ahead and present on Resolution 50.

Thank you, President Lewis will do.

So resolution 50 would in fact now appoint the city's director of finance as the district treasurer.

And in the case of a vacancy in this position, it would also allow that an interim or an acting director of finance would be authorized to act as a district treasurer until the city appoints a permanent director.

Thank you, you know it occurs to me I don't think I formally moved and seconded on resolution 49, I apologize, I was, I was moving, moving quickly through that.

Yeah, my apologies.

So how about this?

Why don't we- We can do it.

The fact that there was no objection and we move forward with a roll call, it's still valid.

But if you prefer to move the resolution, that's just fine.

Yeah, well, for resolution 50, I'm going to do it the way we're accustomed to.

I got ahead of myself on 49. So given Tracy's presentation, are there any questions regarding resolution 50?

Seeing no questions from board members, I move resolution 50. Second.

And moved and seconded.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the approval of resolution 50.

Board member Juarez.

Aye.

Board member Morales.

Yes.

Board member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Board member Nelson.

Aye.

Board member Peterson.

Aye.

Board member Sawant.

Yes.

Board member Strauss.

Yes.

Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Yes.

Council President, you're not the only one a little rusty after two weeks of recess.

So, hi.

I didn't want to interrupt your flow, so I was kind of just saying thank you.

Yeah.

Well, that disposes of the second item of business.

Will the clerk please read agenda item number three into the record.

Agenda item three.

Mayor Harrell's proposed Seattle Park District six-year spending plan for 2023 through 2028.

And we are joined by a panel of central staff as well as officials from the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Budget Office.

So, Eric, do we have you and Tracy here for this item both?

It looks like we do.

And why don't we go ahead and hear from Parks first on the presentation and Superintendent Williams, I'll turn it over to you to introduce the panel and queue up the presentation for the board.

Okay, I might actually defer to our Chief Executive Emery here to maybe kick us off.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll do a little introduction and pass it on to Super acting superintendent Christopher Williams to go in detail.

So good afternoon Council members and members of the Park District Board.

I want to thank you for having me here today to introduce Mayor Harrell's Park District budget proposal.

This six-year Park District budget was created with a focus on the essentials, keeping parks open, safe, clean, and well-maintained while also being forward-thinking and advancing key priorities focused on building climate resilience, advancing equity, and offering opportunities to our city's youth.

This approximately $115 million annual budget is the level of investment required to maintain our city's world-class park system.

This budget has been a collaborative effort with many park stakeholders, community members, and council members' offices.

So I want to take a moment to thank you all for continuing partnership on this.

Also, special thanks to Board President Lewis for your ongoing support and coming to the announcement last week.

The pandemic showed us just how important access to parks and other public spaces is for communities.

When everything else was closed, parks served as a place People could safely gather and meet with friends and family.

I sure took advantage of it with my family.

Access to parks, community centers, and recreational facilities are integral to healthy, thriving communities.

And this proposal reflects that by making critical investments to ensure they're properly maintained for everyone in Seattle to enjoy.

This includes making all 129 public restrooms in our parks available for use year round and ensuring they're well kept.

Keeping our park and recreation facilities safe is a key to community wellness and has a direct relationship to their usage rate.

As part of the new investments area, this budget would create a new team responding to graffiti and vandalism while also expanding the park ranger program by adding 26 more positions.

This ranger serve as ambassadors and promote voluntary compliance of park rules.

And we want to take leverage of this position to enhance public safety in our parks.

Parks and green spaces can also be a great asset in our fight against climate change.

And we must utilize them effectively to drive climate action and build a more sustainable future.

This budget looks at how we can reduce the impact of urban heat islands by planting and maintaining hundreds of trees and decarbonizing more of city facilities.

Public spaces like parks and community centers are also a major equity drivers.

They're multi-generational places where all are welcome.

This budget makes it a priority to invest in communities that have been historically under-resourced.

It doubles the size of the new equity grant fund and increases the capacity of the Seattle Conservation Corps to give more people experiencing homelessness a pipeline to employment, housing, and wraparound services.

This budget also shows a commitment to youth, making investments in our future leaders, and giving them opportunities to succeed by expanding youth employment hours.

The proposal reflects Mayor Harrell's deep commitment to protecting and enhancing the spaces, ensuring our city's nearly 500 parks, play fields, and community centers remain welcoming areas for recreation, learning, and more.

We look forward to continuing to partner with you and your offices on this work.

