Seattle Park District Board Meeting 9/15/22

Recording in progress.

You can begin now.

Thank you.

It is September 15th of 2022, and this meeting of the Seattle Metropolitan Parks District Board will come to order.

It is 2.31 p.m.

I am Andrew Lewis, president of the board.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Board member Juarez.

Board member Morales.

Here.

Board member Mosqueda.

Board Member Nelson.

Present.

Board Member Peterson.

Present.

Board Member Sawant.

Present.

Board Member Strauss.

Present.

Board Member Herbold.

Here.

Board President Lewis.

Present.

Seven, present.

If there are no objections, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

I do want to note that board member Juarez did notify me that she would not be able to attend the meeting immediately, may attend later, but is excused from the meeting.

And I want to put that on the record.

So approval of the minutes, the minutes of the September 7th, 2022 Seattle Park District Board has been reviewed.

And if there's no objection, those minutes will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, those minutes are adopted.

public comment.

At this time, we'll open the remote and in-person public comment session.

I will let the clerk preside over the session, and we'll give speakers two minutes to speak.

I believe we have a mix of in-person and remote speakers present today, and I would like to do all of the in-person speakers first, followed by the remote speakers.

Hello, Seattle.

The Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, Please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The Council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused, or if the process impedes the Council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the City.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the council.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

Can you hear me?

Okay.

My name is Tim Mozart.

I'm a longtime resident of Lake City and an advocate for funding for the 33 cent solution.

I'm here today to address the polling.

First reason is to consider the 33 cent solution.

One, the recent August adjustments to the city's property tax base provides a very strong argument for the use of consistent tax rate as a means of generating revenue for the next cycle.

The use of dollar amounts rather than a tax rate, especially if the tax base is increasing, was the main reason why the tax rate decreased and the opportunity to gain additional needed revenue for the district was lost.

Inclusion of a new line item for replacing aging park facilities provides a much needed solution for having a permanent and ongoing CIP for park projects that provide a pay-as-you-go approach to funding those improvements.

Three, the $0.33 solution has a lower tax rate than the mayor's recommendation and will avoid continuing increases of property taxes in order to fund compounding debt service financing.

And four, the $0.33 solution provides funding for projects that the Park District Board members have identified as high priorities.

Two concerns.

The proposed debt service financing only pays for three buildings and requires 20 years to be paid off.

There's over 270 park facilities.

That means you will have to do a 20-year debt service package for each cycle, resulting in additional compounding property taxes.

Two.

Part of the funding problem with having safe, clean, and operating parks, as well as staffing our community centers, has to do with how park funds are being spent.

There needs to be extensive evaluation of how funds are being used, both for the general fund park operations, the first cycle program expenditures, and how the $20 million in funds transferred from projects to programs in the first cycle were used.

My question is, is the mayor's recommended $28 million for the replacement of the Lake City Community Center in addition to the current $11.5 million of dedicated funding in the current CIP?

If not, there will be a lot of unhappy people in Lake City.

I wanna thank the Park District Board for considering the 33 cent solution, addressing my issues, and hopefully answering my question.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marguerite Richard.

Yes, today is a sad day for me because Honorable Michael B. Fuller passed away.

I must go on and I must endure whatever it is that the Lord has placed before me.

But the money for the park The parks.

Yeah, I don't think that this money should be divided up, except to go to the people.

There's too much destructiveness going on on the streets right now, where the money would be good for helping those people, homeless people.

I put Barefoot in the Park, because I remember there was a series about Barefoot in the Park, because parks are important.

We need them.

But we see a lot of things illegally go on in the parks.

So when you're talking about funding aspect I keep saying it over and over again, until we get our reparations.

It's gonna be a sad day, probably every time I come down here.

Because the people are being left behind.

They're not being respected for just being human beings.

And human beings go to the park.

But somebody told me that dogs do too.

And maybe cats wander too.

But I think the most important thing is for the people.

We the people should have the money in the areas that need to be looked upon.

I could see a whole lot of stuff that's going, oh yeah, that park over there by the King County courthouse.

Yeah, that was a hot mess and now there's nothing in it because they're trying to figure out if it should be a King County park or a city park.

So yeah, I don't know.

I just don't have all the answers, but I was glad I got a chance to speak today.

Bye.

Our next speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Thank you.

Zeke Kyle, my lovely.

emerald, flower, goodwill, Nazi, Gestapo, psychopath, fascist.

My name is Alex Zemerman.

I want to speak about parks.

I love parks.

I see many parks in my life, around all Europe, most of them, and in America too.

I love parks.

And I'm very happy when I have park, you know what I mean?

I come to park and I see dog can piss in park, cat can piss in park.

Why people cannot piss in park?

Where is the problem?

We all animal, maybe from farm, but we all animal.

So right now my question very simple.

When everybody can piss in park, why we need spend $100 million per year?

Huh, per year?

Yeah, and I'm talking about this probably more than 15 years.

I thought, guys, why are you acting like a cretina?

It's 100 million dollars per year can go to people, poor people, disabled people.

Fixed city problem, we have too many problems in city.

Why this park spend so money?

Why?

Who are you?

Are you freaking a zombie, a psychopath, a pure idiot?

Why we spend so money?

Park can stay in for one year or two year without money, exactly can exist.

But right now time very hard.

Right now, every penny need go for people because we have too many problem with money right now.

Gas, food, everything, apartment double.

So please, stop this acting like a fascist, like a capitalist with idiotic face.

You know what this mean?

Stop this hundred million dollars.

Give back to the people.

It's a people money.

You need give back to the people.

Stop and park money.

Okay, Pat, I'll see you next week.

Our next speaker is Miriam Hale.

Hello.

Is this all right?

My name is Mariam.

I'm a grad student and a resident of City Council District 3. And I noticed this morning in the news that America had its hottest summer ever on record.

And like most Americans, I'm very concerned about climate change.

I think we need to start moving with urgency to address climate change on all fronts by reducing emissions and increasing resilience.

And the parks levy is an opportunity for progress on both fronts in the city of Seattle.

I think we need to leverage the full funding capacity of the levy to transform city community centers into climate resilience hubs by installing HVAC systems to provide protection in smoke events, heat pumps to provide heating and cooling, especially during these hot summers that we have ahead of us, and rooftop solar microgrids that will provide clean, self-supporting energy in the event of normal working and also in the event that the grid goes down elsewhere.

And I hope that we will, if you would consider raising the parks levy to $0.41 per thousand dollar of assessed property value in order to fully fund these vital projects using the parks levy funds.

And I think these community centers are important, not just because they're places where people go for recreation, they're places where people go for afterschool activities, but also because these can be life-saving resources for our unhoused neighbors and for just people who don't have air conditioning because Heat kills, smoke kills, and I think we need to be going to these community centers more and more going forward because climate change is progressing and it's not slowing down.

Thank you very much for your time.

Our last in-person speaker is David Rubenstein.

Good afternoon.

My name is David Rubenstein.

I am a resident of West Seattle, District 1. and I am joining you today to express some displeasure, discouragement, disappointment that the proposals for the parks district budget doesn't include specific allocation for the development of new off-leash areas.

I believe it was I think maybe one third of public comments that specifically requested some allocation for the development of new off-leash areas.

And if you look at the map of off-leash areas, specifically district one is a bit of a desert, but also there are large chunks of the city that are missing these.

I saw a statistic that there are more dogs than children in the city of Seattle, something like 40% of household have dogs, but there's just not enough infrastructure in our city to accommodate our furry friends.

There is, however, in the proposals that I've seen, an allocation for animal control officers to enforce leash and scoop laws, which I strongly support.

But the board president, Andrew Lewis, said in a recent meeting, and I think this rings quite true, that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

So if we are able to develop more off-leash areas, there'll just be less need for enforcement of these leash and scoop laws.

I would just, I know that we're late in the cycle here, but I would encourage the board to reevaluate the allocations in this budget before it is finalized so that we don't miss another opportunity for the next six years to develop more off-leash areas.

And thank you, that's all I have.

We will now move into the remote public speakers.

And remember, after your name is called and you hear that you have been unmuted, you may need to press star six.

And our first remote speaker is Kate Rubin.

Hello.

My name is Kate Rubin.

I'm the organizing director of Be Seattle and a renter living in District 2 who regularly uses parks for recreation socializing and exercise.

I'm calling today to urge you to vote no on any version of the parks levy that includes the expansion of park rangers and these positions ability to issue trespass orders.

It would further criminalize people experiencing homelessness and poverty lead to increased trauma and arrest and create permanent sleep positions.

We need to invest deeply in ensuring that our parks are more accessible and not threatening to all residents.

The idea that we would waste our precious park funding on more policing as we are facing historic overlapping climate and housing crises is appalling.

Upgrading our community centers to be climate resilient hubs should be our utmost priority.

Thank you.

I will yield the rest of my time.

Next speaker is Tram Tran-Larsen.

Good afternoon.

My name is Tram Tran-Larsen and I am a resident in district two.

I'm calling to urge this board to vote no on the proposal to add any new park rangers or permanent positions to clean areas around the encampments.

The parks department has been heavily involved in sweeping these encampments and violently displacing our unhoused neighbors from the only home and sense of community they have.

For every $100 rent increase, there is a 9% increase in homelessness.

Encampments are the outcome of a city that fails to protect its tenants.

We do not have a homelessness problem.

We have a lack of affordable housing, landlords that commodify a basic human necessity, skyrocketing rents, over-policing of communities of color, mental health stigma, union busting, poor treatment of workers, and an overall lack of empathy for our fellow humans in crisis.

We shouldn't prioritize the comfort of homeowners and business owners over the livelihood of the most marginalized in our community.

Instead of funneling more money into making homelessness invisible, we have a chance to make these parks more livable, accessible, and community-centric.

I urge you to use these funds to support inclusive parks that meet the needs of all of our neighbors.

We can't call ourselves a welcoming or sanctuary city when we spend millions of dollars displacing our own residents.

We can do better.

Please vote no.

Our next speaker is Aileen Fortgang.

Hi, my name is Aileen Fortgang and I'm with Humane Voters of Washington.

Remember the DARE program of the 1980s and 90s?

where police would go into schools to educate kids on why they shouldn't use drugs.

