Parks and City Light Committee 8/5/2026

and Mark Antony.

I'm going to do a call to order.

The August 5th, 2026 meeting of the Parks and City Light Committee will come to order.

I'm Deborah Wars with the chair of the committee.

That's me.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Strauss.

Present.

Councilmember Saka?

Here.

Councilmember Rivera?

Present.

Vice Chair Kettle?

Chair Juarez?

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

Thank you, and for the record, Council Member Kettle is excused from today's meeting.

So let's move on to approval of the agenda.

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

Not hearing or seeing a objection, oh, I already said that, is adopted.

Right, I'm sorry, I've got to get back on script here.

When Council Member Rivera's here, I don't behave, okay.

I'm gonna go through the chair's report.

There will be a regular public comment period before items on the agenda.

A comment should be related to the items on today's agenda and within the purview of the committee during public comment.

Today there are two ordinances and one resolution on the agenda.

The first item on the agenda is Council Bill 121261 is an ordinance that updates the City Lights Voluntary Green Power Programs and Community Solar Program, very exciting.

This legislation is part of the City's efforts in continuing our transition to green energy.

The presentation is eight slides and will be presented by folks from Seattle City Light and I'll let them introduce themselves when they get up here because I have different names up here and I'm not.

The only one who I know for sure will be here is Eric McConaughey.

There he is back there.

Good job, Eric.

Okay.

Item two on the agenda, Council Bill 121269, authorizing the first amendment to the FERC license for the boundary hydroelectric project.

The presentation is nine slides and will be presented by Seattle City Light.

I think I see Dennis McLaren here, Chris Townsend, Lloyd Dixon, and of course, Eric McConaughey.

I know that sounds like a boring topic, but it's actually very exciting.

The third item on the agenda is a resolution.

Resolution 32213 is a resolution that authorizes the Parks and Recreation Superintendent to apply for funding from the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office.

This includes seven applications for six different projects.

This presentation is 14 slides and presented by Michelle Finnegan, the interim superintendent, Andy Scheffer and Karina Bull, our own Karina Bull from Council Central Staff.

This is also very exciting.

We've done these RCOs before, so I'm looking forward to this.

I expect a vote on all three items.

I think I sent out to our colleagues yesterday or the day before an email suggesting and letting us, letting you all know I wanted to vote on all three today.

So let's move on in our agenda to public comment.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Currently we have four in-person speakers signed up and there is one remote speaker.

Okay, so with that, we will start with the four in-person speakers.

Everyone gets two minutes.

Let's see.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they are registered.

We will begin with in-person speakers and then move on to remote speakers.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left on their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The first in-person speaker is Joyce, followed by Caroline, and then Bradley.

Great.

Are the other two folks here?

Can I get you guys to line up here?

I'll just go quicker so you'll know you'll go right after one another.

And then who's the fourth person?

Wasn't there a fourth person?

Allie is the fourth person.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

I'm Joyce Mody and I'm with- Joyce, hold up.

I want to make sure you get your full two minutes.

Let's have the clerk here get ready.

You tell us when, Sophia.

Good afternoon, I'm Joyce Mody and I'm with Coexist Lake Washington, a community organization working to keep Lake Washington Boulevard open for everyone.

Southeast Seattle has generously hosted Bicycle Sundays and Bicycle Weekends for more than three decades.

It started with one Bicycle Sunday a month and grew into Bicycle Weekends that were twice a month, leaving the Boulevard open to all for two weekends.

This year, Mayor Wilson declared every weekend would be closed to cars for the entire summer.

This is discriminatory and punitive to the residents of Southeast Seattle.

Cars are occupied by people who want to enjoy the beauty and serenity of the Olmstead Legacy Boulevard, people with disabilities, elders, and people with physical limitations, families with small children looking to get to the beach, caregivers, and people who can no longer ride a bike.

The powerful bike lobby practices selective outreach to take over Lake Washington Boulevard from Mount Baker Beach to Seward Park with a desire to permanently close it to cars.

They have spearheaded the construction of gates at three entrances that span the entire width of the boulevard.

Cascade Bicycle Club and Seattle Safe Streets have co-opted the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, stewards of our public parks and Olmstead Legacy Boulevards.

Parks has allowed the Department of Transportation to transform what was once a meandering and calming tree-lined Olmstead Legacy Boulevard along Lake Washington into a street cluttered with excessive paint, plastic reflectors, cement curbs, redundant signage, planters, and speed bumps that make you feel like you're riding a roller coaster.

The 2024 transportation levy provided $133 million to expand protected bike lanes.

They need to use them.

Coexist is asking that bicycle weekends rotate around the city so that not just Seattle, Southeast Seattle is carrying the burden.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

If you have anything, just go ahead and place it in the box.

Call the next name.

Next speaker is Caroline.

Good afternoon, council members, and thank you for the opportunity this afternoon.

My name is Caroline Villanova and I'm the Director of Government Relations and Community Impact at Seattle Parks Foundation.

Seattle Parks Foundation has partnered with community to advocate for parks and public spaces in Seattle for over 25 years.

We have supported over 300 community-led projects and leveraged private and public dollars for the highest amount of community impact.

Today I'm here to ask for your support for Resolution 32213, which is a procedural requirement to allow Seattle Parks and Recreation to apply for much needed grant funding through Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, RCO.

Grants like these are a key part in the funding equation for parks projects in our city.

and RCO has had more than a $4 billion impact across the state since the office's beginnings.

Their model of a match requirement demonstrates that important local buy-in to community projects that have been on priority lists for years and allows these funds to be deployed throughout the state.

and as you know Seattle Parks and Recreation manages nearly 500 parks throughout the city requiring investments in ongoing care and maintenance, capital improvements and funding for park acquisitions.

The project list in front of you today displays projects that meet the RCO grant criteria appropriately are in line with the city's adopted plan and have been appropriately vetted by Seattle Parks and Recreation staff.

This list does not encompass all the projects that SBR is working on, and Seattle Parks Foundation continues to partner with the department to advance our commitment to community-led projects throughout the city.

So thank you for your time today on this committee, and I look forward to working towards a more beautiful park and play spaces in the city together.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Bradley, followed by Allie.

Hello, council.

My name is Bradley Dosh.

I'm a resident of Capitol Hill, and I work in the development of solar PV and battery storage here in Seattle.

I'm speaking in favor of amending sections 214984 and 214987 of the Seattle Municipal Code to update the voluntary green power programs and community solar program.

I'd like to thank all of you for taking the time to review this, and for Alyssa Kaye from Seattle City Light for bringing this amendment forward.

In my work, I have developed several solar projects through the WSU Community Solar Expansion Program, and I believe the city of Seattle should pursue projects through this program.

I believe the City of Seattle and Washington State are far behind in the development of community solar, which continues to increase in customer demand.

Countless Seattle residents do not have access to typical rooftop solar because of where they live and would greatly benefit from being able to subscribe to a community solar program.

As with all other electric utilities, CLC Light has a strong need of more renewable energy resources and demand management.

Other electric utilities in Washington State are also lacking in community solar programs, and CLC Light has an opportunity to be a leader at the forefront of this push.

According to the Department of Energy, as of June 2024, Washington State has an installed capacity of 19 megawatts AC of community solar.

There are several other states in the US with smaller areas and populations which have much more installed capacity of community solar.

Our neighbor Oregon has roughly half the population of Washington, yet more than double the installed capacity of community solar at 41 megawatt AC.

The same for many other states in the nation like Georgia, Maryland, Arkansas, and Maine.

So please help Seattle push community solar forward.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Ali, followed by the remote speaker, Hannah.

Hello, my name is Allie Bacharach.

I'm a Green Lake resident and a mother of two, and a board member of Splash Ford, an organization dedicated to building stronger, healthier communities through aquatics.

I'm here today to advocate for the Evans Pool at Green Lake.

Seattle Parks and Recreation is currently proposing to refurbish a pool that is more than 70 years old.

While Evans has served our community well, it's no longer meeting today's needs for recreation, swim lessons, athletics, and water safety.