Thank you for having me.

And now I'll pass it on to Acting Superintendent Christopher Williams to dive into the details.

Great.

Adiem, thank you for that wonderful introduction.

And I would also comment here about just the level of deep support we've received from the Herald Administration, Adiem and I also want to recognize Michelle Finnegan, who is here on our finance team, and Justin Hillier, who is also present from CBO here.

So thank you, Board President Lewis and other members of the Park District Board for staying late this afternoon and listening to the Mayor's proposed investments for Cycle 2 of the Park District.

Before we jump in, And on behalf of Seattle Park Recreation, I really want to extend appreciation to community members who showed up at all of those listening sessions, who provided public testimony.

We have a saying in parks that everything good we do is a result of community participation and engagement.

And that certainly was evident here with the level of community participation that we'll talk about later.

I also want to recognize the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners who put lots of time into honing these recommendations down and to, they came frequently and they stayed late in the evening and worked tirelessly in evening and weekend meetings to refine the recommendations.

Lots of good work there.

Next slide.

So the mayor's package of proposed investments are significant.

And we'll continue to build and transform our public park system with nearly $57 million worth of new investments.

A vast majority of the new 112 FTE are frontline staff, but there's an awful lot of good in this package that we will talk through.

We'll outline the investments.

We'll spend a little bit of time talking about some of the mayor's recommended changes as well.

and policy recommendations.

Next slide.

You all have seen this timeline before.

We've briefed you individually prior to coming here today.

It's a sort of Park District 101 primer, but we started this process, as many of you are aware, with the voters approving the Park District back in 2014. Cycle one was intended to go from 2015 through 2020. It was a six-year spending plan.

And then we took a pause due to the pandemic and then picked up the planning for cycle two back in March of this year when we convene the Board of Park and Recreation Commission.

That brings us here today full circle where we're presenting a set of recommendations to you.

Next slide.

Thank you.

This slide visually depicts where we are in cycle 2. The planning process we've been through, we're midway through this blue bar.

As you've been discussing, the Board of Park and Recreation, recommendations and now the mayor's proposed recommendations to you.

I'd also like to use this slide to highlight that we engage the community in two rounds before taking potential proposals to the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners.

We combined and a couple of processes talk to 10,000 community people, members in 2019, and then in 2021, when we re-engage the public, We talked to an additional 9,000 people.

This has been a huge process where we conducted listening sessions online, open houses.

We had our park ambassadors doing intercept surveys out in the park, but we really went the extra mile to gather some baseline information on public needs, wants, desires for their park and recreation system.

Next slide.

Okay, and this is just the example of kind of some of the things we heard.

So in that left top slide, we heard kind of this increase focused on the public wanting us to prioritize equity in everything we do.

So there are lots of examples where equity is sort of central to the thinking of the recommendations.

The next slide, or rather additionally on the slide, people want more activities in community centers and they want more ADA accessible playgrounds.

So we heard a broad spectrum of ideas and wants and wishes from the community.

Next slide.

As I mentioned earlier, the mayor's plan is informed by park stakeholders and community voices and largely aligns with the park board recommendations will be using The $108 million figure we work through with the Park Board as our starting point today.

This $108 million included their specific recommendations as well as some planning assumptions by the department that we provided to them related to financing one-time capital investments, and potential COVID recovery offsets.

One of the big changes to the planning assumptions results from the mayor and the city budget office working together to deliver a plan that meets the general fund expectations outlined in the interlocal agreement.

This is also a good opportunity to kind of thank the park board, I'm sorry, the park district board to thank you for maintaining your commitment to the interlocal agreement to maintain a general fund floor.

That hasn't gone unnoticed in this process.

The mayor also made some changes that we'll walk through.

As you can imagine, this was a balancing act.

There was a lot more demand for services and varying priorities, but hopefully you'll see many of the mayor's changes align with key priorities you have been discussing with us and we've heard from you.

In total, the mayor proposed plan results in $114 million investment in 2023 for a $331 tax bill to the median home value, estimated at $875,000.

This compares to the 2022 tax bill of $155 based on a median home value of $760,000.

Next slide.

So this slide depicts our baseline cycle one services.

As we've discussed previously, you can see here, these resources are integral to almost all aspects of our operations and capital programs.

and account for over half of the total proposed plan.

So this is what we have been referring to as the baseline level of investments, and they continue from the first cycle.

And what we're proposing today is additive as a component of the mayor's recommendations.

