Seattle Park District Board Meeting 9/27/22

Okay, thank you so much.

The September 27th, 2022 meeting of the Seattle Park District Board will come to order.

It is 4.13 p.m.

I am Andrew Lewis, president of the board.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Musqueda.

Present.

Board, Nelson.

Aye, no, present.

Board, Peterson.

Board Member Peterson.

Board Member Strauss.

Present.

Board Member Herbold.

Here.

Board Member, excuse me, Board Member Morales.

Here.

Board Member Juarez.

Here.

And Board President St. Louis.

Present.

Eight present.

Thank you, and I will announce the present.

Thank you, and I will announce the present.

Sorry, this is Council Board Member Sawant, I'm here to.

Thank you, Board Member Sawant.

Board Member Peterson is not present, is that correct?

Okay, I will announce his presence when he gets to the meeting.

If there's no objection, the minutes of the September 15th and 19th Seattle Park District Board meetings have been reviewed, and if there's no objection, those minutes will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the minutes are adopted.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to those minutes?

Public comment.

At this time, we will open the hybrid public comment period.

As I'm sure most viewers have just watched our full council meeting, they're familiar with the rules that we assigned to the public comment period.

Madam Clerk, how many speakers are signed up in person and remotely?

Yeah, of course.

We have seven signed up remotely and five signed up in person.

Okay, thank you.

I will go ahead and take the in-person public commenters first, and we'll give a one-minute speaking time.

So if the clerk could please moderate the public comment period, we can commence.

Our first person, in-person public commenter is Renaissance.

Testing.

Testing.

We're good?

Testing.

My name is Renaissance.

I'm the Director of Campaigns at 350 Seattle, and I've been working on Healthy Through Eating Smoke.

Today, I don't want to go into further details about all the goals of the campaign, which we have said ad nauseum here.

And what I'd like to do is actually spend my time and devote it to saying thank you.

To all the work that we have done and all of our community partners who have thrown down, and all of the volunteers who have worked tirelessly throughout this entire process, because the goals that we're after are vital and important.

And we are chartering away and forwarding a path into climate justice and climate resilience in a way that is going to be historic for our city, while we're building out these climate resiliency hubs.

So I just want to applaud everyone and you all up here on this council for helping that.

And with the remainder of my time.

I have our community endorsement letter that I've brought that I would like to submit to official record for this meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jeanne Iannucci.

That was a great speech.

Am I on?

Yes.

Thank you all, too.

I think that was wonderful that you received that wonderful thank you.

And I, too, am speaking in support of the Park District and also specifically in support of Council Member Morales's amendment number three to the park budget plan.

in the hopes that that will further provide access for people of all sorts, families with children and people with disabilities and so on to experience Lake Washington for the three miles that are between Mount Baker and Seward Park in a way that's safe and where they can learn how to ride bikes and roller skate and do all those wonderful things.

So, yes, please support and thank you all again very much.

Our next speaker is Terry Home.

Yes, hello.

Thank you.

It's so great to be here in person.

My name is Terry Home.

I served on the Board of Park Commissioners for nine years, so I have a particular interest in the park district issue.

I've also worked on the campaign.

and helped form that initiative to the ballot.

So I am very much in support of the Resolution 51. I would like to see, I do support the increasing mill levy that you're proposing on this.

I felt it was underutilized up until now, and I very much support that.

I also am here to support Councilor Morales's Amendment 3. This is, and I want to thank the Park Board for all the work they did as the committee that formed the Resolution 51. We've got to fund Lake Washington Boulevard.

This is a keep moving street.

This should be a keep moving motion and the part of the City Council to keep this going.

We want to make it, we want to prioritize Lake Washington Boulevard as a park.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Steve Rupstelo.

As someone who was formerly known as dictator of Green Lake when I was chairman of the Green Lake Community Council many years ago, I can say there is a need for more to be done to clean up the parks and to keep them up to date.

One thing you should consider, though, is that there's no use in putting a lot of money in if you're not going to keep them for public usage.

And if you make them into it simply into encampments and to abandon them to whoever wants to vandalize them, that's another problem.

Green Lake has a very, very old building.

which you may have to decide whether it's worth remodeling or replacing, but you don't put too much there because it's already overused.

There are more people wanting to be there than there is spaces for people.

So I would hope that you would consider wisely using the money and also making sure that parks are available for the purpose for which the park was

Thank you, and Madam Clerk, I do want to recognize, I believe, Board Member Peterson has joined the meeting.