Right now, children and adults are often forced into crowded lanes with 10 or more swimmers sharing a single lane during a practice.

Imagine trying to play a basketball game with 20 or 30 kids on the court at the same time.

That's the reality of many swimmers faced today.

On top of that, the lanes are narrow than modern competition standards, and the shallow end is too shallow for many aquatic activities, creating additional safety and usability concerns.

In a city surrounded by water, we've added only one new public pool in the last 50 years, even as the Seattle's population has grown more than 58%.

At the same time, Washington is one of the highest drowning rates in the country.

The city is investing $88.5 million in the Greenlight Community Center and Pool Project, yet the current proposal leaves us with essentially the same pool.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create an aquatic facility that serves today's community and future generations.

Our children and community deserve better.

I urge you to help make this project one that expands access to swimming, improves safety, and ultimately helps save lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we'll go on to our online folks.

All right.

Go ahead.

I was trying to look on, see whose title is that?

The only remote speaker is Hannah.

Please press star six.

You have been unmuted.

Hello.

Hi.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yep.

Go ahead, Hannah.

Hi, my name's Hannah Lizeth.

I'm from Pioneer Square.

I've been attending the meetings for about two weeks.

And I remember at the last Seattle City Light meeting, I voiced concerns about the copper light posts, light lamps getting taken away.

They were suggesting that we don't have adequate light and they want to increase the budget.

That's been taken out and Kettle said that he'll make sure that we're not going to experience corporate rating via Seattle City Light and he has to have a private meeting.

So I'd like to hear if there's been progress to make sure that does not happen.

I read and noticed that there's a resolution that you guys might vote on today where someone might be given the authority to obligate city of Seattle property in perpetuity.

And I just have a real eye on business with the economic development downtown.

So I understand the need to keep things moving forward, but just to avoid the corporate rating that we could experience and to promote What a good thing it is that the Seattle City owns Seattle City Light.

Just keep an eye on that for the budget and for our property that we all own, the trust property, and making sure that we're not going to be giving away any resources.

And instead, we could use that capital and invest it into any kind of thing like solar.

Please keep an eye on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Hannah.

Madam Clerk, are we done?

Chair, there is no additional speakers.

All right.

Since there are no additional speakers, public comment period is now closed.

We'll move on to our agenda to items of business.

Item 1. Madam Clerk, please read item 1 into the record.

Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 121261, an ordinance relating to City Light amending Seattle Municipal Code to update the voluntary green power programs and community solar.

There will be briefing discussion and vote.

Thank you.

We have representatives from Seattle City Light and they will be presenting.

I understand they have a PowerPoint that's eight pages.

This ordinance updates the city's voluntary green power programs and community solar program.

These programs will allow access to lower income individuals without the ability to install or receive benefits from solar panels and provides an opportunity to cost saving measures and participation in green energy.

So we have the presenters at the table and I'll let you all introduce yourself and you can start your presentation.

Good afternoon.

I'm Marcus Jackson.

I'm the Interim Chief Customer Officer here at Seattle City Light.

Good afternoon, Chair Juarez and Council Members.

My name is Bridget Molina.

I'm the Council Legislation Coordinator for Seattle City Light.

Good afternoon.

I'm Alex Portashavar.

I oversee the utility's customer solar and battery storage programs.

Good afternoon, Joe Fernandi, Director of Customer Energy Solutions at Seattle City Light.

Hi there, Alyssa Kaye, I am a Program Manager for Community Solar at Seattle City Light.

Good afternoon, I'm Erica McConaughey, I'm the Council Central Staff.

Oh, there's Eric, great.

So I should let you know that we got your PowerPoint, we have the legislation, and we have the summary and fiscal note.

Thank you, Alex, for writing the summary and fiscal note.

Well, it says your name on it, so I'm guessing you did it.

So with that, I'll let you guys start your, you got them set up, Paul?

Okay, I'll let you go ahead and start your presentation.

All right.

So this ordinance that we're bringing forward modernizes City Lights Authority to design and administer future community solar programs, ensuring that we can offer flexible, accessible options for customers who want to participate in solar energy without installing panels at home.

It also clarifies that voluntary green power program funds may be used to support these projects.

The updates align with City Lights' broader clean energy and equity priorities.

by expanding access to renewable energy and reducing energy burden, especially for our income-eligible customers.

They position us to leverage new state funding opportunities, incorporate lessons from past projects, and manage future programs with transparency and reliability.

Overall, this ordinance strengthens City Light's ability to plan and implement community solar projects that advance climate goals, expand customer participation, and maintain strong financial stewardship.

I will now turn it over to Alex Portasharver, who will walk through the presentation and details of the ordinance.

Before you begin, Alex, are you going to be the main narrator through the whole PowerPoint?

I am.

Okay, so just so when we get to page three, I just want you to know that me and Paul had to look at what PV meant.

We didn't know what that meant.

Solar photovoltaics.

PV is an abbreviation for photovoltaics.

Okay.

I'll let you explain that, but we found it, so.

Great.

Thank you so much, Marcus, and thank you, council members.

Really, really excited to talk with you about community solar.

This has really been a labor of love over the last several years and excited to be here and talk with you about it today.

First, I will define community solar.

Next, I will describe why the utility is prioritizing this program.

Then I will provide a brief overview of our past community solar program.

I will also describe our key next steps.

And finally, provide an overview of the ordinance purpose.

Community solar is any solar project where the benefits flow to multiple customers.

Community solar can benefit a variety of customers, including renters, low to moderate income single-family home customers who cannot afford to purchase or install solar, and customers who live in homes with shaded or old roofs.

Community solar projects generate electricity from sunlight, and the electricity flows through a meter to the utility grid.

City Light can track solar energy generated and allocate the benefits of that energy to program participants.

City Light plans to site projects across our service territory.

Solar photovoltaic PV projects.

These are some of the utility's strategic drivers for community solar, the why we want to develop a new program.

The City Light Integrated Resource Plan, Clean Energy Implementation Plan, and the utility's new six-year strategic plan all prioritized increased customer solar generation and increased access to renewable energy for those historically left out of the clean energy transition.

Hey, Alex, can I stop you for just one second?

Sure.

Can you go back to where PV is for Councilman Rivera?

Just quickly.

You went over it really quick, and so I want to make sure people.

Sure.

So in bullet point number one, it says, provide benefits of solar to customers without resources to install solar.

To replace the PV with solar.

Okay.

Maybe you should have just typed in solar.

But it's good feedback.

Photovoltaic.

I know.

I got it written down.

I figured it out.

But that's not on you.

That's on me.

Okay.

Thank you.

Solar.

The sun.

Got it.

All right.

You're welcome.

These are some of the utility strategic drivers for community solar, the why we want to develop a new program.

City Light's integrated resource plan, clean energy implementation plan, and the utility's new six-year strategic plan all prioritized increased customer solar generation and increased access to renewable energy for those that have historically been left out of the clean energy transition.

Washington State University's Community Solar Expansion Program, established by House Bill 1814 in 2022, aims to expand access to the benefits of renewable energy for low-income customers.

$50 million of the original $100 million allocation is left to cover up to 100% of costs for community solar projects that provide a direct benefit to income-qualified residents for at least 10 years.

City Light has a window of opportunity to leverage this funding to build up to four megawatts of solar and solar plus battery projects.

We partnered with the Department of Neighborhoods Community Liaisons Program to understand community priorities and what benefits are important to customers.

We've started to build trust over the last two and a half years, and we're learning a lot.

For example, customers want the benefit of backup power during outages.

access to construction jobs and reduced energy burden.

They also want to celebrate existing community spaces by siting projects on community facilities, integrating public art, and providing educational opportunities to young people.

Community solar is not new for the utility.

City Light offered its first community solar program from 2011 to 2020. City Light leveraged a $300,000 Department of Energy grant to build five projects at four sites.

It also leveraged the state's former Renewable Energy Cost Recovery Incentive Program.

1,200 customers bought shares in the projects.

The program was designed so that participants would recoup their investment when the program ended.

Once the subscription term ended, City Light transferred ownership of the solar projects to the site hosts who continued to benefit from those projects.