It was estimated to about a million, a billion, excuse me, a billion dollars was pumped into the program.

But finally, the Justice Department researched there.

It found that the program has little to no impact on drug use, and in some cases made kids more likely to use drugs.

Funding was pulled.

This is exactly what should happen with the zoo.

There is no peer-reviewed scientific research or any unbiased metrics that substantiate the captivity industry's claim that any significant learning or conservation takes place at a zoo or aquarium.

In fact, the captivity industry's own research done by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums found that people caring about wild animals and caring about wild habitat actually decreased after visiting a zoo.

And I'd be happy to provide this research to anyone who's interested.

Woodland Park Zoo has gotten just about everything it's wanted.

Less oversight by the neighborhoods.

Less oversight over animal welfare.

And more and more and more taxpayer money.

Enough of the endless tens of millions of dollars flowing to the zoo from the general fund and the Seattle Park District without proof of their time-worn claim.

of education and conservation.

Please end the Seattle Park District funding of Woodland Park Zoo and use our limited tax dollars for our cherished free and public parks.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dakota Rash.

Hello.

My name is Dakota Rash.

I fully support the Healthy Through Heat and Smoke campaigns request this afternoon.

Last weekend, the air quality in Seattle was among the worst in the world.

The fire that caused this particular onset of smoke is reported to be the biggest this region has experienced in over a century.

Yet again, dry conditions, which are becoming all the more common in this region due to climate change, remind us that fires are going to happen.

Smoke is going to happen.

That is our new reality.

Again, I closed my windows, shut myself inside.

But as I saw literal ash falling from the sky, I couldn't help but think of those who don't have that option, who are out there breathing in hazardous air, both because they can't afford to find shelter and because the world is quickly becoming a more dangerous place, a place where people who are the least responsible for the catastrophic challenge facing our species are the first to suffer and the worst to receive the harm of this crisis.

This is our new reality, but it doesn't have to be our future.

We are an innovative species.

We can create a future that is compassionate, safe, and resilient.

Turning every single community center into a climate resiliency hub is a shining example of that.

We can secure a much better future for ourselves on this planet by preparing for the known threat, giving ourselves flexibility and grace down the road by putting in the hard work now.

But it has to be now, and it has to be all in.

You thinking about their futures are constantly telling me that they feel ignored disrespected and trampled on by decision makers moving too slowly by adults that have made decisions about their futures for them and now aren't giving them a voice.

So please take action and take big action.

If it feels like nothing you've ever done before then that's good.

Take pride in that leadership because only that starting to move down the path towards being enough.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Alice Lockhart.

Good afternoon, Parks Board.

I'm Alice Lockhart and I volunteer with 350 Seattle.

I appreciate that the mayor's proposal includes money for resilience hubs, but this money really should come under the park budget.

I encourage the board to lift the levy lid to the maximum in order to fund resilience hubs and to leave junk start money for the many other purposes listed in the Green New Deal resolution.

Also, the mayor proposes this weird shenanigans in which $5.3 million of general fund money that formerly went to parks is given instead to clean cities, effectively cutting parks funding from the general fund and leaving the parks levy to pick up the tab for utilities funding.

This is pretty inappropriate and we should raise the levy lid for better purposes such as resilience hubs.

Lastly, the mayor proposes funding 26 park rangers who will have police functions such as writing set citations and exclusion orders and participating in terrible harmful sweeps such as the one that happened in my park this week.

You can hear me starting to cry there for that one.

This money could be put to real community safety in the form of resilience hubs And finally, speaking of starting to cry, I felt like crying for the last speaker.

We should listen to the youth.

We owe it to them.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Renee Ballou.

Good afternoon.

My name is Renee Ballou and I'm a renter in District 6. I'm calling in to encourage the council to divert whatever money is proposed on being spent on hiring new staff to maintain the parks.

I believe it should be diverted towards resources for unhoused folks in this city.

The city of Seattle appears more concerned with shuffling unhoused folks around in order to maintain the aesthetic of the city than it does with actually solving the issue of homelessness.

People need stability.

Families need stability.

The suites create a lot of instability for unhoused folks and fail to solve the real issue, which is that people can't afford to live in the city any longer.

When you're born into poverty and you constantly only are one paycheck away from losing your home, you are in a constant state of survival mode.

You have to fight to keep your head above water and compared to individuals who are born into the upper or middle class and given every opportunity to flourish.

We are all responsible for this.

So again, I think we need to focus less on the beautification of the parks and more on solving the real issue, which is making sure that every individual has the opportunity to live a stable and dignified life.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hannah Thompson Garner.

Good afternoon.

My name is Hannah Thompson-Garner, and I'm the director of the Northwest Animal Rights Network.

What if I told you that the Seattle City Council had $20 million earmarked for the most needed project to improve our city?

What would be the most opportune project to fund with such a large sum of money?

To make it easier, let's put some additional restrictions on where a city council can get this $20 million, as well as put some major restrictions on how they can spend it.

That way, we know the money will be going to some core problem areas.

Sounds good so far, right?

Now that $20 million must come out of the Real Estate Excess Tax, or the REIT tax.

This fund is contributed to by taxpayers.

This fund is solely intended to fund infrastructure projects throughout Seattle and is meant to benefit all citizens of the city.

For those of you who may have immediately thought of affordable housing as an opportune project, yes, infrastructure funds may be used for supporting our house's community members and affordable housing infrastructure.

as well as may be used for making public parks more accessible, fixing our crumbling highways and bridges, and planning green spaces in lower income communities most affected by rising temperatures as a result of climate change.

You would not be blamed for immediately thinking of that.

However, recently, 20 million in taxpayer money earmarked for infrastructure projects was given to the Seattle Aquarium for its new tropical shark tank.

City Council is supposed to represent its constituents.

However, we don't feel represented on this issue at all because you chose to spend our tax money on a project that contributes significantly towards climate change and does nothing for infrastructure or for our city parks.

Regarding the Seattle Parks budget, it's not exactly forthcoming regarding exactly how much funding is available for the Seattle Aquarium.

However, we can see by looking at the mayor's proposed budget items that the $20 million in REIT funds given to the aquarium is $9 million more than the new proposed investments by the mayor in this park's budget proposal.

The COVID Recovery Reserve from Parks Fund is $10 million less than the REIT funds as proposed by the EPRC and almost $17 million less than the Mayor proposed.

How much is this Tropical Shark Tank need and why are you prioritizing funding over projects that will contribute towards Seattle's sustainability and environmental justice goals?

Our next speaker is Ben Osterlund.

Hi everyone.

My name is Ben Osterlund.

I am a Crown Hill resident and District 6 voter and I'm also a member of the Help You Through Heat and Smoke campaign.

As our campaign and this Parks Levy review session and series has continued I've grown more and more fervent in the importance of this campaign and this Parks Levy opportunity.

That comes from my own experience.

Last summer being in the Heat Dome almost fainting because of the extreme temperatures and the lack of A.C.

in my housing unit.

It's informed by the many hours I've spent canvassing throughout this city talking to people of all different ages and backgrounds.

Hearing from them that they want to see places in this city they can go in the case of a heat emergency or the case of wildfire smoke.

Finally I've been reminded as we all were in these last days by the air quality as my asthma started to flare up.

and I started getting texts from friends and from family checking in to make sure that I was okay.

I was fine, but there are others who weren't so lucky, and we need places where people can feel safe.

That is why I encourage the full adoption, not piecemeal, not incomplete, but the full adoption of the Healthy Through Heat and Smoke campaign demands.

Those are making sure that we've transitioned our community centers to be climate resilient hubs, including having HVAC air filtration to MERV 13 standard and microgrid roof solar.

The second demand being that we spend the maximum dollar figure permissible, 41 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value.

I am no economist, but I know that is the funding we need to make sure that these demands get done.

The third is making sure that no parks levy money is put towards sweeps of encampments or park rangers, period, end of sentence.

And finally, making sure that all of this work is done with good, equitable union jobs.

I look forward to seeing the bravery, the forward thinking, and the responsiveness to constituents of the council.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Renaissance Rev.

My name is Renaissance.

I'm with Whose Streets Are Streets.

I'm an organizer.

I'm also the campaign director for the Seattle Help and Steward the Healthy Through Heat and Smoke campaign.

And what we'd like Our plan upgrades to include HVAC, air filtration to MERV 13 or higher, and Michael Goode rooftop solar installations at the Van Asselt, South Park, High Point, Lake City, Green Lake, Loyal Heights, Queen Anne, Garfield, and Rainier Community Centers.

We want the package to be the maximum dollar figure possible in the park's levy, and that is 41 cents per thousand dollars of assessed property value.

The mayor's package was at 38 cents, and this is vital to accomplish the task before us.

We do not want to fund sweeps.

First, let the money should be devoted to encampment removal or anything that could lead to the criminalization of park users.

The parks levy should be funding good green equitable union jobs to contract workforce agreements that have focused local hires to build retrofit and staff our community centers and parks.

Healthy Through Heat and Smoke is a community-driven initiative to achieve the public resources our community members need today and that will continue to provide value for future generations as the climate crisis worsens and the impacts are felt more broadly.

Thank you very much for my time today.

Our next speaker is Paul Defonso.

Good afternoon.

My name is Paul Defonso.

I'm the president of the West Seattle Dog Park Coalition, and I wanted to bring the park board's attention to the absence of any funding for off-leash dog areas in Seattle and more specifically in West Seattle.

As I think the board is already aware, West Seattle is grossly underrepresented for off-leash dog areas.

We only have one off-leash dog park here, that's in Westcrest, which is often a far off corner of the borough, not accessible to many West Seattle residents.

The coalition has been proactive in identifying prospective off-leash dog area sites in West Seattle, conducting on-site reviews of up to 20 such sites, We narrowed it down to five prospective sites, which we have forwarded to Parks and Recreation.

And four of those sites are in fact already owned by Parks and Recreation, which means that if they were to be converted into off-leash dog site areas, parks would not have to buy the property.

They already own the property.

Properties would, however, have to be funded for infrastructure, things like fencing, landscaping, water, benches, et cetera.

And without any item in the mayor's budget for any of that, it's hard to see how that could happen.