And Chair, I'd say, I think we referred to Steve Rubstell as the benevolent leader of Green Lake, not dictator.

Yeah, Council Member Strauss, that should be your title.

You represent District 6. But in any event, I do just want to take a moment to recognize for members of the public that Board Member Peterson is in the meeting.

Member Peterson, can you confirm if that's the case?

Maybe he isn't yet.

My apologies.

Okay, you can continue the public comment session, Madam Clerk, thank you.

Our next public commenter is A.W.

Alexander.

I too am here about the Green Lake Initiative.

At this present time, the community center is being overused.

Our estimate is at least $750,000 annually, but our recreation center is scheduled to be remodeled $70 million to $80 million once they go in there.

We have asbestos.

We have a foundational problem.

We have a tot room right now.

and we have methane gas that comes through our elevator chutes.

With that being said, we're looking at the simple fact two constructions have just completed this past summer.

There are three cranes in the air, more apartments going up in the Green Lake community.

Our facility is just not befitting.

We need to look at the future and look at it real well.

I hope we can find private sector money.

Thank you very much.

Chair, I'm present.

Sorry, I was having trouble with my microphone.

Not a problem.

Thank you so much, board member Peterson.

Clerks, you may continue the public comment.

Thank you.

We will now move into remote public comment.

And our first speaker is Andrew Eccles.

Hi, my name is Andrew Eccles.

I'm a Seattle resident and speaking in favor of Lewis's amendment or the plan that is being put forth.

We're really, really happy to see funding for upgrades for 13 community centers to be climate resilience hubs.

And I hope the full council will support this.

Also want to speak to with this, how important within this vision, ensuring that microgrid solar like the Miller microgrid project gets built on these community centers is we haven't talked about that as much.

We know for both climate events, but also the big earthquake, having something that can keep the power on in an emergency is really, really critical for having medicines that can stay cold, as well as community gathering points in a big emergency like power outages, especially during a big earthquake.

So we're really, really excited to see this vision come to fruition and get to see these upgrades in our community and the impact it will have.

So thank you.

Our next speaker is Penny O'Grady.

Hi, I'm in Seattle in District 6. I celebrate climate resilience hubs.

However, I'm concerned by increasing park rangers.

There's a mistake about what police alternative means.

It doesn't mean hiring more people who enforce rules.

It means meaningful ongoing action on your promises after the police murder of George Floyd to prioritize investments in a system of care in racial and social justice.

A young friend recently returned to Seattle after weeks in Europe.

Coming home on light rail, he was overwhelmed by the smell of urine, the sad faces of riders in desperate circumstances, the obvious lack of care, respect, and nurture for the people here, a stark contrast to where he'd been.

The difference is basically that they take care of their people, he said.

If staff are saying these are the rules and you aren't following them, that's investing in control and surveillance, policing by another name.

Investing in real police alternatives means staff say, how can I help you?

Alternatives include investing in climate resilience hubs with microgrid solar.

Thanks to Council Member Mosqueda for her work to limit the park ranger's scope of duties.

We'll be watching.

Our next speaker is Joy R. Hello.

Hi there, I'm a community member who has witnessed the multitude of encampment removals or raid sweeps that has at least doubled under Mayor Harrell.

I won't go through the chaos and trauma I witnessed of humans being swept like garbage experience, but I will say a significant figure that's been part of many of those sweeps has been a park ranger.

So of course, when I heard that this park's levy will bring in another 26 park rangers to police city parks, I'm fearful and horrified for the many unhoused people already face a multitude of police when park rangers, park supervisors call them in to surround and force the person out.

There's been confusion lately between what's been reported to council that no park rangers have been participating in suites recently.

But what's actually happening that we witnessed as recently as September 13th, where a city employee wearing clothing marked ranger is participating in suites.

Funding another 26 park rangers should not be done when there's evident confusion and lack of clarity of a job description or specific duties or where they'll be deployed.

They'll have to negotiate.

Our next speaker is Alice Lockhart.

Hello, Parks Board.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

We can hear you.

Thank you.

Hello, Parks Board.

I'm Alice Lockhart and as a volunteer with 350 Seattle, I was a member of the small team who did the initial research for what later became our Healthy Through Heat and Smoke campaign.

It's so great to be able to be here today to say thank you to community and particularly to the board for all your work in making community resilience hubs a reality.

Thank you all so much.

I'd also like to mention that in that early research, we were particularly inspired by the Miller Community Center Solar Microgrid Project, which was a pilot community collaboration with Seattle City Light that will ensure that Miller will help keep people safe, even in heat and smoke events that cause power outages.