Next slide, please.

The mayor's plan allocates approximately $10 million per year to fund new capital projects.

with a mix of cash and debt.

And that discussion about whether or not we are proposing to use debt has been widely discussed.

And I just want to confirm that this plan does prescribe debt as a kind of hybrid funding approach to some of the larger capital projects.

You'll see the details in the full six-year plan.

But generally the mayor's plan funds these first three bullets with cash, and that includes the five land bank sites across the city which include West Seattle junction 48th and Charles town and Morgan junction, which would an AB Ernst Park.

fund Smith Cove, and Amy Tennis Center will all be funded with cash.

These next four, Loyal Heights, Community Center Stabilization, and the new South Lake Union Community Center at 8th and Mercer and Lake City Community Center redevelopment and Green Lake Community Center will be funded with death service on those.

Next slide, please.

I have a question.

Sure.

Yes.

Council President Juarez and then council members.

Thank you.

I was following the PowerPoint.

Thank you, Christopher.

I think you knew that I was going to flag this for Green Lake and Lake City.

And maybe Tracy can help us out.

I know we've asked this question a thousand different ways and I get three different answers.

My understanding, notwithstanding that provide 10 million to fund new capital projects, is that the demolition or the rebuilding of Green Lake and Lake City, I mean, Lake City alone is around 30 million, 22 or between 25 and 30. So can you explain to me, are we still locked in for those funds for Green Lake and Lake City?

Yes.

Yeah.

OK, so maybe I'll go through what we are proposing for debt.

OK, so we are proposing Let's see here for Loyal Heights.

We'll start there.

We're proposing $29 million for Loyal Heights with 750 for sort of planning design.

And then for Lake City Community Center, we're proposing $28 million in debt financing, almost 30. And for Green Lake Community Center, we're proposing $3.5 million as a planning COB, Dave Kuntz, OSBT – He, Him, His): and development number and then another $56 million for actual construction and for the South Lake Union eighth and Mercer site we're proposing $750,000 for planning and then $17 million for build out.

And we've included even a debt financing contingency, anticipating that there are always unanticipated additional costs.

So that total is about fifteen million dollars for this package of debt finance projects.

Got it.

OK, thank you for clarifying.

I mean, and thank you, Christopher, when we had former Superintendent Agare.

So I think what the public will hear is that when we had that first six-year plan and what the commitments were.

And then we were working on the next six commitments to build up all of these projects.

And then we got hit by COVID, so everything got put on hold.

But I know that I was working with Council Member Strauss to keep going, but everything was on hold for Green Lake and Lake City, and then working with Council Member Herboldt, and then also push on the land bank development projects.

Because I'm familiar with debt financing, I understand what you're saying now.

I was looking here going, what?

That didn't look right.

So now I understand.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Heart attack's over.

Thank you.

I'm glad we could resuscitate you.

meeting.

Board member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council President, for raising that.

I had the similar heart palpitations before this meeting, looking over this PowerPoint, about $10 million, and Appendix 3 really did help me understand that this is really just debt financing of larger amounts of money.

I guess, and Superintendent Williams, Chief Emery, Every time we talk about Green Lake, since the summer when it was proposed that Green Lake would not have a $120 million project, it would be a $50 million project, it would be a renovation rather than a renewal, an expansion, or anything like that, I've asked the Parks Department time and time again, We're not gonna be satisfied with the renovation.

We've already had renovations here.

The issues at hand are that we need expanded community space for childcare.

We need the pool to be fixed.

These things can't happen within the same footprint that we currently have with the building.

So my question today, because your teams quickly got me the information to stop my heart palpitations, but I guess my question is, why are we still calling it a renovation?

Is it that you need more money in the door to make this a renewal?

I guess I've asked so many times about the word renovation.

I can't help myself but ask it on the record today.

Yeah, and I think that's a great question.

So I think the first part of that question is we always seek to leverage additional funds, either through state grants.

So, if there are ways to leverage this $56 million for Green Lake.

that will allow us to build a bigger, better project.

We certainly want to go after those RCO grants, state funds, county funds, so I think you can count on that for all of these capital investments.

And I think this is just a question of money, right?

I mean, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Trying to parse out a plan that has equitable distribution of resources across the system is sort of what backed us into a corner here.

So that's how we wound up with a renovation versus a ground floor rebuild is just with the numbers we were using.

you know, kind of the planning numbers, we needed to sort of try to make that work for the entire city, so.