My personal experience in West Seattle in trying to give my 85-pound dog, Jupiter, some off-leash running time has been very negative.

As I said, Westcrest is far away.

When we have tried to gather in areas which are not designated for off-leash dog activity, we've been chased by neighborhood residents from at least two sites.

And it's- Thank you.

Our last speaker today is Nicole Grant.

Hello, thanks, Nicole Grant.

I use she, her pronouns and I'm the executive director of 350 Seattle.

a climate activist organization.

And I wanted to thank the City Council for your leadership thus far.

It looks like a very good Parks Levy proposal is beginning to come together.

We've been at 350 Seattle advocating for climate resilience hubs for months now, as part of the Healthy Through Heat and Smoke campaign.

And I wanted to list off some of the proposed climate resilience hub locations that I'm really excited about, that I really want to see happen.

Definitely Rainier.

The Rainier Community Center is where my kid plays basketball and it is such an incredible community asset.

But it is unsafe, hot during heat waves and and smoke events.

And so to have Rainier converted to a climate resilience hub, along with Garfield, South Park, Queen Anne, Green Lake, Loyal Heights, Lake City, Van Asselt, and High Point, it's really inspirational to think that in six years we could have climate resilience hubs to stay safe and recreate during heat waves and smoke events all throughout Seattle.

I want the tax to be the 41 cents.

It is uncontroversial to my mind because it doesn't even have to go to the voters, you know, and I think it's worth the investment.

We don't invest in climate change.

And last thing I want to say is, please don't fund sweeps in the levy.

Let's find jobs that are great in construction and park operations, but not sweeps.

Thanks.

That concludes our public speakers today.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

And thank you, everybody, for calling in and engaging in the process of the Metropolitan Park District.

So we will move on to our items of business for this afternoon.

And the first one is gonna be a discussion of Mayor Harrell's proposed Seattle Park District six-year spending plan for 2023 to 2028, as well as proposed performance and accountability measures for the investments therein.

We have joining us as presenters Michelle Finnegan and Hazel Bang-Barnett from the Seattle Parks and Recreation.

as well as Justin Hillier from the city budget office and Tracy Radsliff and Eric McConaughey from our council central staff.

So with that, why don't I hand it over to the park team?

And I believe, is Superintendent Williams also joining us today?

I don't know.

Oh, there he is.

And then the second I said that, Superintendent Williams goes on camera.

So perfect.

Well, how about this?

Who should I hand it over to then?

Should I hand it over to you, Superintendent Williams, to walk through this?

Maybe I'll start just briefly by giving an overview of what we're going to be doing here today.

We were originally going to have this presentation at the conclusion of last week to go through the proposal that was transmitted by the mayor's office on Tuesday of last week.

It was a pretty thorough proposal with a lot of information.

Talking with central staff and based on comments from board members.

We decided to delay that presentation to give a little bit more time for central staff to digest and for council members to review those materials to come prepared with questions.

And then we reciprocally also extended the final proposed deadline for a vote on the Metropolitan Park District to Friday, September 23, a week from tomorrow.

So I just wanted to put this in the context of the broader timeline.

Also, just so board members are not confused.

I know I've been making the rounds and talking to individual board members.

about potential changes that I might be considering to the mayor's proposal.

And I just want to be really clear just so people don't get confused.

What we are hearing about today is the baseline proposal that has been presented by Mayor Harrell.

This does not include concepts or ideas that I might incorporate in a president's balancing package, which I intend to put forward early next week.

This is solely a deep dive into the changes Mayor Harrell made to the Board of Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations.

That's the material that was submitted to us last Tuesday.

I just want to make sure if there's not things in this presentation that I may have indicated in individual meetings with board members, it's because this is the mayor's proposal, not some of the things I might be considering as I put a balancing package together.

So with that, just expectation setting and context, I'm gonna go ahead and hand it over to Superintendent Williams.

Thank you for letting me get that out, Superintendent Williams.

We bet.

I actually think our colleague Tracy Ratzliff is going first here, so.

Oh, really?

Okay, sorry.

Go ahead.

If you don't mind, Tracy and Mr. Chair, I just wanted to note for the record, Council Member Mosqueda is here and just joined after roll call, but thanks for having me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Superintendent Williams.

Yes, Tracy Ratzliff, Council Central Staff, joined by my colleague.

That's me, Eric McConaughey.

I'm the Council Central Staff.

So we are planning to first to walk through the mayor's proposed park district funding plan, including comparing his plan to the recommendations of the Board of Parks and Recreation Commission, which we all talked about several times actually last summer in late June and early July.

We'll also describe the new proposals that the mayor has included in his funding plan and also the impacts of his proposed plan on the median homeowner.

Then finally, we will move to the discussion about performance metrics.

Next slide.

So this table is a summary of the mayor's proposed funding plans compared to the BPRC recommendations using at the base year 2023. So as you can see on the left hand side, we'll walk through the various funding elements and then how we see that they are the same or different from what the mayor's proposed.

So the first is the continuation of funding the cycle one initiatives.

And we'll get into a lot more detail with some of the following slides about what those all are.

There was a proposal to continue those initiatives that were started in Cycle 1. The PPRC recommended that those would continue at an approximate cost of $58.2 million, and the mayor's proposal virtually affirms that.

Moving to the cycle two new investments, the Board of Parks and Recs had made $30 million worth of recommended investments, about 38 investments in total, new investments.

And the mayor is recommending $29 million of investments and 34 of those investment proposals being sustained.

The mayor does include $11 million of new proposals and we'll talk further about what those are.

As it relates to the pre-commitment projects, in terms of the capital, the BPRC had recommended $10 million in cash, and the mayor's proposal comes in at about $12 million of cash.

As it relates to debt service, the BPRC, because we are going to be debt financing some of these community center improvements that we've talked about, the BPRC recommended about $10 million annually in debt service, and the mayor's proposal comes in virtually the same with a low of $4 million as the bond proceeds or bond measure in debt services begin in the first year and then rising to an average of $11 million going forward.

As it relates to the operating and maintenance costs related to those pre-commitment projects, because there are several of those facilities that will need new O&M, like the Lake City Community Center and the 8th and Mercer Community Center.

The PPRC recommended approximately a million to $2.5 million, and the Mayor's proposal comes in at a range of 2.3 below, going up to $2.5 million.

The debt service and operating and maintenance actually don't start immediately.

Those happen mid-cycle because of when they plan to issue debt.

And obviously the operating and maintenance doesn't start until the facilities get built, which also happens later in the cycle.

Moving to the COVID Recovery Reserve.

So the BPRC had recommended $10 million that could be used to backfill the General Fund, the Parks Fund, which is the fund that receives receipts, revenues from parks related activities.

or to fund REIT.

The mayor's proposal actually says only $3.1 million would be recommended in the very first year.

And that would be to help with the parks fund and its recovery from the pandemic and looking for a return to full use by the public of the various parks facilities, which of course generates the revenues that go into the park fund.

There is a new proposal included by the mayor that was not a part of the BPRC recommendation and that is in 2023 to start with a park fund stabilization and the concept around this is to include in.

The parks district fund money every year that would essentially offset the annual inflationary costs that are associated with the parks fund because the parks fund takes in revenues, but it also covers expenditures from the department and that those expenditures are people and and costs that increase every year in order to try to reduce the need to increase park fees, which happens usually about every two years.

The parks department was recommending, the mayor was recommending that we have a reserve stabilization fund that would perhaps moderate the level of increases that might need to be sought to cover those annual inflationary costs.

And then finally, there is a one time revenue backfill of $2.6 million for the Smith Cove Park phase one project that had appropriation provided, but the revenue had been redirected during the pandemic to cover other costs needed to be covered by the pandemic.

And we will go through some more details about each one of these proposals.

So this slide shows graphically the park levy as it stands in 21 and 22, the actual levy.

There's two lines here that run more or less parallel to each other.

The orange line is the line that shows the park's district levy, the total amount of dollars gathered in by the levy.

The blue line and those numbers show the impact to the homeowner, the measure for this is the median assessed value.

So you can think this is the residence that sits right in the middle of all the assessed values of all the properties in town.

So for 2023 that median assessed value is about $875,000 that's the that's the estimated value and the impact under the mayor's proposal would be about $330 nearly $331 annually.

So moving on to some more detail about these various funding elements.

So again, the mayor is proposing what the BPRC had recommended, which is to continue the funding of all the cycle one initiatives that again, in the first year would total about $58.2 million.

The one modification that was made by the mayor is to swap the funding that's part of the waterfront park development capital to the waterfront park operations because of the what the project needs, which is operating dollars and not capital for the most part in 2023. Next slide shows the sector two investment proposals that were recommended by the BPRC and that were modified by the mayor.

Let me just again tell you that the BPRC had approved 38 funding proposals, new proposals in total, and the mayor is proposing to support 34 of those 38, and you'll see some of those that he chooses not to fund in his proposal and then modify six.

So starting at the top the park safety investment, the PRC recommended $850,000 the mayor reduce that by $400,000, leaving a new total of $450,000.

the evening, a second shift, which is the related to the cleaning of parks, bathrooms.

He, the PPRC had recommended 794,000.

The mayor actually adds $400,000 to get to $1.1 million total.

The idea here is that by the end of the 2028 cycle, they hope to have all 129 bathrooms open year round.

It will take time for them to get all those bathrooms open in part because Some of those bathrooms will need to be winterized in order to facilitate them opening during the winter.

The mayor does add money where the PPRC had recommended only $174,000 for winterization and auto locking.

The mayor added another $405,000 to get to about a half a million dollars to do that winterization of the bathrooms to allow for them to be open.

The mayor did not support the PPRC recommendation to provide $269,000 for the park beautification program.

nor the funding of $352,000 for the viewpoint management investment proposal, or the $700,000 of urban food systems investment proposal.

Um, he does, uh, reduce the teen development programming, uh, by $165,000 from the recommended $520,000 proposal, but adds, um, uh, to the youth mentorship and employment, $405,000, which is the next line bringing that total to $805,000.

And then finally he adds, uh, the mayor's proposal adds $96,000 to the $650,000 park concierge program for a total of $740,000.

And then he did not oppose to fund the acquisition program at $350,000.

And so defunded that proposal.