Next slide.

Okay, just hold up for one second.

Just one second.

So we're on page six.

Do my colleagues have any questions?

Alex is just clipping through this real quick leg.

Customer Strauss, you good?

Yep.

All right.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Actually, I have a question.

Customer Rivera does.

Thank you.

City Light is installing solar panels.

somewhere and then we're getting the power from those solar panels and we're using it for community benefit.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Can you give me an example of how this works?

Like City Light's paying for the solar panels.

So in the future program, we would leverage state funding to recover the costs of building community solar projects in community.

We might build them on a city light-owned facility.

We might build them in community, for example, on a food bank.

And then we would track how much energy each system generates, and we would allocate the financial benefit to the participating customers.

And the participating customers are the food bank?

Low-income customers.

So you're getting money from grants to situate the panels.

the energy you're getting from the panels, which you'll situate in community, that you're offering to low-income customers at a lower price.

Exactly, the financial value of the energy generated to those customers.

I just wanted to make sure I was tracking.

Yeah, because when we first looked at this, I thought you were talking about putting in panels.

I didn't understand that you were already putting the panels, and we get the benefit of the panels to people who can qualify who are low-income, who don't normally get to participate in energy.

We have not yet built new community solar projects.

We did build five projects from 2011 to 2020, but those five projects are now owned by four site hosts, so they are no longer our projects and we're no longer allocating those benefits to customers.

Oh, okay.

I thought they still were.

All right.

The project site hosts are benefiting from those projects and they're participating in our solar programs.

So when you say 1,200 customers participated, who's the 1,200 customers?

I don't know exactly the makeup, but they bought shares in each project and that share was worth a certain amount of solar energy and then we reflected the value of that energy on their bill.

Okay, now I understand.

You okay, Councillor Rivera?

I know.

I'll get there.

We'll get there, okay.

We'll let you.

We're just trying to, I'm just trying to make sure we understand.

So thank you.

Of course.

Because you're not just getting, you're not situating the panels with just grants.

Also people are paying into the system to situate panels.

That's what I heard you say.

The participants are contributing to the placement.

to the buying of the panels and placement of the panels, and then they get a benefit back.

So there are like two things going on, and I guess that's, I'm trying to reconcile both.

And there, Nett, thank you for nodding, because I feel like, am I articulating?

You've got it.

Yeah, you're tracking well.

So what this ordinance does is it provides City Light the flexibility to design a future community solar program and we're leading off with a program that is focused on income qualified customers.

So in that instance, they're not purchasing any additional shares.

We're just providing the benefits of that renewable energy back to their bill as credits.

Another future flavor of the program, we might open this up to small businesses and market rate customers that decide they want to pay a little bit more on their bill to support locally cited community solar.

So this first iteration of the program that went from 2011 to 2020 sort of mimicked that particular design.

Oh, okay.

But in this, these five projects from 2011 to 2020, and you said the five project at four sites, the Aquarium, Jefferson Park, Capitol Hill Affordable Housing, and Woodland Park Zoo.

You cited those.

Presumably these 1,200 customers paid into partial siting of those.

So they got some benefit back.

They no longer are getting benefit.

They presumably got the benefit they put in maybe a little more.

And then now these four entities or I'm not sure Capitol Hill affordable housing, if that's multiple entities or not, but they're now getting the benefit of the solar power.

You've completed your commitment to the 1200 customers who helped you site that.

for this next iteration of the program, you're trying to leverage grants to cite future panels and the benefit from that panel will flow to income eligible folks that aren't actually paying into the system because presumably these are low income folks, but they will get the benefit and you will purchase it with the grants and some City Light funding.

Am I tracking that right?

And then you just introduced a future, future offering where perhaps small businesses or residents who want to contribute into this system so that others get some cost break to their City Light bill.

You've got it, yeah.

Okay.

Okay, good.

You want to go join them?

Yeah.

I'm ready.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Alex.

I'm glad we cleared that up, though, because I was a little bit confused, too, but thank you.

Go ahead, Alex.

Great.

So we're really excited to move forward with this next iteration of community solar.

We're intending to initially design, like Joe said, and implement a program that would leverage the state funding, enroll income-eligible customers, and offer those customers some type of financial benefit.

We want to cite projects aligned with not only our utility needs, but also customer priorities, and then compensate project site hosts for hosting the projects.

We plan to build on lessons learned from this first version to design and implement future offers for additional City Light customers that can't install solar or need our help to meet clean energy and sustainability goals.

Okay, so we're going to apply, leverage, and build.

That's what your PowerPoint says.

Yes.

Okay.

Good.

Strong verbs.

All right.

That was the exciting part.

One more slide.

To realize our vision for community solar, we've brought to you a request to amend the SMC so City Light can design a new community solar program, develop and administer community solar projects that allow low-income customers to benefit from solar energy and batteries owned and managed by City Light, track the energy produced for the purpose of distributing a potential financial benefit to each participant subject to program rules and a participant agreement developed by City Light, and use funds generated from our voluntary green power programs like GreenUp to build community solar projects.

Thank you so much for your time and questions.

Yeah, I do have a few.

Just one.

First of all, I want to thank you for doing the summary and fiscal note on page six, because we always kind of go right there for the race and social justice initiative impacts.

So I'm guessing you wrote this part?

Yes.

So just briefly, you don't have to read the whole thing into the record, but so for the viewing public, we understand why that's important, but this is kind of on track with why we initially started talking about a race and social justice initiative when we passed legislation of how we benefit other communities.

We see these in our benefit community.

contracts through parks and Seattle City Light.

We see them all the time.

What are the community benefits?

Do they outweigh the space that they're taking?

How are they giving back?

Can you just briefly talk just a little bit about the race and social justice piece that you wrote in here?

Sure.

It's a real work in progress.

We're really committed to working with community and building trust.

and we started this two and a half years ago and we knew that we needed to go and be in community and sit and listen to what our community priorities and not make any assumptions about these solar projects providing benefit or even being of value to community.

So we partnered with the Department of Neighborhoods Community Liaisons Program recognizing that those are community leaders.

They know what their communities want and they can help connect us with folks that can help us better understand how the utility should be designing a program.

So we've been working with those CLs, as they're referred to, for some time.

And it takes time to build trust.

So first is building trust with them, and then is attending community events and not asking for anything.

and then is being really intentional about structuring a guide and questions in a way for those community leaders to interact and ask, hey, do you want community solar?

If we did cite community solar, what are your concerns?

Do you have safety concerns?

What about batteries?

What would you think about that?

And what we've heard is, yes, they want community solar.

There are safety concerns, of course, and rightfully so, especially when it comes to batteries.

and also they want educational opportunities.

So they're thinking about workforce development.

They're thinking about young people needing to understand, well, how does solar even work?

And so we're listening and we're hearing them and we're planning to integrate all of this feedback that we've received into our program design.

And we really just have started that program design.

So there's so many opportunities to continue that engagement, continue building trust, and to be transparent and accountable about what we're doing and why we did it.

Right, and your RSJI is on page six and seven, but I reason why, and I kind of wanted to give a plug to the community folks through Department of Neighborhoods, because I remember they were working closely with Seattle City Light with the former director.

I remember her talking to us about how they have certain people within certain departments and not just checking a box.

So quite frankly, I was really impressed with what you wrote about the race and social justice impacts, but the toolkit piece as well.

So, and as you know, this is in the summary and fiscal notes so we can let the public know that we are actually implementing these things in each city department.

So we look at it through that lens that we have those community folks that are at Seattle City Light, parks, you know, all the 18 departments that are 19 departments that make up the city.

So thank you very much for that.

With that, I'm going to ask my...

Oh, I see Councillor Saka has his hand up.

Councillor Saka.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for this presentation today.

I'm excited about the opportunity before us.

This is super cool.

The Community Solar Initiative, I'm really excited about it.

And I think the proposal before us, as I understand it, would essentially be to help allow us to launch the next wave of the Community Solar Initiative, the one that was retired or abrogated in 2020. So modernize the code with existing plans and allow us to bring to life the next iteration or 2.0 version of this, if you will.