So I guess, and maybe this is daylighting for me right now.

First day back after council recess, day after Labor Day, here we are, hitting the ground running real quick.

Is the Parks Department still planning a simple renovation?

Well, I think it's- Have I been led astray here?

I think it's much more than what we would, I mean, even though we're calling it, renovation, we consider this substantial alteration to the existing footprint.

So this is not just, you know, some minor kind of renovation.

This is a substantial renovation.

So Superintendent, I'll give you a lifeline here, which is you said substantial alteration, which is completely different than a renovation.

Right we've already done renovations.

We know this is bigger than a renovation.

And so my request here is to stop calling it a renovation if what you're talking about is a substantial alteration.

Okay.

I guess I've made that request a number of times and I think that it is confusing for the viewing public because they know that renovations have already occurred at the building.

And if that's what folks think they're getting, they're not understanding the good work that you're doing.

And that's what I'm getting concerned with here, is that we're not being transparent with the community because we're stumbling upon ourselves.

And so apologies for Tuesday after Labor Day, after council recess coming in hot, but I want the public to know everything that you're doing, and that's more than the words that are on this page.

This is a significant project, and it is a substantial alteration to the existing footprint.

Well, maybe we can continue the nomenclature discussion offline on this but I do appreciate the point that board member Strauss is raising about the level of capital improvement that we're going to see in some of these sites.

It's very significant dollar figures that are behind it and not just for the building, but the actual planning process.

So it'll be good for us to continue to monitor that work and to make sure that it is lifted up appropriately to its scale and magnitude.

I have one question about this slide as well, Superintendent.

And that is, and this appears throughout some of the materials that the mayor's office distributed this morning, this asterisk regarding the $2.6 million for Smith Cove.

and I'm just trying to get a better idea of what that is communicating.

Is that money that is being given back to the Park District from some other source?

Why does it have an asterisk?

I think what we're trying to call out here is included in here, annualized as refunding The Smith Cove project, as you may recall, during the pandemic, we took several budget reductions.

This was one of the projects that was defunded during the pandemic.

And this adds funding back to complete the athletic field, the off-leash area, and the walking trail for Smith Cove.

And the source of that money is not MPD, is that?

Correct then.

We borrowed from the MPD and we're now giving that money back.

Is that what that's communicating?

Yes.

Okay.

It's something you'll see on the revenue side of the six-year plan.

So we have in cycle one, we had front-loaded the appropriation in order to do the project, but assumed we would be backfilling that appropriation into cycle two.

So there's a amount of appropriation that needs revenue to fund it.

And so it just looks off balance if you look at the six year plan, because there's already $2.6 million of appropriation.

And we just wanted to call it out that it looks a little odd on the plan, but it's basically part of the funding cash revenues to complete the project and the other portion, another 4.5 million or whatever, you'll see on the expense side because it needs both revenues and appropriation.

Great.

Thank you for clarifying that and explaining the asterisks.

Very much appreciated.

Superintendent, you can continue with the presentation.

Sure.

Thank you.

Why don't we go to the next slide here?

So in this slide, actually in the next three slides, we want to cover the final $40 million in the proposal.

And first we'll cover some of the investments from the Board of Park Recreation Commissioners.

And then we'll cover some of the changes that came from the mayor.

The plan includes decarbonization of six SPR facilities, and this is of course electrification.

We want to create a new graffiti and vandalism response team to respond to graffiti across the system.

We want to expand our trail restoration efforts across the system.

We want to expand leash and scoop law enforcement across our system.

We want to greatly leverage our ability to work with partners to employ youth.

and give them jobs.

It's a great intervention tool, youth employment, to help young people.

We want to plant 600 trees across the system.

We want to focus on ADA barrier removal.

We want to enhance our community engagement ambassadors and how much time we invest in that across the system.

We want to make all of our 129 comfort stations available all year round as much as possible.

And we're going to make investment in that.

We want to increase access to community centers by offering more evening and weekend hours.

We want to set up an equity grant that recognizes that not every community has the ability to fundraise for a large capital project and provide funding for a match.

So this is a grant program for capital projects that won't require a match.

And then we want to create our first dedicated pickleball courts in the system.

We'll create approximately eight pickleball courts throughout the system.

And then we want to expand the Seattle conservation crew.

You know this as probably one of the best second chance programs in the system.

And we just wanna do more of this program that helps get people on their feet.