In terms of new investments, the mayor provides $840,000 to support the, essentially the back office costs, the accounting staff, the contracting staff, the other staff that will be needed to, in fact, to deal with the significant increase of funding that will come to the department as a result of this new MPD spending plan.

The mayor proposes to establish a new youth opportunity fund of $800,000.

The mayor proposes to provide funding to expand the park rangers program by $3 million and 29 FTEs, including 26 new park rangers.

And then a couple of other staff and manager have been stuck in one other position to support that work.

He proposes to add $970,000 to the Green Seattle Partnership.

This is an existing program that the city has and funds, but in 2020, there was a reallocation of funding to the maintenance of trees, with the idea that perhaps there wasn't need given how we were achieving our goals of planting trees, but that has since been understood to not be sufficient funding.

So they are providing $907,007 to replace that funding that had been reprogrammed for maintenance of those trees that had already been painted.

And then finally, he is proposing to provide $5.3 million for utility funding for a total of $11 million.

Moving on to the next slide.

This is a summary of those pre-commitment projects.

Again, these are the projects that include the land bank sites, Loyal Heights, Amy Yee Tennis Center, Lake City Community Center, Green Lake, and then the 8th and Mercer new community center facility.

So the BPRC had recommended that cash financing of $25 million be provided.

The mayor provided an additional $2 million of cash, bringing that total to $27 million.

And then the debt financing, the PRC had recommended $110 million in bond financing the mayor added $36 million for a total of $146 million.

And the primary difference in the step financing line really has to do with two things one, the mayor added a $15 million contingency fund.

And that's in the event that any of these projects that are being debt financed actually have cost overruns that could be covered then by that $15 million contingency.

And then also recognizing that when the estimates were done initially for these various community centers that would be bond financed, they were in 2022 dollars, but the bonds for these facilities in the majority are going to be issued in 2025. So it seemed reasonable and appropriate to inflate those costs of 2022 to when the debt would actually be issued in 2025. And you'll see this when we talk about the specific amounts for each of the facilities.

And then finally, the proposed operating and maintenance costs are, as I said before, virtually unchanged from what the BPRC had recommended.

Moving to the specific list of pre-commitment projects, you see the six land bank park development projects there and the $12.4 million in cash.

the Amy Yee tennis renovation at $10 million of cash.

Loyal Heights Community Center, which will have $29 million in debt and $750,000 in cash that would be used actually for planning and final design and permitting.

For the Lake City Community Center development, we see $29 million in debt.

For the Green Lake Community Center and Evans Pool substantial alterations, you see $56 million in debt.

and $3.5 million in cash.

Again, that cash will be used to do further community engagement and planning and design and permitting work.

And for the tenant improvements at Aves and Mercer, you see about $750,000 of cash and $17 million worth of debt.

And then finally, the final line there is the $15 million in the capital contingency fund.

Moving to the COVID Recovery Reserve.

So what we, again, had talked about previously is that the Board of Parks and Rec had recommended $10 million for potential backfill of the general fund, the Parks Fund REIT.

And what we see here is that the mayor did not concur with that and reduced in the first year by $6.8 million, the recommendation of the PPRC, and to provide funding really only to backfill the Parks Fund for the first three years at $3.1 million in 2023. $1.8 million in 2024 and $900,000 in 2025. And it zeroes out after that.

The new proposed Park Fund Stabilization Reserve, this would- Tracy, can we stop on that slide for just a moment for some clarifying question?

Could you go back to that one on the...

yeah okay here so the those new totals that are indicated all the way at the end is that the is that the money for utilities or what is that going to that that is general fund that is not general fund that is this is park district funds that are going to support what the parks fund is anticipated

to have funded, but probably not capable of funding fully so that's, and I believe that's the understanding that we have with the executive is if by some chance the parks fund recovers more quickly like the fees come in, beyond what they expect, then those funds won't be used for that purpose.

So, but right now what it is is it's MPD money that would actually go, I think they have scheduled it to go into the aquatics area because that's such a big place where fees are generated and where there may be some concern about the fees recovering quickly.

So right now it's scheduled to go into the kind of aquatics line of business, detailed line of business, but it is MPD fund and it is trying to replace anticipated shortfalls in fees that would come from the aquatics program.

Yeah, I just wanted to put a fine point on that to make it clear that that the general fund allocation as we heard in the materials submitted on Tuesday will be the full general fund allocation as envisioned in the 2014 agreement between the MPD and the parks.

And I because I know this, this was an earlier point of focus that the board had and making sure that that there was not a short changing of parks and a exchange of funds that would short change the promised general fund floor.

And we did receive an indication that that would be met.

And I just wanted to put that point here on this number.

That is absolutely correct.

And when we get the mayor's proposed budget, we'll confirm that, but that is our understanding and we don't have any reason to believe that the executive would not be telling us the truth.

Okay.

And then the final is just, is this idea of having a park fund stabilization reserve that would be used to try to reduce the need for the parks department to increase park fees on an annual basis and to provide a way to address annual wage increases that would need to be covered by fees otherwise.

And that amount starts at $735,000 in 2023, rises to $1.5 million in 2024, 2.3 million in 2025, 3.3 million in 2026, 4.2 in 2027 and 5.3 in 2028. And then the final slide is just again, the one-time revenue backfill of $2.6 million for the Smith Cove Park, phase one park.

And happy to take any questions that council members have.

And I should also just say that this information that I have just provided is also in the spreadsheets, the tables that were sent out to council members late yesterday evening, showing what the BPRC recommended and what the mayor had proposed as well, so that they can all see clearly those changes.

But this was a shorthand summary of all that information.

Thank you.

Board member Strauss has a question or a comment.

Thank you, Chair.

And Tracy, if you could slide back to the slide about community centers, Loyal Heights, Green Lake, et cetera.

Thank you, colleagues, for letting me join you from my District 6 district office.

It's great to be with you virtually.

Tracy, can you give me the history of these projects?

How were they included in this proposal?

cycles one programs were they pre commitments, can you tell me a little bit about these different line items here.

Jamie in the Community centers.

Yeah, I mean, you've got the six land bank development projects, AME, all of these items, if you could give me a sense of what did they get in this budget?

Okay, so the six land bank park development projects were projects that were included in cycle one, and because of the pandemic, we reallocated those funding, the funding to support services and other priority projects during the pandemic.

The AME Tennis Center was a project that had begun analysis and potential funding from the challenge fund, and because of a number of different factors, and Michelle Finnegan probably can give the gory details about this, the cost of those renovations became more than what was funded by the challenge fund, but the Parks Department felt that there was a commitment to make renovations, and so they believed that this was a pre-commitment of sorts and included it in the budget.

The Loyal Heights Community Center was a project that was to be a stabilization project funded in the Cycle 1. As the planning and design and analysis work went forward, they determined that the cost, particularly of the seismic upgrades, was beyond what was available in terms of stabilization.

So this would be another project that was funded in part with Cycle 1, but it turned out that the project cost became beyond what was available in terms of resources.

The Lake City Community Center project is a project that has been talked about for many years as a candidate for Cycle 2. Green Lake Community Center, similar thing.

This has been talked about for a number of years as a project that would be included in Cycle 2. Tenant improvements at New 8th and Mercer Community Center.

This is a commitment that the executive and the council made when we entered into the sale of the Mercer Mega Block.

projects or not project but blocks land where we in exchange for a part of that transaction were given the space in one of those buildings and we are required to do the tenant improvements and the operating and maintenance for that space.

And I think that covered all of them.

Yeah.

And then the capital contingencies, just in case any of these projects run over.

And when you say Lake City and Green Lake were identified at an earlier time, my recollection is 2016 as the official recognition.

I know with Lake City Community Center, that one goes back all the way to 2014 when I was there.

I think so, yeah.

I think that's right.

You would know better on the Green Lake, and I can verify that.

Unless you feel pretty confident that and I think you're right like city has been actually a longer term conversation I think.

Yeah, I mean I've got a piece of paper right here from the community centers strategic plan from 2016 that calls out Green Lake Community Center so I assume that it's been there.

since before that.

I just want to share the history with this.

And then for the land-banked park developments, Amy Yee, is there a reason that they need to be done with cash?

I always like to do things with cash better than debt, but is there a reason that they're not debt?

I think because they're small enough amounts that it made sense to do cash.

There is also some sensitivity about how much the city goes out and borrows in the way of debt financing because we don't go out, as I understand it from our debt manager, we don't go out and do a lot of issuing of debt.

We have a very good credit rating.

And so there's some sensitivity around just how much you go out to debt finance projects and when you go out.

So I think it may have been a that part of the consideration as well.

Amen.

I mean, I agree completely.

And, you know, the Green Lake Community Center, we're looking at it was billed out at one hundred and twenty million dollars.

Frankly, that's too much money for me, even in my personal and professional guidance.

But the number that has been discussed openly in the public has been $100 million.

Can you just confirm for me, I see two line items on the Green Lake Community Center, $56 million and then $3.5 million.

The $3.5 million cash is a part of the overall $56 million.

Is that correct?

It's an addition.

It's an addition.

$59.5 million would be your total.

Well, we're getting closer because I can tell you that after from my conversations with the parks department and the understanding of the Green Lake Community Center renovations have been done the boilers have been replaced and it is still not meeting expectations.

This is one of those situations that if we renovate the building, we are going to be spending more money in the long run than if we make a replacement now.

And I guess we'll just have to find a work with you, President Lewis to find a way that we can close that Delta.

Thank you very much, Tracy.

This has been very helpful.

One piece of context I'd add, and Tracy can confirm this, because I do appreciate the back and forth on Green Lake.

And of course, we heard a lot of community feedback and testimony about the desired outcomes for the Green Lake project in the community.

The money that is indicated in the MPD is not necessarily the total ceiling for any of these given projects.

It is just the MPD contribution.

It is possible that if we work with parks on what the scope and scale of that project is that additional money can be identified, either in our conversations around the general budget or working with federal partners there's a lot of money.

coming out of the federal government right now for things like community center rebuilding and rehabilitations.

It's not like this 59.5 million, and Tracy can confirm this, it's not like that is the only money that would be available for this project.