Are there any other kind of exemplar jurisdictions, like nationally or globally, that have programs and capabilities that are, you know, a little more advanced or built out than ours, that we strive to emulate or beat in the arms race, so to speak, race to the top?

Yeah, I'll just say that, you know, as across our portfolio of customer energy programs, when we set out and we hear from community and their preferences and where we can provide benefits.

When we set out to design a program, we're often talking to our utility peers to see what we can learn from our peers about things they learned along the way and really speed those learnings throughout the design process.

Alex and team have talked to many of our peers here locally, including Puget Sound Energy, Snohomish, I believe, as well, Snohomish PUD.

There have been other utilities here in the Northwest that have taken advantage of these early phases of the Washington State University community solar expansion program.

City Light has not been able to do that thus far, and we're really excited to try to access some of that capital to provide benefits to our community.

Thank you.

I understand the local utilities and especially given the state nexus with the Wazoo grant, but also really curious about like internationally, like any leading jurisdictions or utility providers nationally or internationally that have, again, you know, more advanced programs that we're seeking to emulate?

Anything that you're aware of?

We're part of the Nationwide Community Solar Partnership Program, so we're talking with our peers in other states about what's worked and what hasn't.

There have also been state legislation that's required that utilities offer community solar, so we're learning a lot.

States like Colorado, New York is pretty far along as well, so it's an iterative process.

We reach out, we talk, we have an idea, we go out again, and we're definitely keeping tabs on the general state of community solar as we move into full program design.

Got it.

And I understand income-qualified customers is sort of one metric you'll use to guide this work.

What are some other kind of high-level evaluation criteria you all anticipate on leveraging to guide implementation of this?

So we've been working with the community liaisons to develop some draft siting criteria to think strategically about how we can balance utility needs, so the technical needs and operational needs, with community priorities.

So things like, is the building ready?

Is it in a highly impacted community?

Is it at an existing honored community site?

Is it valuable for our grid?

So we've done some work to model what feeder lines and transformers can accommodate certain size solar projects.

So we'll have that information and be able to layer it with what we know community wants and needs.

And as we enter design, we'll think about more criteria related to how we enroll customers, for example, and how we show them a financial benefit, but we're still at the early stages of design.

Would the program primarily serve residential customers, organizational customers, a mixture of both?

If both, what is the rough split that you anticipate there?

Initially, residential customers that are at 80% of the area median income, it's likely that will match to our new utility discount program income threshold of 60% of area median income, which will broaden the opportunity for folks to participate.

The state requires that the benefit be offered for 10 years to customers that are at the 80% AMI threshold.

Got it.

And final question is, If this proposal passes, roughly how many projects do you anticipate bringing to life?

Do you have a goal for the number of projects if this proposal passes and roughly how many corresponding customers would that serve?

Great question.

So we're early in design again, and we're thinking we could cover about 90% of a typical low-income customer's electricity bill.

And if we built four megawatts, that's our goal, we could serve about 700 customers.

We have the opportunity to determine breadth versus depth.

So we could cover less of an electricity bill and have a lesser financial benefit, but offer the program to more customers.

We'll need to dive into those details in the coming months.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Well, I'm excited about this proposal overall, would encourage you to think about, you know, neighborhoods, and I think I heard that as part of your potential evaluation criteria that are already overburdened and over polluted.

And, you know, for example, during the recent Seattle transit measure conversations we had here, we passed an amendment to prioritize electric bus deployment in the Duwamish Valley, a very climate burdened and historically marginalized and polluted neighborhood.

So I would encourage you to start there as a starting point for those customers and organizations that want it.

And I imagine not everyone, obviously, might want this.

But I'm excited about this overall.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Alex, I have a question, but it's, and if you don't have an answer, that's okay.

But I just was wondering if we're doing 80% AMI for the solar, and you know that we lowered it to 60 AMI for the utility discount program.

I was just thinking that when you were saying it, because I was going to say it anyway.

Why wouldn't we have within the ordinance or the amendment, or just go ahead and lower it to 60 now?

So at least 80% AMI is a requirement of the grant.

We have flexibility in program design to draw our eligibility lines where we may and plan to mimic the eligibility for our utility discount program.

Right, but I'm asking why wouldn't you just do it today?

Well, generally we don't put program eligibility into the ordinance because the UDP program eligibility may change over time, and this allows us to mimic and kind of keep it updated with that.

Many of the initial ordinance that was amended brought in a lot of specific design parameters that were specific to the last iteration of the grant.

and then we're back here today to amend all that.

So we're trying to make it a little bit broader and more flexible for different types of grant opportunities and to give us flexibility to amend program eligibility based on what we hear from customers.

So in a perfect world in the future, you would be back to amend it if you can?

I think ideally the amendment that we're making today provides us flexibility to change that eligibility over time as needed.

Okay.

Eric, were you going to say something?

I just was animated because I was following the conversation, but just to say that I think that the changes to the code allow the utility, the flexibility to design these programs.

This first round, the folks you're talking about will be for low-income customers.

They'll be eligible according to these thresholds.

In the future, they could be market rate.

but within that whole envelope, it allows these folks to set it up to be corresponding with UDP or what have you.

So they won't have to come in for an amendment in the future to make them match.

Okay, great.

I see what you're saying.

Okay, so you don't need a statutory fix.

That's what I was getting at.

You got it.

Exactly.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eric.

That's why you're here.

Thank you.

All right.

Is there anything else you guys want to add before I ask my colleagues and we go to a vote?

You good?

Okay.

Do I see anything from my colleagues?

No, I do not see any more questions.

Oh, Councillor Schell, go ahead.

Just sharing appreciation for getting to meet before this meeting to have all my questions answered and I'm excited about yesterday.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Okay, that being said, I'm gonna go ahead and move us to a vote then.

I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121261. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Any further comments?

Not seeing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the recommendation of passage of the bill?

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Juarez?

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor.

Great, thank you.

The motion carries.

Council Bill 121261 will be sent to the August 11th, 2026 full city council meeting.

So let's thank you.

We will move on to item number two.

Madam Clerk, please read item number two into the record.

Agenda Item 2, Council Bill 121269 relating to the City Light Department, an ordinance authorizing the General Manager and CEO of City Light to execute the First Amendment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's license for the boundary hydroelectric project.

There will be briefing, discussion, and vote.

Thank you.

So while you guys are getting situated, I'll be a quick little intro and then I'll let you, I'll hand it over to you.

We have representatives from Seattle City Light.

They have a nine, 10 page PowerPoint.

And this ordinance allows the general manager, the CEO of Seattle City Light to execute an amendment to the FERC license for the boundary hydroelectric project.

The license was issued in 2013 for a 42 year term and was supported by a comprehensive settlement agreement with six tribal, state, and federal parties, which are the Kalispell Tribe, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Department of Ecology, and the Ponderay PUD, Public Utilities District.

This amendment, I believe, and I'm sure you've said it three times in your PowerPoint, this amendment will save over $100 million across the license term.

We never see that in PowerPoints.

That's why I was happy to see that you mentioned it three times.

The presenters are at the table.

I'm going to let you go ahead and introduce yourselves, and then I will let you go ahead with your presentation.

Go ahead, sir.

Great.

I'm Dennis McLaren, Deputy General Manager.

Bridget Molina, Council Legislation Coordinator for Seattle City Light.

I'm the manager of the Boundary License Implementation Group.

And I'm Chris Townsend, the Director of Natural Resources and Hydro Licensing.

And I'm Eric McConaughey of the Council Central Staff.

So we don't have Lloyd here?

Oh, you're Lloyd.

I'm sorry.

Lloyd, I did that again.

Lloyd, thank you for raising your hand.

I was trying to match up who wrote the summary and fiscal note when I was looking down.

Thank you for raising your hand.

I appreciate that.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Go ahead.

Why don't you guys go ahead with your presentation and then we'll open it up for questions.

Oh, wait.

Let me ask my colleague something.

Do you want them to go through it and then ask questions or do you guys want to be able to just ask questions as they're going through it?