Next slide.

additional mayor's ads include, in line with this focus on community safety, you heard Chief Executive Emery mentioned an investment in park rangers which will onboard 26 additional park rangers by 2024. We recognize the importance of our urban tree canopy and the mayor wants to restore over $900,000 to the Green Seattle Partnership that was cut in 2019. We also have a commitment to clean, safe, open parks.

and ensuring that our, uh, comfort stations are available for year round use.

Um, and then also, uh, We want to, uh, reappropriate some existing utility costs, bring up a similar amount of general fund resources, uh, to provide ongoing funding for the clean city initiative services.

Um, This is a continuation of the Clean Cities Program.

And then we want to create a youth opportunity fund.

This idea recognizes that there are lots of partners out there we should be working with to reach youth and who can help us with, I think, fulfilling the mayor's vision for increased youth mentorship and the kinds of interventions that keep young people on the right course.

So that's what that investment is for.

I think that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's And that was something that was fairly universally communicated by the Park District Board.

And as I understand it, something that accorded internally with what Mayor Harrell and the administration wanted to see as well.

So I'm glad that's a strong area of commonality.

I am curious about the utility costs and the MPD and what we anticipate that to run in terms of a line item for the MPD.

And I am curious about what the unified care team fund distribution is anticipated to be between general fund and MPD under this proposal.

Sure.

So, Um, we think this approach enables, uh, the department to, uh, share costs for clean cities costs with general fund versus the park district fund.

Um, and I think the logic here is, uh, this made sense because it's a multi-departmental effort.

The, uh, council will see the mayor's full proposal for clean cities and unified care team.

budget when the mayor transmits that budget here in a couple of weeks.

I think to answer your question, the costs are about five point three million dollars of general fund appropriation.

But the mayor's office is really better positioned to to answer that.

We think it's going to be about a five point three million dollar backfill of Park District revenues to pay for that.

And what was the source of that money prior to Park District being proposed as the source?

That was one-time Clifford funds that we were using to fund that, and they were scheduled to sunset at the end of this year.

Thanks for confirming that.

That was my understanding.

Okay, given those answers, I don't have any other questions on this slide.

So you can continue with the presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, Council Member Nelson has a question.

I was just trying to follow that exchange.

And so is that 5.3?

Is that what we were getting at in the beginning when we were talking about moving $10 million of Park District funding for COVID relief

So the original source for that money was federal Clifford money.

So it's not, the way this is constituted wouldn't be replacing traditional city general fund money.

To my understanding, the clean city initiative money has always been supported by one time federal era COVID money.

But I'll let Superintendent Williams clarify, but my understanding is this is just continuing a program that we have been running, or the proposal is to continue a program we have been running on one-time federal money and making it permanent in the MPD.

But I don't want to misrepresent the executive's proposal.

It's making it permanent with general fund and then moving some previously backed Right expenses that are general park and recreation purposes, utility costs, drainage tax, etc, on to the MPD.

So the unified care team would be general fund.

I understand.

Yeah, because I was looking at the fact sheet trying to find the the original proposed $10 million for general fund funded COVID relief measures, and I didn't see it.

But anyway, go on.

Yeah.

Council President Moraes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we go back a slide, Christopher?

Sure.

I was busy taking notes.

So as you know, just a little history here on the Clean City Initiative.

Yeah.

Okay, so this is where I mean obviously I would have liked to see more because you know we work together with the former superintendent.

And I think we secured like 9.2 million towards the end of the year, because parks found themselves in the position because of covert like many of our city departments, doing things that weren't normally in their job description.

Parks worked with SPU, SDOT, and SPD on all the cleanup.

And we had advocated and secured the 9.3 or 9.2, I can't remember what it was, towards the end of the year.

So the 5.3, am I looking at the right number here?

Yeah.

So is that going to be, well, I don't want to have like an open-ended, but I'm guessing that we've reached a plateau and I know Council President, Council Member Lewis, the chair here, we pay attention, you guys send us the weekly numbers of garbage picked up and needles and who got a deep cleaning and what the list is of what parks you want to hit.

So is it fair to say now that parks kind of has a handle on what's being asked of them when they're cleaning up all of these areas and assisting the other departments in encampment removal?

So I think for more clarity here, that $9 million was for parks, SPU, SDOT.

This $5.3 million is dedicated to Seattle Park and Recreation efforts.

So it's not funding all of the UnitedCare team, it's funding the parks component.

OK, that's right, because that's something was divided between like four or five departments.