This is just what the BPRC has put forward and now the mayor has ratified in his recommendation, as the MPD contribution to the broader project and Tracy am I kind of listing that off correctly?

I do appreciate that and I think that in the conversation of the Metropolitan Parks District funding that Green Lake has been moving towards since 2016 and earlier that if we're going to seek other sources of funding they can subtract from the total that we put in so that we can use those dollars in other places.

I know that this happened with Smith Cove a number of times, but I think that if we're in a position where we need to move forward on the project, the least amount of uncertainty about how, what our funding mechanism, you know, if we have a fair amount of uncertainty about, are we going to get these fed dollars or not, it's going to slow down the project.

It's going to make us do value engineering at a time that we really just need to make make a replacement because this is the heaviest used park in the city.

I extrapolate to that to say the region and possibly the state.

It is a community center and a space for all of North Seattle, not just District 6, as it is the center of the North End.

So I'll get off my podium.

I appreciate all of your work, President Lewis.

Appreciate your work, Tracy.

Keep up the great work.

And Tracy, can you just confirm that too on kind of the broader work when we look at these community center improvements that we can mix and match build on these?

I think we do have some indication in the materials transmitted last week that there are some things that are gonna be in the mayor's proposed budget that also are relevant to some items like this, but let me turn it back over to you.

I think you're referencing the additional dollars for the community center renovation or rehab capital program I believe the mayor's indicated about $4 million and read in 2023 and maybe $2.7 million in 2024 you guys.

You CBO people and and executive can correct me on that.

I don't know that those monies would be available and frankly, again you're looking at Green Lake project that's a number of years out in terms of what is going to when it's going to need cash so those probably are not going to be the dollars you would look for most immediately probably.

a few years out here in terms of the planning and when the construction would actually begin.

So, but we do know that there has been funding provided in the past for the community center renovation and rehab program.

And clearly there is some in the 23 and 24 period as well.

Great.

So why don't we move on to board member Herbold.

Thank you.

Just wanna address two issues at this time.

I wanna just give my appreciation for the significant public comment in favor of new off-leash areas throughout this cycle two process.

We heard folks today, and as was mentioned, we know how much public comment the parks commissioners received in favor of new off-leash areas.

And it's true, the public comment exceeded that of any other topic, including pickleball expansion.

So really appreciate community members who have consistently shown up to champion new off-leash areas for Seattle's many furried friends.

On the trees issue, I've been in communication with folks from Trees for Seattle Parks, They are advocating for an allocation of $1 million annually from the city from all fund sources to be matched by the same amount from private donors.

These funds will be used to add 600 trees annually to Seattle's developed parks, which would meet their goal of no net tree loss, estimated at 500 trees a year, plus an additional 100 trees on top of that to build our green canopy, again, in developed parks and areas that are currently lacking tree canopy.

There's been some confusion about the funding that has is being requested.

Apparently because some funding proposed for the parks district does not separate separate out the amount intended for planting trees and develop parks versus greenways.

And because there's some question of whether funding for this purpose will be proposed in the mayor's budget, which of course the council hasn't seen, I just want to lift up a few questions to help sort this out.

First, how much is the annual and total funding?

included in the mayor's proposed cycle two budget for planting trees, specifically in developed parks.

How many trees do we estimate will be planted in developed parks with those funds over the course of cycle two.

And then finally, we did get a preview of parks related investments that we expect to be included in the 2023-24 proposed budget, but we did not see mention of funds for this purpose in that document.

Just wondering if there's anything at all we could get as a preview about whether or not we expect to have tree planting funds for developed parks in the proposed budget.

Thank you.

So I'm gonna start and I might have my friends from the executive fill in on the blanks here.

So my understanding, the BBRC had recommended $400,000 a year for restoring and increasing urban canopy.

And in the write-up that we received, I believe that that orientation for that activity is going to now be primarily or predominantly in developed parks.

and that that would in fact provide about 100 trees implanted every year.

And I do not know that there's more money specifically related to planting of trees and developed parks, but maybe our friends from the executive can fill in the blanks on that or correct anything that I've said that might be inaccurate there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hit the nail on the head, Tracy.

Thank you, Nelden.

Thank you, Christopher.

I have no follow-up on that one.

Yeah, please, Board Member Hurdle.

Oh, I said I have no follow-up.

Oh, I thought you just said you had one.

I have confirmed what is in the mayor's proposal, and I think we should not expect to get a preview on the 2023 budget.

I thought I was being sneaky there, but it's not gonna happen.

Okay.

Well, if that's the case and I don't see any outstanding board member Peterson.

That hand went up right in the middle of my no more questions so good timing board member Peters.

Thank you, President Lewis.

I guess I just wanted to better understand the big picture numbers here.

And then I've got a question.

So everybody loves parks, and there are many great things in these packages for parks.

And I know we also want to consider the fiscal lens.

And so as I understand it, the total budget for the parks department for this year, 2022, is about $262 million.

which includes 56 million from the parks district.

And as I understand it, the proposal before us today would essentially double the parks district portion of the property tax to generate 115 million from just the parks district portion.

So that's about 200 million or more baseline, and then we're adding 115 million.

So, You know, put another way, I guess two thirds of the total budget for parks is coming outside of the parks district and we're going to be getting more of that information about how the mayor proposes to spend that other that other big portion when we get his budget proposal in a couple of weeks.

So for the viewing public, you know, this isn't the only thing we're spending on parks.

This is a portion of it.

So we haven't heard in the presentation today, we didn't seem to include the cost to the residents of Seattle.

So it's my understanding the median homeowner currently pays property taxes on this of approximately $165 a year for the parks district portion.

And of course, we know property taxes impact renters too, because the landowners, the landlords can pass it on.

So if we were to increase the current spending from the 56, 58 million today to 115 million per year, could you remind us how much that would be for the median homeowner?

I guess that's for central staff.

Yeah, I guess that's for central staff.

Sure, I can jump in.

So this is the slide that we looked at earlier today and The estimated amount for 2023 for the mayor's proposal of about $115 million from the parks levy would impact that median assessed value at about $331, up from about $155, yeah.

Okay, so that's slide two then.

Okay, that's right.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, well, I'm just want to reiterate my concern for the doubling of this of this property tax and, but I really do support so much in this package the baseline funding of the 56 million.

I support those pre commitment bondings for Green Lake for Lake City, I support the park rangers the cooling centers so there's there's a lot of good things in here I'm just continue to hear more and more from constituents who are concerned about their property taxes.

And I know we want to support additional affordable housing investments, transportation investments, education investments.

And so this is what I'm weighing as we move forward here.

Thank you, President Lewis.

Thank you, Board Member Peterson.

Board Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

That's a good segue into my concerns, because I am really struggling with this, because it seems as though the mayor took the 108 million that was recommended by the PRC, which is advisory only and then added 17 million, which more than doubles.

The revenue that is being generated now and I did the math Councilmember Peterson, the increase to the average homeowner in 2023 would be $175, bringing the total to 330 so.

You know, and as mentioned, this is happening with other property taxes as well.

This will bring the total contribution from the parks district from 20% to 30% of the whole parks budget, same thing is happening with libraries and as mentioned.

We're going to be having renewals of other property levies, property tax levy lid lifts next year.

So I am very concerned about what we're doing to the cost of housing, not just for owners, but to renters alike.

So one thing I am thinking about is the fact that property taxes are paid twice a year at the end of March and at the end of October.

And so, in March of next year, the, the half of the cost or the the portion of revenue that's allocated to all of these items are going to be paid in full, you know, so you're one.

spend, I don't believe, what is allocated in year one, simply because we're not going to be able to hire the FTEs by January 1st or the end of March.

We're not going to be able to pay the consultants that are going to be spending the money for planning for the capital projects.

And so as I look at areas where we might make cuts to this package, I'm wondering if Um, we can shift some of the, uh, if we can lower the, um, if we can lower the cost of the first couple of years to be more realistic to what we'll be able to be spending for some of these items.

And perhaps that by shifting to later years, could that, um, reduce the cost of the overall package more realistically?

Um, Reflecting what we can actually how we can actually spend.

And I know that there are carryovers every single year.

And I did look at those resolutions going back to the beginning of the park district formation.

But can we do that in advance instead of just carrying it over is what I'm is one of the ways that I'm thinking about perhaps addressing this issue I'm raising, which is, I think, an untenable doubling.

of what we're asking our residents to pay.

And one more thing I do have to note that I talked to the King County assessor and property commercial property owners also pay this tax.

And we are seeing a softening of values in the central business district.

And so that means that there is a shift to TAB, Tila Duhaime): Property owners outside of downtown, and so I think that that that does play into my thinking as well.

TAB, Tila Duhaime): So, but i'm just wondering if central staff can address that question of.

TAB, Tila Duhaime): You know, shifting some funds from the early years to later years when we will actually be in a place with the fts on board to be able to spend it.

So the proposal that we have gotten from the executive does for a number of these initiatives, account for a slower ramp up for exactly I think the reasons that you're saying and gonna ask them to to chime in if they have more to add about this so.

For a number of these initiatives, they have not fully funded the amount in that first year.

It's not true of all initiatives.

A number of these initiatives that are being proposed for funding, for example, the continuation of the cycle one, those are all existing programs with the existing staff.

It really is that second half, which in many respects are, again, existing programs that they're just expanding.

So I think they have tried to do some accounting for the fact that they may not be able to hire people right at January 1, and they've made that adjustment in their budget proposal that they have submitted to us.

I really can't answer the question about delay.

It's really a policy call to say if you wanted to delay entirely funding some of these programs for half a year or a full year, that would be a policy call on your part.

but I do know that they've already accounted for what they expect to be some kind of ramping up of some of the expanded programming that's included in particular in these cycle two new investments.

Okay, I'll have to look at this one carefully, but I'm looking at just the operating budget and also, anyway, there's a question about how much voters intended this district to pay for operating versus capital, because I do believe that Anyway, that's a different topic.

But so for example, the line item Youth Opportunity Fund Team Programming, and I can ask the executive this as well, it's the same across the board, 800,000.

Same thing with organizational capacity, you know, so the dollar amounts are the same at a lot of these line items.

So that's for continued analysis, I suppose.

Thanks.

Thank you board member Nelson, and I don't think that there's any additional questions from board members.