What do you prefer?

Okay, we'll let you get through it, then we'll ask questions.

Great.

Well, thank you, Chair Juarez and committee members.

My name is Dennis McLaren, Deputy General Manager at Seattle City Light, and thanks for the opportunity to present the Boundary Project License Amendment Ordinance, and this is a true win-win.

We're pretty excited about this.

I'm joined today by Chris Townsend, Director of Natural Resources and Licensing, and Lloyd Dixon, our Boundary License Program Unit Manager.

And back in March of 2010, City Light filed a comprehensive settlement agreement for the Boundary Project and its City Light's largest hydroelectric project, and it's located in Ponderay County, about two hours north of Spokane.

And as Chair Juarez said, FERC issued the 42-year license for the dam on March 20, 2013. So this is a settlement agreement that occurred in 2010 before the license was issued.

This ordinance before you today authorizes City Light to move forward with an amendment to the Boundary Project's federal license that reflects years of collaboration with tribal, federal, state, and local partners.

It refocuses our collective efforts on measures that deliver stronger ecological outcomes while also reducing long-term costs for ratepayers.

These updates reflect our continued commitment support science-based actions and operating the boundary project consistent with our environmental responsibilities and the expectations of our regional partners, including the Kalispell Indian Tribe.

The Kalispell Indian Tribe has been very engaged in these changes and strongly supports them as they are beneficial for fisheries resources, as well as our ratepayers, as you'll hear from Lloyd's presentation.

And I'll now turn it over to Lloyd to walk through the presentation, which includes the changes and benefits in the proposed license amendment.

And we look forward to answering any questions.

And I also wanna thank Lloyd and Chris and their team for the hard work on this.

It's multiple years of work with the licensing partners over there, and it's really a beneficial outcome for FISH and for the tribes and for the utility and our rate payers.

Thank you.

Before you begin, I have a quick question, though.

Didn't this come out of the litigation where the Kalispell tribe sued Ponderay back in the 90s?

No.

No, ma'am.

Okay.

I just want to make sure because that was my case, so I was wondering if this was it.

Separate issue, they negotiated fairly strongly with City Light, I think, during the relicensing process, got generally what they wanted out of us in terms of resource benefit, but that is a separate issue than this.

Okay, I'll let you go ahead.

Okay.

I'll try not to repeat too much.

Dennis had a very comprehensive intro there.

So, in case you don't know, the Ponderay River is actually in far northeast Washington, two hours north of Spokane.

It flows from south to north, so it's one of those different rivers.

Not many do, but this one does.

So, a 42-year term, so we're good through 2055, which allows us to operate the facility, creating 35 percent of the power for the city of Seattle.

What year is a good deal?

Pardon me?

22 years, what'd you say?

2055?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

The primary focus of the entire license was native fish enhancement.

It comes in various ways through measures directly related to fisheries, habitat enhancement, and we have actually a hatchery out there now that we built as part of the license.

which we're actually putting native fish back into the landscape.

So everything that we've done related to this license from the license is primarily fisheries-based.

So it's a pretty unique opportunity for City Light to make a huge difference in the natural environment and the community itself.

The agreement really also focused on preservation of City Light's ability to flexibly create power, produce power.

We don't have low flow restrictions.

We don't have to pass water when we're not making power.

So we have a lot of flexibility, and that was one of the primary focuses of relicensing, was to maintain that flexibility.

This is the First Amendment since 2013. We've worked diligently to implement all of the measures in the license to date, and this is sort of a culmination of years of scientific data collection to be able to get to this point and make a meaningful change in the license.

Here's the fun slide.

Yes, ma'am.

So, the biggest, one of the biggest cost items in the license is entrainment reduction.

So entrainment is when a fish passes through the dam, either through the turbines themselves, through a spillway, or in this case, through a sluice gate.

Thank you for putting the definition in there.

I was wondering what entrainment meant, too.

Right.

It's kind of jargony, and I apologize for that.

That's okay.

Just say how the fish get through.

Yeah, so sometimes that leads to mortality, and if mortality happens to an endangered species fish, really bad.

Not good for us.

The fish die and...

They can die.

They don't all die.

Fish that go through the turbines actually survive, have a fairly good survival rate.

There's some pressure and things that I think mess with their physiology, but we do have tagged fish that we tagged in the upper reservoir that we've caught below the dam, and there's only one way to get there.

It's 350 feet tall and they don't climb.

So they went through.

So entrainment is a very expensive process.

A lot of the entrainment projects are related primarily to the way that the Columbia River works.

The Columbia River has millions and millions of salmon.

We don't have salmon.

We have salmonids, which are trout, but they don't go to the ocean.

So on the Columbia River, many, many fish go up, they spawn, and then their little baby fish head out towards the ocean.

Getting those little baby fish through the dams is super, super important to be able to maintain those fish populations.

Mandatory conditioning authorities from federal agencies dictate that if you get a federal license for a hydropower facility, you will have to deal with downstream passage of fish and upstream passage of fish.

Our fish don't fit well into their box.

So, over the years, we've really developed a lot of science to show, to demonstrate, that our fish don't act like fish on the Columbia River salmon and madrimous fish on the Columbia.

with millions of fish migrating downstream.

We have very few fish.

The Ponderay River is warm, and trout don't like warm water.

So we have very few fish, and we would have a very, very slim chance of actually capturing them to be able to take them around the dam to then complete whatever life cycle that they were trying to complete.

So these are very expensive projects.

They're very hard to maintain.

just challenging in general.

So our goal for a long time has been to work with our partners to prove to them that this measure in particular isn't going to be effective even if we build it, and it's just going to cost a whole lot of money.

They were aware of that, they're cognizant of that, and they were sympathetic to us and saw that we could provide a better benefit to other resources within the watershed if we didn't have to do that measure.

We could use that money in a better and different way.

So removal of that project will save us approximately $100 million, plus or minus, over the life of the license.

In addition to that particular measure, we have three other measures that we're going to remove.

There was a culvert that the Forest Service had asked to be put into the license for replacement.

They thought that it would provide a significant improvement in fish habitat.

In actuality, it's a very short section of stream above that culvert before it goes to a dam where there's no fish passage, and that's for the city of Medellin Falls water treatment system.

So that was a dam that wasn't coming out.

Forest Service agreed that we could remove that measure from the license as well.

That saves us about $10 million.

There's a few log jams.

They're called engineered log jams.

Basically, we create a little habitat feature in a creek.

For various reasons, constructability, landowner issues, we weren't able to really be able to implement those, so we're taking those out as well.

And one additional project in the main stem pond array that was targeting mountain whitefish, spawning habitat.

Again, we had a very hard time working with the partners to prove that our measure would be effective.

So total cost savings of about $12 million to remove those three little projects in comparison.

The other thing that this really does, and this is where the tribe and all of our partners are super excited, It does allow us to use this hatchery that we built as part of the license completed in 2024 for regional benefit, meaning that we will take fish from the watershed while there's non-native fish eradication happening in these creeks.

will preserve those fish and take them back after eradication has happened.

And we can talk about eradication if you want later.

One of the things that is associated with that.

We will build a third, we'll likely build a third building at our facility to handle potentially different stocks of fish and potentially more fish depending on what the programming, the biological programming looks like ultimately for that system.

So one new building in our brand new facility.

And then the tribes and the agencies also wanted us to create a $4 million fund to provide access to funding to help improve native fish restoration efforts in the watersheds outside of our watershed.

So the tribe does a lot of work for us in the fisheries realm and they would have access to these funds as would WDFW as we remove non-native fish from the watersheds and try to repopulate the streams with native fish.

Thank you, Lloyd.

That's a lot, but thank you.

It is.

I'm sorry.

It's okay.

I know you're excited about it.

This always happens with bio people.

I remember all my trial days are coming back like, okay, I get it.

Thank you.

So are we going to the next slide?

A little duplicative.

Okay.

What dam is this?

Is this the boundary one?

Yes, ma'am.

That is.

That's boundary dam.

So you can see at the very, very top in that picture, there's a little bit of a tower.