Got that.

So this is actually a nicer bump.

So I see this, Christopher Williams.

So do we have a better handle about what it takes to get teams out there?

Who now because I remember the beginning of some people were not happy.

And I understood that particularly when labor came to us and said, you're asking people to do things that's not in their job description and that they weren't trained to do that.

Maybe they don't want to do.

But you moved along and we worked with labor to make sure we did it right.

So I'm here to say now that we kind of have a good handle on what it takes to stay on top of cleaning the parks and not just the removal piece, but the garbage and graffiti and all the other stuff.

Absolutely.

You know, I think labor has been concerned that people be given the adequate levels of security and training and personal protective equipment and I think we are meeting that standard.

for keeping our employees safe.

And, you know, I'll also say here that you're going to hear a more fulsome explanation of how parks plan fits into the broader UCT plan when the mayor presents his budget later this month.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

And thank you for being such a great partner with the other city departments.

I know that was a heavy lift when this first hit in 2020. and getting out and recruiting park ambassadors.

It was just a thing, and you guys worked really hard with us behind the scenes.

Thank you very much, and thank you for answering my question.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you so much, Council President Juarez.

Superintendent, we can continue with the presentation.

I do want to probably follow up offline to ask a few more questions about I don't know how all the unified care team pieces fit together, but for now, I think that's sufficient.

Okay.

So there were other modifications.

As mentioned, the mayor's plan meets general fund commitments outlined in the interlocal agreement.

This plan includes temporary support for certain SPR operating expenses to address The mayor's plan also creates a fee stabilization reserve to reduce pressure to increase program fees by shifting some future inflationary costs from the park fund, which is our earned revenue account, to the park district.

So we're incredibly sensitive to how fees can create a barrier to participation for different groups across the city.

Our planning exercise here is to have more of that burden for revenue shift to the park district versus to the public.

Also, this proposal provides resources to increase the indirect services needed to support cycle 2. In other words, there's an overhead component here for accounting, contracting, a group we call the Business Service Center to support.

this.

And then finally, the mayor's plan did not increase investments above our baseline in four areas that were proposed by the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners.

And those areas include park beautification, This is sort of the idea that we were going to provide hanging flower baskets and other beautification measures across the system.

Viewpoint maintenance, urban food system maintenance, and I should mention here that we have an urban food system program already.

We're just not expanding that program.

And then acquisition.

we already have an acquisition budget.

We're just not expanding the level of, or rather adding to the acquisition budget.

So this constitutes about $1.7 million, which is a very small percentage of the overall Board of Park and Recreation Commissioner recommendations.

Next slide.

Superintendent, can we hang there for just one moment?

I apologize.

Can we get a little more clarity on indirect administrative services?

Okay, so that's basically overhead costs, that's back office, things like accounting, accounts payable, sort of all of the back office resources like contracting.

We have an area called the Business Service Center, which takes registration for community center enrollment, as we increase the use of our facilities and increase the programming and service delivery, we believe there will be an overhead cost for that production.

And that's what this is recognizing.

And I think that is about $800,000 worth of overhead costs.

And that is $57 million package.

That is a new ad from the BPRC, just to clarify.

So the BPRC did not recommend that, but that was one of the changes recommended by the mayor's office.

Okay, great, just clarifying.

We did notify the clerk board that we would be including it, we just didn't have them prioritize a dollar amount.

Understood, thank you.

Okay.

Next slide.

Okay, so basically this next slide captures everything we just walked through on the mayoral changes to the BRPC recommendations you've been discussing.

We won't walk through this at a high level, but you've got this information in your materials.

The mayor added approximately $4 million to the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioner's endorsed plan.

And those include recommendations, planning assumptions, and of course, some key policy changes.

So I will pause right there to see if there are questions.

Thank you, Superintendent.

Colleagues, do any board members have questions based on the superintendent's presentation?

Hold on, I'm sorry.

We've got one more slide.

Oh, go ahead, sorry.

Okay, so this next slide is attempting to depict.

forecast revenue collection on an annual basis in the park district and.

So that's what that first line is.

The operational max or statutory limit is that middle line.

Right.

So that's where that's the legal limit of taxing authority we have in the park district without going out for a public vote.

And then the bottom line is the remaining capacity between the mayor's recommendation and the statutory limit.

And you can see in the out years how that statutory capacity ebbs and flows through 2028.

Great.

Thank you.