So, Tracy, is that the conclusion of the central staff presentation and can we pivot to parks.

Yes, we can.

Okay, so why don't we go ahead and start the presentation from our executive and parks panel, thank you for your patience and letting us get through all of that folks and handing it over to Superintendent Williams.

Great, thank you very much Council Member Lewis, or Park Board President Lewis, and members of the Park District Board.

Thank you for having us here today.

And we really want to appreciate how much time you have put into just working on this issue and evaluating the investments for Cycle 2. So thank you for your good work as well.

So for today's briefing, we'd like to provide a little background and then focus more time on the work we've done to date related to the park district.

We want to talk about park district reporting, accountability and transparency.

which were really sort of the cornerstones back in 2013, 14, when this whole idea was being discussed in the community.

People really wanted to see that be sort of the pillars of the park district.

We'll also describe our investments in furthering organizational performance management, including continuous improvement performance efforts.

Over the last 10 years, we have deepened our commitment to performance management and continuous improvement, and I think you will be impressed by some of the presentation points you hear from Hazel Bond on our team today.

Ultimately, the goal is to foster increased public trust through accountability and transparency.

Next slide here.

Okay, so the conversations regarding accountability and performance are not new to us.

In fact, the interlocal agreement was developed in part to address these topics.

Some of the key accountability provisions in the interlocal agreement call for the establishment of an oversight and advisory committee charged to ensure that the park district is administered in an equitable and transparent manner.

As you know, the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners plays that role.

The establishment of a six-year planning cycle to ensure the public is engaged in identifying the projects and programs specified in the six-year financial plan.

This includes the development of a strategic plan every six years as well.

This also includes the establishment of reporting requirements, including annual reports, mid-cycle reports, and end-of-cycle reports.

For the last six-year plan, we published an annual report, a mid-cycle report, and a cycle end report that outlined our spending accomplishments, lessons learned, and results.

Those reports can be found on the SPR website.

I'd now like to welcome Hazel Bong-Barnett to share how we're putting our values of transparency and accountability to work across the organization.

I'd also like to call out that this work literally is a full-time job for Hazel, just coordinating and organizing this work, but really it's part of the culture of the entire organization.

And it's something we've been leaning into for the past several years.

So Hazel, Yes.

Thank you.

Can you hear me okay?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm Hazel Barnett.

I am the SPR Organizational Performance Management Strategic Advisor, and I've had the pleasure and the privilege to work in this capacity since 2017. So this slide, we wanted to briefly talk to you about some of the key technological investments systems investments that we have made over the last several years.

It's really important that we have the right systems in place to efficiently collect and track data.

And with the cycle one park district support, we invested in a number of technological systems and upgrades to help us with our operations and programs.

And to leverage these systems, we want to track data that can be used to analyze our performance, whether they be quantitative and qualitative.

So here's an example of 2016, where we purchased a platform called Asset Management Work Order System.

This is a system that our maintenance teams and crews use to track their labor hours.

for both planned and emergency type maintenance work.

And we also use the system to keep time so that we can process payroll for these teams.

In 2019, we purchased and replaced the old registration system.

We used to have a system called class, as some of you may know, that was replaced by our active net.

And this is a portal where customers and residents can go to register for classes or book facility rentals and such.

And this also help us support our cash handling and allow us to track registrations, enrollments, athletic field use, and many more.

And then just recently, in 2020, we've replaced our capital project monitoring software with a more user-friendly project management system, which has actually built-in stage or milestone where we can check in for more accountability.

So, and then obviously these technological investment will continue to be paid in part by the park district funds in cycle two.

And we will continue to use these systems to provide us with data and information that we frankly didn't have before.

And these data in many ways help us become more efficient, effective, and equitable.

Next slide, please.

Number five.

So then we talked briefly about system investments.

We wanted to talk to you also about investment in our people.

So not just these systems, but we want to make sure that we bring our community of employees along who are actually doing the hard work in the frontline, in the smoke, hot weather.

and make sure that they're engaged in this work so that the data that we collect and track can be useful to them.

So we continue to invest in training and in our cultural change or shift.

So over the last several years, we have been consistently working to change our organizational culture.

from what we call data agnostic, so where we didn't really care about data, we didn't know we had data, and then to be data aware so that we know we have data, but sometimes we don't know how to leverage them, use them, analyze them to really improve our programs and services.

And then to a point where we want to become much more data informed, and in some cases data driven, and then collaborative because a lot of our work units overlap in terms of the synergy and the work that we do.

So to foster collaboration, and then also continue to emphasize that we are a continuous learning and improving organization.

So back in 2015, we actually created a department, a cross departmental team called results team.

And we also trained all our staff on what performance measures are and then how we can develop them for their teams under a very results-based framework.

So we offer that training back in 15. And then in 16, in addition to reporting, starting to report on Park District-specific accomplishments and activities, We also tracked five kind of high level performance measures on the mayor's performance Seattle dashboard.

So some of you may recall, I think Mayor Murray had a public facing dashboard called performance Seattle.

And then by 2017, we are publishing our very first SPR impact report, an infographic report of 25 performance measures under our three outcomes, healthy people, healthy environment, and strong community.

And then quickly on to 19 and 20, So based on a lot of the lessons learned during our mid-cycle assessment and review of our Park District investments, we began to work on a very holistic approach, a whole system approach, and a framework where we are including all fund sources, not just the Park District funds.

So as you know, historically, Park District made up of roughly 20% of our budget So we have other revenue streams that support our whole system.

So again, this notion is to take a whole system approach and looking at the whole ecosystem, the whole context.

So then we began talking and working on various metrics related to all the different lines of work that we had, not just those that are funded by park district funds, but all funds.

And so again, during this time, we engaged our community members and our staff stakeholders in developing our strategic business plan.

So this one, there's a cover here.

It's intended to cover our goals, priorities, and strategies for the next decade.

And then when the pandemic hit, we ended up pausing our planning for the cycle two, as you are aware, And, but we didn't stop.

So during the height of the pandemic in August, 2020, we launched what we call SPR stats.

So there's a little vignette down here, a screenshot.

So what this is, is a SPR statistics, stats for short.

It's a monthly dedicated collaborative space where we use data to discuss lessons learned, test our hypotheses, and talk about process improvements, innovations, using data.

And so far we've had anywhere from 30 up to 50 employees participating and contributing in those monthly stat sessions.

And these are some of the ways that we're trying to increase our data literacy.

So as you can see, a lot of us come to work because we love to work with people.

We love to work with nature.

plants, grass, birds, trees, not so much with data.

So again, this is a way to introduce this culture of using data, not as a end in itself, but means to end to improve our programs and services and operations.

And then back in 2021, we started to re-engage our community, looking at some key short-term priorities and action goals, In the context of, you know, coming out of the pandemic, looking at the racial reckoning and climate change, all these confluence of different external factors.

So again, working with our key stakeholders and develop this short term action plan, as you can see on the cover.

And then I know there's a little wonky little shot down there of our Power BI dashboard.

So early this year, we worked closely with Seattle IT to develop and launch our comprehensive financial performance dashboard.

This is public facing.

And again, our intent or goal there is to include all fund sources and all lines of business as well as some.

not all performance metrics on these dashboards.

And again, this is to recognize the importance of transparency and accountability.

So going forward, we'll continue to build on this foundation of work.

And we hope to and plan to expand gathering more quantitative and then especially qualitative performance metrics And again, this is a kind of a work in process.

And again, we are working towards increasing the ubiquity and literacy of data among our community of employees here.

Next slide.

And not to get too OD on you on this one, We like to use this pyramid.

We call it the kind of the cascading framework and looking to align our individual work towards the goals and values, outcomes, and ultimately our mission.

So here we're talking about shifting our culture again to become more data informed, collaborative, and continuous learning.

And so this pyramid is talking or denoting a kind of a cascading framework.

And actually, this pyramid can also be inverted.

It doesn't have to be top-down.

It could be bottom-up as well.

And here, we want to make sure we put our mission front and center with our outcomes, so healthy people, healthy environment, and strong community.

Those inform and drive a lot of our strategies, our goals, our performance measures, and whether they be outputs or outcomes or more qualitative or less quantitative.

And then obviously, foundation of investments, resources, human capital, capital investments, as well as a lot of the technology, some of those that I already mentioned.

And then in terms of talking about aligning, we wanna make sure that we align our work.

So like individual work plans under the healthy people, healthy environment and strong community outcomes guided by, or actually augmented by our commitment to equity and organizational excellence.

And so again, we continue to work in the, space of our strategic business plan, outlining those short-term and long-term goals, as well as some of the strategies to get there, and then measuring some of the key items for success and completion.

And then again, just the concentric circle, not to get too philosophical on you after four o'clock, we're talking about really the power of our employee at the center having this concentric circle of impact, the public good, the public benefit that each one of us have the power and the agency to create.

So again, we're very mindful of making this level of agency at the individual and as a small or big teams and crews.

And then here, I just want to talk to you a little bit of the fact that, of course, as a data person, I would love to have more data.

I would love to have lots and lots of qualitative data that are really expensive to collect.

So therefore, I'm very mindful or we're mindful that most of folks in our department come to work because they love working with people.

They love providing public service.

Not most of us are that keen on collecting or using or wanting to track data.

So again, I spoke to you about some of the cultural shifts.

I think the adoption among our employee community is increased.

Is it 100%?

No.

But it's, again, like I said, it's been a work in process.

And I am always mindful of the fact that the cost, the real cost, and the opportunity cost of asking folks like, say, in our grounds maintenance crew to collect and report data instead of mowing the lawn or picking up the garbage.

So there's definitely balancing act, multitude of factors wanting to collect data, especially tell our stories, but also looking at the real and the opportunity costs associated.

Next slide.

I want to make sure, I know it's 11 after four.

I can talk about this all day.

Shall we do a time check?

President, yes.

Just go ahead and finish your presentation, take your time, and then we can open it up to questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So the next slide is a couple of example that we created for discussion is how we're using performance data to go beyond.

in terms of informing how we improve and evolve our programs and our facilities.

So on the left side is a program called Get Moving.

This is a mobile recreation program where we take programs and programming to the people.