So that's one of the spillways is just adjacent to that.

So if a fish goes off of that, it takes about a 200-foot freefall.

The big boxes in the middle of that picture are sluice gates.

Those are about 200 feet underwater.

They can open that for emergency draining of the reservoir.

And then out of screen here just to the right is where the actual turbines are.

So one of the biggest things that this does, obviously it saves us $100 million.

It also advances our partnership with the Kalispell.

We've been working very, very hard since 2013, since before 2013. As soon as we put the license into FERC for approval, we've been working with the Kalispell tribe on our fisheries programs.

They implement a tremendous amount of our fisheries programs for us and in conjunction with us.

So everything that we do, we work with the tribe.

it's their resource as well.

So it's really important for us to be able to continue to develop that relationship and maintain that relationship with them.

And it also allows us the continued operation, efficient operation of boundary to the benefit of Seattle City Light.

Are you going to tell me what kind of fish this is?

That is my favorite fish.

That is a Westlip cutthroat trout.

Cutthroat, I knew it was a cutthroat.

Yeah, so it's beautiful.

Very unique populations, 70% of the habitat value of West Slope cutthroat trout, which kind of covered Montana, Northern Idaho, Washington, has been lost.

So this fish is imperiled, and everything that we can do to help preserve these populations is super important.

So you're on the stakeholders.

Those are our stakeholders, and they've all been part of this.

We've been, for the two past years, we've had every other Wednesday, we have an hour-long meeting with these folks hammering out this agreement.

So, everyone is truly on board.

True consultation.

Indeed.

Love it.

Otherwise, you get sued, but great.

Yeah, we're not going to.

Come on now, you know that's what this is.

I can't say that.

I can say that.

I'm not allowed, I can't say that.

All right, so the purpose of the ordinance, it just allows Rob Santoff, our CEO, to sign this agreement.

We will be the last ones to sign it.

All of our partners will sign it first.

It would allow Rob to sign it, and at that point, it will then go to FERC, which will take 12 to 18 months before they'll issue the new license and allow this to go into action.

It truly supports the Kalispell Tribes' restoration efforts for Not only West Slope cut their trout, that is a bull trout, that is an endangered fish, and that is a fish of cultural significance to the tribe for sure.

So this new facility and this new initiative will allow us to broaden the restoration efforts for bull trout as well.

So you're moving on to page seven?

Yes, ma'am.

So that picture, is that a Kalispell tribal picture?

Yes, ma'am.

So from the early 1900s, that is a sturgeon canoe, is what they call that.

And the front and back apparently look like the back of a sturgeon.

So that was them fishing, and sturgeon is another species, potentially, that used to exist in the Pend Oreille River, doesn't exist anymore, but we're considering it.

bull trout, Westlope cutthroat trout, sturgeon.

Send me a picture.

Send me a picture of one.

A sturgeon?

Yeah.

Oh, they're amazing.

So, yeah, so...

Consequence of delays certainly would strain our relationship with the tribe.

They have been pushing very, very hard for us to get this done.

They're there with us every time.

I've heard repeatedly how quickly we were able to negotiate the entire license for boundary, and how long this one has taken just to do an amendment.

So the frustration level is there, but understandably, we're really trying to get everything nailed down completely straight so that when we take it to FERC, it comes back quickly and without issue.

And it increases future opportunities for tribal harvest across the region.

It does not reduce opportunities.

It increases.

So the Ponderay Dam was one of the dams that were up for relicensing in the 90s.

Their license expired in the 90s, right?

So in 1965, we got the first license.

It was for 50 years.

So it actually expired in 2005. And we had annual licenses up to that point.

And then in 2010, we filed our filed for a new license and received that license in 2013.

Oh, see, that's why I was getting confused.

The litigation I was talking about was when the Kalispell tribe sued Pend Oreille for flooding their tribal lands.

Yes.

That was the late 90s.

Dennis, who probably remembers that one.

Not us.

It was me.

I sued you.

Okay.

And won.

It wasn't our dam.

Okay, it wasn't your dam.

It wasn't our dam that caused that flooding.

Yeah.

Great.

Okay.

So, Lloyd, thank you very much.

I learned a lot.

The pictures, the fish.

Is there anything else you want to add?

I don't think so.

You sure?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Let me ask my colleagues.

I'm looking at Councilmember Strauss.

He's probably fascinated with the canoe.

Yes, I knew it.

Go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

I just really appreciate, again, the time that we got to spend in my office ahead of this meeting and Counts Emeritus Juarez.

I too had to ask what entrainment meant, so I really appreciated that clarification this time through.

Yeah, this is a good, good deal.

I'm excited for this amendment and I'm excited that we've been able to continue working with our partners to understand what of the original agreements do and do not work and the ability to change them through this amendment so that we can keep meeting our commitment areas while also not spending money or engaging in activities that are not ultimately fruitful.

So just great appreciation to everyone.

Thank you.

And I wanna add on this note, this is such a good example with Seattle City Light, practicing true tribal consultation.

So thank you for that, because we couldn't have said this 30 years ago, even 20 years ago, until federal court said that.

So if there's any law students watching, this is how you do tribal consultation.

And I think we even saw it in the last presentation, in community, asking people what they need, but also recognizing when we come back to your issue, on tribes and their treaty right and their right to the fish in US v. Washington.

So thank you very much.

And also for the pictures, I appreciated that as well.

I'm not seeing anything else from any of my clients, from my colleagues.

You good?

Okay.

Go ahead.

I'll just say thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for the work.

I sit on the Waira 8 Salmon Restoration Committee, as you all probably know.

I really appreciate all the work that has gone into partnering with the tribes toward salmon and trout preservation.

It's really important and being able to have these robust relationships with the tribes and the stakeholders is a really important part of this work, and I appreciate how seriously you all are taking it.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you for saving us $100 million, Lloyd.

We appreciate that.

Thanks for doing us a solid arm.

That too.

We usually get beat up for other stuff, but now we thank you, Lloyd.

All right.

Okay.

That being said, I move that the committee recommend passage of Council Bill 121269. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage, pardon the pun, passage of the bill.

Are there any further comments?

Not seeing or hearing any.

Will the clerk please call the roll.

Councilmember Strauss?

Aye.

Councilmember Sacca?

Aye.

Councilmember Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Juarez?

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Council Bill 121269 will be sent to the August 11th, 2026 full city council meeting.

Thank you very much.

Thank you everybody.

Good job, Seattle City Light.

All right, we're going to move on to item number three.

Madam Clerk, will you please read item three into the record.

Agenda Item 3, Resolution 32213, authorizing the Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation to seek grant funding assistance managed through the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office.

There will be briefing, discussion, and vote.

Thank you.

Okay, so we got our folks from Parks here, Parks and Recreation.

I'm going to do a quick little preview as I always do for the viewing public as well.

We have representatives from Parks and Recreation.

It's a 14-page PowerPoint.

This resolution allows Seattle Parks and Recreation to apply to grants through the state and includes seven applications for six different projects.

I believe of the six, five of them are in playgrounds.

So when you guys are ready, go ahead and introduce yourself and why don't we let you get to your presentation.

Is that correct?

And then we'll ask questions.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

It's great to be here today to present this legislation.

I'm Michelle Finnegan, Interim Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation, here with...

Andy Scheffer, Deputy Superintendent of Planning and Capital Development, Seattle Parks and Recreation.

And Carina Bull, Council Central Staff.

Thank you.

So Andy's going to do the heavy lifting, but I'll just introduce this today to say we're excited to bring forward this legislation that authorizes Seattle Parks and Recreation to apply for Recreation and Conservation Office grant funding.

The resolution allows SPR to compete for outside funding that helps us leverage our city funding, steward public assets, expand access to recreation and deliver high quality park improvements across Seattle.

The RCO grant programs available in any given year really drive which projects we seek funding for.

And this year, as Council Member Juarez mentioned, we are proposing to submit seven applications for six projects across five granting programs available for application.

And Andy is going to walk you through the details.

Thank you.

This legislation authorizes the Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation to seek and accept capital project grant funding from the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office, RCO, and accept all property obligations outlined in these grant funds.