This is really important.

Governor Inslee called Miller the beginning of a revolution that would be the first of hundreds of such projects throughout the state.

Thank you for your revolutionary work today.

Our next speaker is Robin Briggs.

Hi.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Hello?

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Parks Board members.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak about the parks levy.

I wanted to urge you to support the climate resilient hubs that many other colors have referenced.

It's days like today when it's so obvious that we need the smoke and heat shelters.

I also wanted to urge you to support the proposal to open Lake Washington Boulevard for people rolling and walking from Mount Baker to Seward Park.

This is what living in Seattle is all about, getting out, seeing the lake and mountains, and seeing kids learning to ride bikes, families strolling, people getting exercise.

This is exactly what we need more of.

Thank you so much.

Our next speaker is Joy Okasaki.

Joy Okasaki, are you available?

Hello.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joy Okazaki, and I'm the board president at the Kubota Garden Foundation.

Since 1989, Kubota Garden Foundation has partnered with the city of Seattle and the local community to provide Kubota Garden, a gorgeous 20-acre Japanese garden that provides critical access to its green space in Rainier Beach, an area that's identified by the city as underserved in parks and open space.

Visitorship at Kubota Garden has consistently increased from over 56,000 in 2014 to over 126,000 in 2021. Thanks to the Parks District, the foundation received a major project challenge grant in 2018 to complete the perimeter wall surrounding the garden and start the design of the parking lot expansion.

The designed expansion would double the number of stalls, provide for accessible parking, improve pickup and drop off, and treat the stormwater on site.

The MPD budget proposed did not include any funding for the expanded parking lot.

Council Member Morales proposed an addendum to the MPD budget adding $200,000 for furthering the design of the expansion.

That's great, but it's far short of the additional $3 million that will be required to fund.

Our next speaker is Anna Zyvart.

Anna Zivartz.

We can move on to our next speaker, who is Yuan Tao.

Oh, this is Anna, I'm unmuted now, can you hear me?

We can hear you, thank you.

Sorry about that.

This is Anna Zivartz, I'm a resident of District 2, And first of all, just shout out to all the work that community groups have done around the smoke and heat centers.

That's really awesome.

We support that work.

But also wanted to shout out in particular to Council Member Morales' amendment for the funding for more accessible sidewalks and access along Lake Washington Boulevard.

This is particularly critical for people like myself who can't drive and need accessible open space in the south end that we can walk or roll or take transit to.

So I really hope that amendment passes.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Yan Tao.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, hi, my name is Yvonne.

I'm here to speak in favor of Amendment 3 to Resolution 51, which would create a protected path on Lake Washington Boulevard.

Lake Washington Boulevard is really widely known to be unsafe due to the aggressive drivers.

I've definitely personally experienced this pretty much every day that I ride on Lake Washington Boulevard.

You get people honking on you, even if you're following the rules of the road, or people doing what's called a punish pass, where they will pass within inches of you.

And there's no accountability for any of that.

In fact, I'm a member of a cycling club for API NH people and we regularly hold beginner friendly ride.

But what I've heard from group leaders is that they would actually never hold a ride on Lake Washington Boulevard because it is so unsafe.

I think we really have to think about what we want Lake Washington Boulevard to be.

Do we want Lake Washington Boulevard to be a highway, or do we want it to actually be park space that is accessible for people?

The sidewalks, frankly, are in such bad condition that I don't think anybody rolling can actually go through it.

And that concludes the public commenters.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

And we will now move on to our agenda items of business.

So will the clerk please read agenda item one into the record.

Agenda item one, resolution 51, a resolution adopting the Seattle Park District's six-year funding plan for 2023 through 2028 for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

We have our presenters from Council Central staff, Tracy Rasliff and Eric McConaghy.

who are here, so why don't we get the resolution in front of us, unless central staff, do you have anything you wanna say post-interview?

Okay, yeah, we'll just go ahead and move it to get in front of us.

So I'm gonna move that the Metropolitan Park District Board recommend adoption of Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to adopt the resolution.

Board members, the process for considering proposed amendments to the resolution will be as follows.

Central staff will walk us through each amendment, and I will then move each amendment after a second.

The sponsor will address the amendment and then council members can ask questions to central staff or the sponsor.

And finally, we will vote on the amendment after those comments.

These steps will be repeated for all proposed amendments.

Are there any questions on the process?

seeing no, Council Member Muscata, do you have a question?

Or Board Member Muscata?