So we like literally put stuff in a van, we drive out to a park, and then we're providing yoga, meditation, art activity, whatnot.

So here, we're not only collecting the quantitative data of number of participants, number of program hours we offer, but we, for the last year from like April and October, we administered this survey on a mobile lap, no, I think it was iPads.

mobile devices where our participants can spend like three minutes and give us some qualitative feedback.

And so here, again, you know, not all 7,000 decided to complete the survey.

It's just a small sample, roughly 340 people, for instance, self-reported that they not only enjoy themselves during this activity or this recreation opportunity, but they also rated their physical intensity or physical activity on average 3.6 out of five.

So, this is one of many data points that we were trying to gather to get feedback from our participants to see how we can improve, what type of program activities they would prefer, why they were coming to participate, whether they were having for health reasons socialization or stress management.

So we had different types of questions on that survey to really glean what our participants wanted to tell us so then we can again evolve and change that program.

The example on the right hand side is the park inspection program.

I believe President Lewis, you received a recent briefing on this program, I believe.

Here, just very briefly, it's a program where we're trying to collect public assessments, public perception, public perspective on our performance by inviting community volunteers to go out and rate and inspect our parts against a set of evaluation criteria.

all that rating gets us a number of a rate percentage of those goals met.

So since 2017, even with the pandemic disruption, we have completed roughly 235 inspections.

And, you know, we were looking at before and after the pandemic.

And by and large, the percentage of goals that were met, that were reported through these inspections were at 81%.

This was before the pandemic.

And then after the pandemic, since July 2021, our rating is right now around 73. And Christopher has set a goal for us at 85. So we have work to do.

there.

So again, a lot of these performance data can help us change and improve our programs and operations and services.

Thank you, Nix.

I think I think Michelle's nudging me to go faster.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so metrics, performance metrics.

So we want to also talk to you about some of the new or improved performance metrics under cycle two.

So we picked a couple of examples under our operating budget.

Here you have a column for cycle one and cycle two.

So a couple of examples here being the rec for all.

So, you know, we collect number of organizations that are funded by this program and number of people served and then total grant dollars that were rewarded to community-based organization.

And in addition to those performance measures under cycle two, we will be also tracking the number of public engagement hours that we will have our community ambassadors do.

And then even then going beyond that, we will be collecting participant or community feedback through these engagements.

So again, we're going beyond quantitative to qualitative and feedback.

Another one good one might be the grounds maintenance.

So this was kind of like a very high level.

We were looking to double comfort station cleaning during our peak season at 41 locations.

So that's kind of like, okay, you know, that's okay.

Under cycle two, We are not only looking at the capacity measure of going from five to seven days of these comfort stations being open, but it's also being proposed to be all year round.

So we will be tracking readiness of these comfort stations to be, as you discussed earlier, they need to be winterized, some of the repairs need to be made in order for them to handle 24 seven 365 type capacity.

So we'll be measuring the progress of all these comfort stations coming online.

And then subsequently, we'll also be measuring public access hours at these locations.

As we know that these facilities could be closed for vandalism or for repairs as such.

So again, those will be something that we will add in addition to the metrics that we have under cycle one.

Next slide, please.

So this is Hazel.

Can we linger on that slide for just one moment?

Of course.

Yes.

And I'm probably going to want to do the same thing for the next slide, since it talks more about cycle two.

I want to get just a little bit more context.

for the community engagement ambassador hours on 3,000 to 6,000.

I don't really have a lot of context for what the peak desirable number of hours would be.

The languages make sense to me, but I wonder, what would be the desirable total universal number of annual engagement ambassador hours and how close does 6,000 get us to what that is?

That's a really good question.

I'm not sure if I have the answer.

I mean, Christopher or Michelle, I mean, I don't necessarily think we wanna, we are coming from the ideal number of hours.

I think we're looking at the capacity that we currently have, and then this is proposing to double the capacity, but I don't think that answers your question.

Yeah, the indication, the, the thing that I would be interested to know and working backwards is what is the level of capacity necessary to adequately perform the service.

And does doubling the service get us closer to that or is there still.

like with any metric, that's gonna be a standing question that I'll have.

I wanna have a little more context when I see big numbers going from something to something in terms of, in the context of what the demand of the services, what is the consumer impact, so to speak, in terms of the constituents using parks that they'll experience from that increase in service to determine if that's a good MPD investment or not.

Yeah, so maybe I can jump in here.

On this, we think we do a good job engaging the public right now, right?

However, this is an area where we can always do better.

And this is in an effort to reach more people in different languages.

I think one of the constant knocks we have is around engagement and outreach.

And I think what this attempts to do is shore up that capability so that we really can double down on talking to people, no matter where you're from or what language you speak.

So we kind of file that and we can never do enough engagement and enough communication with the public.

All right.

I'm happy to talk more offline, but appreciate those answers.

We can go to the next slide.

So again, a couple of examples for the capital side of our house, looking at this is actually a ways to really improve our cycle one metrics.

So here's an example of park features and pools and aquatics.

Currently, we have a pretty high level performance metrics in terms of the number of projects that are substantially completed so that the public can access and use.

But for cycle 2, under cycle 2 investment, we are going to go to a detailed level, what I call granular level of performance measures.

that are tied to asset types.

So here's a couple of example where we're talking about the play area renovation.

Play area as an asset, we're going to be looking at not only the number of those areas, play areas that were renovated, but we're also going to be looking at the given life cycle of these assets, how quickly and And in this case, how accelerated rate of improvement and renovation we will be doing with play area.

Same thing for the pools, looking at with the incremental and additional investment under cycle two, how many more of these renovations could be funded and therefore be completed.

Again, I mean, this is, this is, I mean, again, looking at kind of the big picture under cycle one, but again, that's going to, that measure is going to get disaggregated by types of assets, such as playground, I think we have athletic fields.

So we have a whole list of assets that we have in our lifecycle program.

So we propose to track and measure the progress at the asset level in cycle two.

So Hazel just to stick on this slide for a second, I think similarly to, to the context my questions in the previous slide.

I frankly think for the board, the more helpful metric is not necessarily the increase in the percentage of annual renovations that will be able to see for pools or play areas.

What I the metric that I'm more interested in tracking over time is. when you look at our entire system of play areas, whatever the total number of Seattle play areas are, what is the average number of years compared to what the national best practice is for the renovation and remediation of a play area?

And that's the metric that I would be interested in tracking and driving toward and designing.

Yes, and we wholly agree with you.

We actually did the math, 151 playgrounds in our inventory.

And the industry standard for this particular asset, the life cycle is about 25 years.

And so at the rate of our investment, including the base and plus the cycle two, we are looking to renovate on average six playground per year.

And so So if you do the quick math, we would be close to that industry standard.

We're looking at 26 years versus 25 years.

And you're absolutely correct that we will be tracking as a whole inventory of this asset against the life cycle, looking at how many we can renovate over the next six years against, again, the industry standard as such.

And the industry standard is to renovate a play area every 25 years?

That's the lifespan of that asset, yes.

All right.

And sorry, what is the deviation between that standard and our current practice?

Well, I think our, and Michelle can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's right now 30 years.

Okay, so we're...

Sorry, so we're five years off currently.

Sorry for to interrupt, please continue.

No, no, not at all.

So if we were to approve this additional investment under cycle two, we would be looking at, yes, reducing that timeline.

2-26 if this package passed.

Correct.

Okay, a year off from the national best practice.

Well, yes.

It begs the question, since we're talking about metrics, and that's the reason I think that's the more appropriate way to frame this, because just saying we'll do a 20% increase in renovations, it doesn't tell me the broader context of what our goal should be.

So would doing seven additional remediations in the cycle get us to 25?

How can we get to that delta?

Those are the kinds of questions just to give feedback to the department.

And how, like in the future, when you're presenting the metrics to the MPD, if we can, as we continue to work on this, like that's probably an ongoing line of questioning you'll hear from me.

No worries.

And your answers are great.

We have that information.

So in the future, let's incorporate that.

And then we don't have to jump into it with pools.

We can connect offline.

I think I made my point with the player is given the advanced hour.

But I want to do a similar analysis, obviously, with all these capital investments.

So we can continue to the next slide.

OK, I believe Christopher will.

Yeah, thank you, Hazel for that presentation there so this next slide is to provide a high level overview of our next steps, assuming you adopt the six year spending plan.

which we have no doubt you will adopt something here.

We'll want to align that plan with upcoming decisions in the biennial budget and the six-year CIP.

We'll also go back and work internally to develop an action plan consistent with the decisions that are incorporated into the plan you adopt.

That plan will inform our work plan priorities.

Over the next 6 years, we will also work to engage.

Park and recreation staff to establishing timelines and performance goals for next year, keeping in mind a lot of the feedback we heard here today.

This work will include establishing hiring priorities and other logistical planning efforts.

In fact.

The proposal as submitted by the mayor includes hiring.

141 new staff.

So we're beginning to have discussions about how we would ramp up to that level of effort.

As our oversight board, the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners, we're going to be updating them monthly on our progress.

And of course, we'll want to report back to you on some regular cycle regarding our implementation plan and other efforts along the way.

So thank you for this time today.

And we look forward to coming back and look forward to learning what you adopt.

And thank you.

Thank you, Superintendent and before I turn it over to questions I will just say, as we're still on performance metrics.

The resolution that I'll put forward, along with the Metropolitan Park District spend plan will include some enumerated areas of what we're what we as a board are going to want to track in terms of performance metrics that are along the lines of the questioning that.

I put in, um, to today's presentation.

So I really appreciate the presentation and we will be in touch on that.

I certainly want to consult with the department as we build those metrics.

So with that, I'm gonna open it up for questions of the executive panel.

Uh, and I see board member Nelson.

Thank you, President.

Um, to your line of, um, questioning about what metrics we should be using.

My my thinking was we need to make sure that The public can use the assets that we already have and so when we're talking about renovating play areas and stuff.

I'm wondering if, if that Can we just repair things as they come up instead of, and is that sort of thinking about maintenance of our facilities included in how we're going about spending of the money that we are contemplating approving?

Because when you talk about liking data, which I really appreciate, you did have a survey that went out, and I've mentioned it before, improving safety.

improving maintenance and cleanliness and improving existing parks and recreation facilities.