In the slide deck presented today, we will share context, timeline, the 2026 grant program opportunities, the summary of proposed projects, and go into questions and discussion.

I like this map.

I like this one.

This slide visually outlines the various grants SPR has received between 2019 and 2025. Grants are integral to our asset management plan.

They help us systematically close into industry standard lifecycle renewals.

You can see the geographic reach of our grant team's work.

RCO requires applicants to submit an applicant resolution authorizing SBR to apply for these grants.

Without this adopted resolution, SBR's projects are not eligible to remain in consideration.

By submitting the adopted resolution, we are acknowledging two important grant requirements.

First, The City must provide the required local match and second, grant funded projects must be operated and maintained in perpetuity as outdoor recreation.

Again, approval of this legislation does not guarantee award.

For context, in 2025, we had intended to apply for seven RCO grants.

The first being Stan Sayers, which was awarded 880,000.

That'll start construction next month for the renovation of one of the boat ramps.

The next four were associated with a grant program that was put on pause.

That's the Orlap Grant, the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant.

Again, that was paused.

The next two projects, First Tee at Bill Wright Golf Complex and Discovery Park South Beach Trail ranked high, but there was insufficient funding to fund those.

Now moving on to the timeline.

Applications with the approved resolution are due on August 25th.

RCO will announce ranked funding recommendations in late October in the formal Award notifications will occur in September 2027. Again, actual award notifications are dependent on the amount of funding the state legislature appropriates to each RCO program.

This slide lists RCO scoring considerations.

As mentioned previously, the grant program criteria drive which projects we seek grant funding for.

Our staff reviews each funding program closely and evaluates where SBR existing projects are most competitive according to criteria and other scoring considerations.

We also look very closely at timing.

A project may be worthy, but if its schedule does not align with the grant cycle, it may not be a strong candidate.

Delaying projects can also increase costs, including opportunity costs to the public.

The projects in this package were selected because they combine real community benefit, clear capital need, and a strong alignment with the program's criteria.

SPR is seeking authority to apply for approximately 5.1 million in RCO funding.

More specifically, if this resolution is approved, we would submit seven applications for six projects across five granting programs.

SPR regularly seeks local parks funding to support our play area renovation program.

First, associated with the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program, local parks were applying for Judkins, would like to apply for Judkins Park to expand inclusive play and improve accessibility and popular neighborhood in a popular neighborhood park in Seattle's Central District.

This is an important park, not just for the immediate community, but for hosting community events like Umojo Fest.

This neighborhood is heavily invested in this project.

Hey, Andy, can I stop you for just one second?

I know I said I would wait till the end, but just because, and I love how you're clipping through this, because we went through this.

In the future, which I, when we get to page 13, I went and marked up, like Judkins, Miller, and Jose Rizal, what districts that they were in, because you know how you did that great map?

So Judkins is in D3, Miller's in D3, Jose Rizal is in D2, but when we get to page 13, I kind of did a column.

So in the future, if you could do that, because the reason why I like that other map you have is because I remember doing these back when I was here before, doing these RCO so we get the money and then making sure that we had district parity but also not ignoring particular neighbourhoods.

So that's just a demonstrative, it's just a helpful point.

Point well taken.

Okay, thank you Andy.

Absolutely.

Miller Playground is located in Capitol Hill, just north of the Central District.

This is another strong example of a focused neighborhood investment that can deliver immediate public benefit.

We are developing a fully inclusive playground that serves the neighborhood and will also be a regional draw.

and build one of the best fully accessible playgrounds.

It reflects our commitment to making sure children have access to exciting playgrounds.

Dr. Jose Rizal Park in North Beacon Hill, just across the street from a new multi-family low-rise build with hundreds of residents is very and a very popular daycare is in need of a safe and welcoming play area and park.

This is a priority neighborhood investment with clear community benefit.

I also want to call attention to when we talk about inclusive and accessible play areas, we're talking about physical, social, emotional access.

This is building back better.

And that's really our focus in our, as much as possible in our play area program.

I'm really glad you're focusing on the Jose Park too, because that's, it was such a, we had so many encampments there and I know that we had to, I know that that was a lot on parks after 2020, so I'll let that go.

But when we get to page 13, I'll have a little bit more about that.

Yup.

And it continues to be.

Yeah.

Let's see.

Next slide.

Washington Wildlife Recreation Program and Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act.

We're applying to both these programs with the same project, being the Arboretum Waterfront Trail that connects the Arboretum with the UW.

Center for Urban Horticulture.

It passes through one of Seattle's largest wetlands.

Exciting, historic wetland walk.

And interestingly enough, it was originally built with RCO funding in 1972 and we're seeking RCO funding today to renovate it.

Andy, I've never heard anyone connect wetlands and exciting together, but thank you for that.

And the birds are phenomenal.

I know, I can tell you're the outdoorsy guy, but that wasn't on my bingo card, but thank you.

Next is our Youth Athletic Facilities Program.

Walt Huntley.

Playfield, which recently hosted the Loop to Loop community fundraiser race, which was absolutely phenomenal.

This facility is in great need of a synthetic turf replacement, but most importantly, accessibility improvements to connect the Playfield to the surrounding neighborhood and community center.

We want to build back better.

Yeah, that's in D1.

Councilmember Saka's paying attention now.

Not that you were before, but...

And lastly, our building facilities, the building facilities program, which RCO was originally based off of in 1964, were applying for planning and permitting of eddy vine Boat ramp improvements.

All of our boat ramps are in need of improvements.

Permitting and planning is very intensive because the in-water work.

And that's adjacent, immediately adjacent to Golden Gardens Park.

So this chart shows a summary of the 5.1 million ask and grant funding, and these grants translate local capital dollars into larger, more complete, durable investments.

Okay, let me add one thing.

We don't, you're not done yet.

Let me just say something about this slide, why I liked it.

So two things.

So Judd, let me just, I'm gonna go through the districts again, but I also wanna pinpoint in the resolution in the summary and fiscal note, Who did the, oh, Moshe wrote the summary and fiscal note.

Good job.

So Judkins is in District 3, Miller's in District 3, Jose Rizal is in D2, the Arboretum is in District 3, the Walt Hudley is in D1, and the Eddy Vine boat ramp is in D6.

So for the viewing public or those of you who are online and can pull these docs up or want to look at it, in the resolution page two of the ordinance lists the five playgrounds and in the summary and fiscal note pages five and six address the criteria and the community benefits in the RSJI analysis for the five playgrounds.

which was really well done.

Tell Moshe he did a great job.

So thank you for that.

So just in the future, you can see I marked up mine.

Absolutely.

If we can lay that out, because we always, people always want to know, like I know Council Member Osaka wants to know what's going on with his soccer fields, pickleballs, parks.

Want to make sure, but if you look at the map, D1's getting a lot of love, I'm just saying.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

Although, Chair, I mean, I will say there are a lot of parks across the city and I know we need to do work on maintain and upgrade a lot of all the parks.

I mean, all the parks at some point, right?

But, you know, this Arboretum is in D3, but it's heavily utilized, I know, by D4 and D5.

So I just want to also call that out because, you know, A park might be located in one district, but depending upon where it is, it's also heavily utilized, but the surrounding districts.

So I want to acknowledge that as well.

Yeah, parks are for everybody, but I think the reason why I wanted to highlight the parks is that when we have constituents who are like just laser-focused on there, like you heard at public comment, you heard some people like the Green Lake Center and they want their new pool.

So getting back to Jose Rizzo Park, the only thing I wanted to ask Andy is, and this may be true of some of the other parks as well, I know that parks has spent a lot of time having to do encampment removal.

We've had to spend money on clean up and safety and also go back and repair playgrounds that were damaged.

Is there anything you want to share about that?

Or is this money specifically going to, as you say, just making the park better?

Or is it also going to rebuilding and fixing parks that have been destroyed?

It's gonna increase the accessibility of the play area and usability and functionality of the park.

So I think the most important thing is to create a safe space in order for the residents across the street to enjoy that play area.