Oh, that's a great shot to end on, too.

Thank you so much.

You bet.

are there any comments from board members or questions?

Councilmember Peterson, board member Peterson, I should say.

Thank you, President Lewis.

I just wanted to understand next steps.

I'm hoping that our city council central staff will be fully analyzing this.

We just got some of the details for the first time today, actually.

So I just want to make sure that we can expect them to fully analyze it and reconcile the various numbers and especially due to the substantial property tax increase that's being proposed.

I mean, I can just say generally having received a pretty detailed transmittal of information this morning.

And I actually do want to just take a moment to thank the parks department, thank the mayor's office for sending a pretty comprehensive package for us to review and really take advantage of this information for the next three weeks of deliberations on this.

I don't feel like it will be unduly rushing it given that we do have appendixes that indicate additional budget context to some of these ads.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

ability for colleagues to deliberate and members of the public to weigh in.

I will just digress for a moment and say we have another large public hearing on this with members of the public in the Northgate neighborhood tomorrow evening where we'll be getting feedback on these recommendations.

So Council Member Peterson, to your point, I do think there will be significant time to parse through this.

And I do want to take this opportunity again to thank the executive for a pretty thorough transmittal of information to help us with that.

So appreciate that question.

Is there anything else that the executive panel wants to add?

in response.

I think you addressed it really well.

Thank you.

I also want to kind of take a moment to appreciate the partnership we built early on with central staff, with your leadership.

So it's been a great energy and great collaboration effort.

So appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

Council member or board member Strauss.

Thank you, Board President Lewis.

I'll echo and I'll agree and disagree with your comments.

I think that there's a fair amount of agreement that you heard from me today.

My biggest disagreement was about semantics.

It wasn't about funding.

It wasn't about programming.

It was about how we are speaking with our community about how we're building parks for them.

So I just want to say thank you, Superintendent.

Thank you to your teams.

Continue keeping up the great work.

And then, you know, my bit of disagreement with you, Board President Lewis is that this this timeline is too fast.

We've we've expressed this for months now, I'm going to be standing with you to move this as quickly as possible.

I'm not going to be a roadblock.

Because this timeline was dictated because of the COVID pandemic because of the transition with the new mayor, because of so many external factors.

I'm here to work with everyone to get this across the finish line before the end of the budget.

Putting it on the record, what I've been saying for months is that this is a very fast timeline.

Board Member Nelson.

Well, ditto what Council Member Strauss said.

I still have some questions.

I'll take most of them offline.

Anyway, we'll talk about the materials that are available to look at.

Where in this presentation, can you just direct me to a page number and I'll get to it later, where are the expanded community center hours addressed in some of these items?

Can you just point me to the section and then I'll ask central staff later.

Michelle, do you know the page number for that?

I will find it for you.

The specific hours aren't mentioned in the materials, but we can, we have a draft proposal of the distribution of ours that we can share through central staff.

Okay, thank you.

I know that a lot of council members did express interest in that.

Thanks.

Yes, and to be clear, I think as Councilmember Nelson or Boardmember Nelson's line of questioning just now illustrates, we are going, now that we have some clarity on areas of priority from the executive, going to go forward to setting of metrics, setting of accountability measures to track metrics, and ironing out some of these these areas from this first initial proposal from the mayor and how we want to interact with it.

So there will be plenty of opportunity to have that kind of engagement.

Eric and Tracy from our central staff are hopefully have sufficient information to be well versed in being able to get all board members up to speed on areas of interest that have been identified here.

And if the information or future deliberations are insufficient to get board members to the point of where they want to be, that's certainly a conversation that we can have.

Tracy and Eric, do you have any comments on if there's additional information from the executive that would be useful for being able to fill in some blank spots as they stand?

No shortage of blanks to be filled in for us at the level of analysis that we do.

What I will say to the council members is that Eric and I will not be able to do the kind of deeper, deeper dive that you would have us do during the budget, for example, in terms of the kinds of level of information that we would look at.

if we are going to look at an adoption of a spending plan, we have to kind of think about this as a higher level program spending plan.

It is not the gory details of how every dollar is going to be spent within that program area.

It really is at this higher level that you are going to be making decisions to say, is this the program area that we really want to be spending and how much do we want to spend there?

So that's really what what we're going to be trying to understand is what at what levels and what do you kind of get for the funding at those different levels, but we won't be able to do the kind of deeper dive.