Those are all my priority.

And I really support the increased funding to keep bathrooms open and clean.

So you asked for you're talking about how you're going to be measuring your performance going forward.

And I just want to make sure that these little things, these kind of continual maintenance of facilities are you know, accounted for and that you do have the resources to pay that, because I also know that you've had some real serious challenges keeping up with maintenance in the past couple of years because of impacts to parks.

So I just want to acknowledge that you are doing a great job trying to meet the public's expectations on that front.

So thank you very much on that.

And I'll just respond to that.

Yeah.

Regular routine day to day maintenance, repairing, fixing assets, repairing bench boards, is really the lion's share of our day-to-day work.

We want these assets to stay usable to the public until they get replaced.

So a lot of energy and a lot of staff effort goes into that.

And we'll continue to go.

Board member Herbold.

Thank you.

I have another first question about one of the investment areas.

And then, well, a question about another one of the other investment areas with a little bit of history on the second piece.

There's been a lot of interest in decarbonizing community centers, as well as resiliency funds.

And I think we've done a little bit of mixing use of our terms.

And as I understand it, the development of resiliency hubs is really being led by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment with recommendations from the Green New Deal Board.

Whereas the focus on decarbonization of community centers is something that we are looking at trying to tackle within the MPD work.

And, but, but given that I'm struggling to understand how many community centers we are proposing to decarbonize under the MPD proposal and whether or not OSC in the future will be trying to do some of that work as well.

A resiliency hub is a decarbonized gathering place but it also has other attributes and we recently funded to decarbonize through with OSC funds, a couple libraries.

So given the fact that there is a public demand to do all 26 centers within this MPD, and I don't know that we can accomplish that, but we do have a public commitment to decarbonize all city buildings by, I think, 2035. It seems like it would be great to aim for at least half of those within within the cycle Um, and so i'm just wondering what what we can expect with these mpd investments as proposed by the mayor as well as um And I know that I should not be asking parks for what OSE is planning to do.

But this is the problem of doing this important climate work in different departments.

We want everybody to be doing it, but we also don't want to sort of create silos.

So we don't know what to tell the public when they're rightfully and persistently advocating.

Yeah, so that is a good question.

And the number is six in terms of recreation facilities.

And when we talk about decarbonization, we're really talking about electrification, right?

How do we get these facilities off of, off of, oil-based, petroleum-based fuels.

So our number right now is six.

It's an incredibly big number to contemplate 26 community centers.

It's even daunting to contemplate 50% of that number.

So that's where we are.

And probably should direct our questions to OSC about whether or not they separately are looking at investing funds and community centers for the same purpose.

Okay, thank you.

And then my second.

little bit of a walk down memory lane, just because we've heard so much from the public, both in written testimony, as well as the public hearings that Board President Lewis has sponsored and scheduled for us about the work of the Parks Rangers.

And so I wanna, I just, I wanna, get into that a little bit here.

I have a little bit of background on some of the work that's been done, and I want to thank Christina Kotsouvas in my office for researching what are decade-old details of what myself and advocates only vaguely remembered.

But back in 2012, the SPR worked cooperatively with each SPD, the city attorney's office, and the Public Defenders Association, the Racial Disparity Project, to work to limit the harm that had been caused by the enforcement of the Parks Exclusion Ordinance for many years.

The Sidran-era exclusion ordinance meant that a person could permanently lose access to their park, even if they were acting lawfully and following the code of conduct on a subsequent visit.

At the time, professors Catherine Beckett and Steve Herbert cited our exclusion and trespass admonishment systems and concluded that banishment works primarily to expand the criminal justice system and to diminish both the life circumstances and rights bearing capacity of those who are targeted.

Some testifiers this week have in public comment pointed to my own quote in the 1999 Seattle Times that this policy has had a devastating impact on people of little means.

But there's no data that the powers of the park rangers today have that devastating impact.

And that is precisely because of this work done in 2012, when legal advocates fighting for their clients, both in court and to make policy changes, accomplished what many of us could not accomplish with a legislative change in 1999. And so as a result of these negotiations, and Superintendent Williams, I know you were involved, the Parks Trespass Warning Program was developed as a means of reducing the harm of the Parks Exclusion Ordinance, allowing only people who are acting, allowing people who are acting within the code of conduct and laws to use the park and only taking the action of excluding someone based on their immediate behavior.

The trespass warning program is available to park rangers and other designated employees or SPD.

And my understanding is that, again, This program was memorialized as a pilot in 2012. It was improved with the addition of an appeal process in 2014 and made permanent in 2016 under then Superintendent Aguirre.

And there are filings with the city clerk demonstrating the evolution of this notable policy to not use all the tools provided under the parks exclusion ordinance.

To the best of my knowledge, this policy still is in effect.

I'm encouraged to think that it is.

And just again, for clarification, I've read testimony from members of the public that says, once a person has received a trespass warning from a ranger, and I'm quoting, they would be subject to immediate rest if they entered that park again.

I believe this is a misunderstanding of the policy.

People are subject to arrest if they again violate Park's rules after being warned, but again, only after they again violate Park's rules.

The goal of the advocates in 2012 at the Defender Association and the Racial Disparity Project was to ensure the focus was on problematic behavior rather than labeling people as problematic people.

so that we can meaningfully address parks code conduct violations and not result in the permanent exclusion of individuals from parks and without requiring SPD to participate.

Summing up, as I understand the policy, if the Rangers continue to be limited, as described in the current 2016 filing, they are limited to issuing parks trespass warnings, and they can only exclude folks in two ways.

Only for the remainder of that day for conduct that is only a threat to public safety, and again, only for that day, and then to a year in those instances where the subsequent violation is a weapons violation or felony crimes.

So I just, again, I wanna really honor the fact that folks worked so hard with our departments to get these improvements.

And I just, I think that our advocacy should be grounded in the efforts of advocates to make these improvements and make positive changes in people's day-to-day lives.

So just wanna hear from you, Superintendent Williams, whether or not these policies are still in place.

So thank you so much.

I'm always impressed by how much homework you do on a topic that comes from verbal.

So I think the first thing I would leave with is park rangers do a majority of enforcement through voluntary compliance, verbal warning, and 99% of the people they encounter comply with that.

I mean, they're very effective.

Part of that is making sure we hire the right people and personalities to do that work.

I think some of the confusion is the language in the park code of conduct hasn't caught up to what we're actually doing in the SMC.

So for example, in the past 365 days, park rangers provided 388 verbal warnings.

They provided one written warning.

They provided one citation and two exclusions.

I think it's important to note that these exclusions actually were written by SPD after a shooting incident in Discovery Park.

In effect, park rangers themselves have not issued any exclusions.

Our goal is to work with people, and to hire people who know how to do this job in a way that gains willful compliance.

And, you know, thank you for raising these questions.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification.

And I guess I would suggest that if there's any Uh, concern about the park ranger proposal.

We would love to, uh, schedule some regular.

Briefings to, uh, council member Lewis's committee, uh, to provide an update on park rangers on a quarterly basis.

Um, just to, uh, ensure that this program is being implemented and played out, uh, I think to everyone's expectations.

Thank you, Superintendent.

Superintendent, thank you so much.

I just want to very briefly say in light of the late hour, I really, I mean, similarly, really appreciate the asset to this council that Council Member Herbold is and having that institutional memory and that really detailed summary of the history of a lot of the laws and practices undergirding the Ranger Program and how that role has evolved from something that did have incredibly concerning impacts in the late 90s and early 2000s to something that Parks has really made to serve a different role.

I similarly went through a process of learning more about the ranger program over the summer and did a ride along with Sandy, one of the rangers, and was incredibly impressed by going to Hing Hay Park and Victor Steinbrook Park.

And seeing the rapport that Sandy had with park patrons that she was delivering welfare checks.

She told me that she has the training and ability to administer Narcan in the event of an overdose and has done that on an occasion, saving someone's life, or, or preventing extreme injury.

So, you know, I really appreciate the opportunity to dive into this and confirm those policies that were negotiated in 2012 still stand.

I do want to just ask you and confirm an open session because given the the warranted public scrutiny to make sure that we really are investing in a program that centers diplomatic presence, wellness, and a civilian alternative to traditional functions of armed gun and badge law enforcement.

One of the concerns we heard from the community is that Park Rangers credibility could be undermined If they were engaging in the practice of removals or resolutions of encampment sites and from working with the mayor's office and the parks department because I know that that is not the intent of the parks department as the superintendent just testified to.

We do have some language that I'm happy to daylight now that we will include in the formally written in the Metropolitan Park District materials that indicates neither the new or existing park rangers will participate in the work of removing encampments.

And I just wanted to put that on the record and give the superintendent an opportunity to confirm that that is a policy we can put in writing jointly as a mayor and a council, given that that is not the purpose of the ranger program.

we don't want that to be something that undermines their ability to be trusted and credible with the community that they are serving.

Superintendent?

Sure.

Park rangers are not part of the unified care team, nor have they been called out in the MDARS and multi-departmental rule regulating how the city does encampment removals.

That said, Yeah, so I think we would be fine with that.

I think the one point I would call out is that every city employee, or rather every park employee has a delegated authority to deal with what we call obstructions.

And that is, you know, someone sleeping on a bench, right?

I mean, we can, you know, so I think the precision in that language, I think that's a good point.

I think that's something that.

Probably should happen in a way that doesn't create an unintended consequence and what you want the Rangers to be able to do later, but I think we would generally support that.

Thank you will continue that conversation superintendent as we deliberate on this.

Are there any other questions I will go ahead and just very briefly state that on Monday, I am going to be releasing my Metropolitan Park District balancing plan that incorporates feedback from council members.

I would like to do a quick round of phone calls with individual colleagues over the next few days, just to kind of brief on some changes from the last time we talked, there are significant changes from earlier in the week when I had some conversations one-on-one about district-specific priorities and would like an opportunity to inform council members about that before it is publicly released.

I still plan on having this final vote for the Metropolitan Park District on Friday, September 23rd, in order to finish this before we move on to the budget process and look forward to some of these final discussions and truing up our priorities over the course of the next week.

So with that, I'm gonna go ahead and say it is 4.49 p.m.

and this meeting is hereby adjourned.