Currently, SPD has set up a series of community walks that we'll be participating in through Lewis Park and Dr. Jose Rizal Park, and we are looking for developing a stronger community partnership and activation ideas through those parks.

Andy, can you speak quickly about the community engagement process at Jose Rizal that kind of led to this as well?

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I will.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, did I?

Yeah.

Yeah, that was really exciting.

We started a new process and worked very closely with Seattle Design Commission, and that was called Elevate, where the community designed the park through a partnership with a design consultant to more directly translate community ideas into design.

It's been a very lengthy process but has reaped a lot of rewards from kind of a following through on specific community ideas.

Oh, okay.

So you designed the park?

There was a design competition in the community.

One entity was selected, and they were paired up with a design firm to translate their ideas into a design.

Oh, that's great.

Thank you.

With that, I see that Councillor Osaka has his hand up.

Councillor Osaka.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, thank you.

And thank you, Interim Superintendent Finnegan.

Thank you, Mr. Scheffer.

Of course, Karina, I really always appreciate your partnership and your collaboration and your insights, not just into this, but everything parks-related and all the other policy areas you cover from a central staff perspective.

You know, I almost stood up and gave you the slow clap when you started saying, build back better, Andy.

I hear you.

I see what you're doing.

And very, very wise, very smart.

You definitely pay attention in our various meetings and conversations and understand kind of how I approach, which is consistent with, I think, how you in the department approaches these various activities and initiatives and programs.

On the, and I'll just share, I was in, last night I was delighted because after seven plus hours of public meetings, three in the morning, four in the afternoon or whatever, including the executive session, I was able to, unplug a little bit and get back in the community.

I attended, last night was neighborhood night out.

So I was able to attend five neighborhood night out activities within my district.

And me and my team were as well, we kind of branched out There's literally hundreds within D1, so...

But I was able to go to five, and we covered about ten total, so it was great.

One of the ones that I personally covered was directly across the street from Walt Hunley Playfield.

And let me tell you that when I shared with the families, and there are a lot of young kids, you know, running around, playing, and soccer balls everywhere, and one wayward soccer ball landed near me, and I tried to kick it back, and I realized I'll...

I won't try and kick soccer balls again.

But in any event, when I shared with them that The Walt Hunley Playfield will be refurbished, the turf will be refurbished.

There was like, I almost got a standing ovation.

I want to be able to share that good news all the time.

So there's a lot of, all this to say, there's a lot of constituents in West Seattle, particularly in the vicinity of Walt-Hunley Playfield, High Point specifically, but not just those areas.

A lot of people travel all over from the city to have events and games and things at Walt-Hunley, so it's a great project.

I want to thank you all for your work in bringing that to life and honored to be able to support this here today.

I am curious though about some of those, so I understand with respect to the Walt-Hunley Playfield projects, They'll not only do the synthetic turf refurbishment, but there's also going to be some upgrades to the restroom.

Much needed, by the way, on the restroom upgrades.

And so really excited about that.

But can you talk a little bit more, Andy, about some of the accessibility improvements in the area?

What kind of specific examples could that or would that look like for that particular project?

Sure.

Accessibility to play fields has really changed over the last 10 years in that we really need to have pathways adjacent to the edge.

not just having a single point of entry, and because of that, because of the increase in linear footage of pathways, we often have to leverage grants for that reason.

Got it.

And changing the grades on existing pathways, because as they settle, they don't maintain their ADA accessibility.

Right.

So Andy, would it be accurate for Councilman Roussaka, who was across the street last night, that those folks could more easily access as opposed to having it be more aligned with a parking lot or a parking space?

Is that...?

Yes.

Got it.

All right.

Well, thank you again for the presentation and, more importantly, the work that this helpful information represents.

So it really does make a difference.

And I'm so excited about not just synthetic turf play fields, Madam Chair.

I'm excited about the turf.

I'm excited about the restrooms in our parks.

I'm excited about the various programmings at the various community centers.

I geek out about the lines on the basketball courts and the pickleball and racquetball courts as well.

Those little details, operational details, and projects matter, and they truly do make a difference in people's everyday lives, and it's precisely the scope of what local government can and should be focusing on and crushing.

as a starting point.

So, thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Saka.

So, and just two quick points.

First of all, on the reason why I like a couple of your slides, like page 13 and page 3, it's because you put the blue thumbtack in where we got awards.

And I think that's a real powerful, next time make it bigger.

Because we put these in our newsletters so people can see them.

and then also where the proposed applications are.

And you saw we had someone here from the Park Foundation, so we hear from those folks as well.

I would love, and this will be in, since this is for public consumption now, this will be in our newsletter.

We always like to put that in there and everybody can click.

I know Michelle knows that I make sure she's in our newsletter.

because of the Lake City Community Center and where we're at.

So this is always, it's more than informational, lets people know where we're headed.

And then just lastly, good job.

I saw that on the last slide on page 14, that is a picture of the Jose Rizzo Park.

Is this a recent picture?

No, it isn't.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

That's why I was worried or wondering.

So yeah, this is an older picture.

Now this is older.

The shelter structure has been demolished in preparation for the play area.

The play area is going to go in that location.

That's what I thought.

See, every now and then I do look at this stuff.

I just want to take a moment and thank our grants team.

They're fabulous.

They're inspired.

They're passionate.

And again, it's really integral to our asset management plan.

We need that funding to shorten our lifecycle renewals.

So they're just wonderful, hardworking people on deadlines that stay late to meet deadlines.

So let me ask you quickly, Andy, so when they do the pipeline of money, does it go from the state to the county to the city or does it go from the state right to the city?

This one goes from the state right to the city.

Okay.

But we have some that go to the county and then go to us.

Yeah.

Okay.

I was just trying to remember how the other slide three, there's lots of different granting programs that we apply through and they're all a little different.

Okay.

Thank you, Michelle.

Thank you for being, thank you for serving as interim director too.

What?

It's been an honor.

Oh, counselor.

Thank you.

Um, you're not the clerk today.

She is so, um, council member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

If everyone was talking about the projects in the district, I just wanted to bring up the Eddie Vine boat ramp situation where, you know, it is adjacent to the park.

It's not behind the gates of the park.

We've been having a lot of problems.

You know, when I was growing up, going down to Golden Gardens, we'd bring a boombox.

We would have a boombox.

Kids these days are using amplified sound that you can hear a mile away.

Eddie Vine's been a place where this has been happening.

I know Councilmember Rivera has been happening over at Magnuson, and so I just really appreciate the additional improvements that the Parks Department is bringing to the Eddie Vine boat ramp down there at Golden Gardens.

That's all, Chair.

Thank you.

We're too young to have boom boxes, so that wasn't our era.

But thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Boom boxes.

Okay.

Is there any other questions?

Okay.

Go ahead, Councilmember Rivera.

I'll just say, Chair, I really appreciate parks is the whole granting, you know, going out for grants.

And it is, you know, as Interim Superintendent Finnegan said, every process is slightly different.

There isn't a universal application for all these things.

It takes work and it takes staff time.

So I just want to acknowledge that.

I want to thank you and your team for taking the time to apply and submit those applications, some of which can be really lengthy.

But it's important if there is money that the city can get to do these Important projects we should be doing that.

So thank you for your part and making that happen.

Thank you chair.

Thank you, council member Okay with that I move that the committee recommend passage of resolution three two two one three Second it's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the resolution any further questions or comments not seeing any will the clerk please call the roll councilmember Strauss all right

Member Saka?

Aye.

Council Member Rivera?

Aye.

Chair Juarez?

Aye.

Chair, there are four votes in favor.

Thank you.

The motion carries and Resolution 3-2213 will be sent to the August 11th Full City Council.

Okay, we've reached the end of our agenda.

I want to thank you, Intern Director Michelle Finnegan.

Thank you, Andy.

Thank you, Karina.

I know you're there, but I know you do all the work.

Thank you very much for helping us and being here today.

Are there any other comments from the committee members?

I'm not seeing any.

If there is not any further business, then we will be adjourned and the time is 3.37.

Good job, Sophia.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Andy.