That we do during budget, because the timing is so short, and so we have questions that we have begun to ask the executive just to get to us a level of understanding of about what what will this buy us in terms of outcomes and so forth.

and then happy to follow-up with Council members as they begin to have questions at that level, at that higher level of questioning, really.

Right, and I would add to that, Tracy, I think a lot of those elements come out in Appendix 4 that was transmitted, other budget context that all Council members will have that illustrates, you know, how a lot of these line items interact with other things we're going to be grappling with in the next few months.

So, You know, I think that that appendix in particular is illustrative of the work that's gonna be in front of us and appreciate the work of our council central staff in analyzing and briefing on the implications of this proposal.

With that, given that it is almost 5 p.m., are there any additional questions from council or board colleagues

Mr. President, I have a question.

Yes, board member Juarez.

Two things.

Christopher, again, you may have done a pie chart or if you did it in this slide in this deck, the MPD makes up how much of the total park district budget is it like?

So so currently the MPD makes up about 20 percent of our total operating budget.

However, this new ad, assuming they're adopted, I think gets us closer to about 60 percent.

Is that correct, Michelle?

Or is it 40 percent?

I can't unmute myself.

About a third of the 2023. A third.

A third.

Yeah.

I had Council Member Lewis's job for a few years,

So the discussions are different with MPD and what the voters mandated and voted on in 2014 than what we do when we're doing regular budget discussions.

They're not the same.

And so when I had to chair this, I would have to talk to council members like we have budget where we get into the nitty gritty details, more line items.

But the MPD comes from the voters and what they require of us.

It's not councilmatic.

It's more mandatory like these things have to be funded because this is what the voters asked for.

So you don't have as much room to, I would say, negotiate as you do on the budget side, the regular Seattle City Council budget side.

And so I always had to keep that in mind when working with council members that came in and thought, well, there's a pot of money and I want X.

And I'm like, well, no, you can't have that because that's not quite doesn't fit into the six year cycle.

of what people demanded that get funded.

So I'm just putting that out there so people can understand, not raise expectations that it's not the same conversation that we have with budget.

And if I'm wrong on that, Tracy, please correct me.

At least that's what I learned from you anyway, in the last six years.

I think it's fair to say Councilmember what you've described was accurate when we were sitting in within that cycle one spending plan because we have designated in that cycle one every year how much we were going to spend how much revenue we were going to bring in, and then how much we were going to spend.

Now that we're in a cycle two in which we are actually now establishing those spending limits, those annual spending limits, we are now in a place where the council member has the prerogative to look at the programs and services you want to fund and at what levels.

Now we have seen that we have a max, we know we can't go above a certain level because of what the voters have authorized and they've done a good job of saying what those are and we have that very clearly in mind.

But there is the ability for you to look at that range of programs and services that have been proposed by the executive and if you have some, of your own that fall within the parks and rec bucket, that it is actually related to the operations and maintenance of parks and our programs, then that those are becoming eligible or are eligible things that could be funded with parks funds.

Right.

I'm not saying that discussions can't happen, but I'm just saying that there's a mandate we have for what got passed in 2014. That's all I'm saying.

which is different than the regular budget discussions we have.

So I will leave it at that.

I apologize if I- No worries, no worries.

Wonky there.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, absolutely.

And, you know, I think there's no better illustration of Board Member Juarez's comments than the discussion we had around the potential use of general fund supplementation with the Park District, because that would not have conformed to the mandate that Board Member Juarez has just identified.

So with that, I don't have any additional comments.

I would just allude one more time to the public hearing that we are gonna be having tomorrow in the Northgate neighborhood, and that is going to be at the Northgate Community Center starting at 6 p.m., and that addresses 10510 5th Avenue Northeast.

where we will again hear from the public now with some additional context on their priorities for the Metropolitan Park District renewal and cycle to investments.

With that, I don't have any other comments or is there anything for the good of the order from board members?

does not appear that there are.

Thank you so much, everyone, for coming and presenting.

And one thing I will also say, when we agreed to this timeline back in the spring and set today, September 6, for the transmittal of the executive proposal, just want to really thank the executive team for sticking to that deadline assiduously and getting us that material.

It's really great to see that, and there was no requested delay or you know, rescheduling of that timeline and just really appreciate the ability of this administration to work in good faith and continue to get the council the information it needs to moving, continue to move forward on our priorities.

So thank you so much for that partnership.

And with that, we'll see everybody at our next meeting of the Metropolitan Park District.

Thank you.