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for your outline of the process.

I did just want to thank you, Mr. Chair, or Mr. Board President and central staff.

As we walk through these amendments, there have been numerous emails back and forth on the various proposals, and I just want to thank I want to thank you, Mr. President and central staff, Tracy Ratcliffe and Eric McConaughey, for being available near around the clock to help answer some of these issues that have been brought up.

So as we walk through it, just please note for the community, many more ideas were going back and forth.

And if not for the expertise of the president and the central staff, there would probably be many more that are out of order today.

So thanks for helping to think through those great ideas, Mr. Board President and central staff.

Thank you so much, Board Member Mosqueda, and in that spirit, let's go ahead and take advantage of that availability of central staff to start working through our 11 amendments today.

So, central staff procedurally, is Board Member Herbal just going to take care of the substitution of Amendment 1 to Amendment 1A when we queue that up, or do I have to do anything before I hand it over to you?

You don't and we have just a few things to just start with in terms of kind of stay in the context here a little bit for those amendments.

So if we go ahead, we will do that and we will get as quickly as we can to those amendments because we know you all are ready to move in on this.

I'll just jump right in.

The slide here before you with this table in the greens just reminds everybody of where we are today.

These are the numbers behind the NPD spending plan as it stood last time you met without any amendments.

As you know, there are amendments that will be offered today.

And these show the numbers from 2023 through 2028. ranging from the $117,900 to about $143,300 in 2028. And then the related cents per thousand and the annual impact for the median resident value are shown here.

And I'll move on.

This is mostly a reference slide.

You'll want to refer to it during today's discussion, but really the meat of the presentation follows.

Council members today you will be considering amendments and voting on resolution 51 which will adopt the six-year funding plan at the detailed line of business and that is attachment one that we sent out to you in a couple of versions.

One that shows each of the changes in track changes so to speak and then one that is a clean version that rolls up into final totals for each one of the detailed lines of business.

that resolution 51 also includes proposed spending restrictions.

It includes proposed statements of intent, and it also includes accountability measures.

And we'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment here.

You will also be voting to amend clerk file number one, and this will include the initiative level recommendations of the Park District Board, as you might amend them today.

It will also include the recommendations of the BPRC and the mayor and this is just to have a historical record for everyone that has us stating what we did, what the district board did in addition to the mayor and the BPRC at that initiative level of recommendation.

So at last week's meeting, I neglected to describe with the other provisions of Resolution 51, those provisions that are included in that resolution related to accountability measures.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, these measures.

These provisions have been in the document that you received middle of last week, but just to highlight a few.

One, request Seattle Parks and Rec to submit proposed performance metrics for each of the initiatives that are included in the six-year funding plan and we've asked them to do that by the end of the first quarter of 2023. It does include some specific requests for measurements related to bathroom and park cleaning as well as renovations of existing parks infrastructure and compliance with national best practice benchmarks in that regard.

It also states the district board's intent to review the annual report on MPD funding plan to assess the achievement of performance metrics and to consider modifications to the six-year plan based on performance, including considering whether or not to amend that plan to reduce or to reallocate total spending in light of any underspend, if any, in the prior year.

It also will request SPR to report on implementations of recommendations made by Burke and Associates in 2022 evaluation of the capital planning and development division.

We will talk further about amendment to that particular provision in just a few moments.

And then finally, it states the district board's intent to request the city auditor to conduct a couple of different performance audits, one relating to the cleaning of bathrooms and the other related to the cleaning and maintenance of parks.

So moving on, Between last Monday and today, there were a few non-controversial changes that were made to some of the statements of intent that are in Resolution 51. Briefly, one statement of intent that was changed was to add the Office of Emergency Management to those that Parks and Rec and the Office of Sustainability and Environment will work with on the resilient hub strategy.

A second has to do with modifying the language regarding the carbonization of community centers to include a specific request that Parks and Rec consider incorporating on-site solar panels for all climate-conscious conversions, new construction, et cetera, of community centers.

And then it adds a new statement of intent requesting Seattle Parks and Rec to provide a report to the Park District Board after completion of construction of Smith Cove Park Phase 1 and include in that report the proposed schedule, process, and cost estimates for Smith Cove Park Phase 2. Now going to move to the proposed amendments to resolution 51 and where appropriate also amendments to attachment one which again is the six-year funding plan.

So amendment number one which is actually new version 1a and that this was a amendment revised amendment that was sent to you via email probably about two and a half hours ago.

It is proposed by Council Member Herbold, and it adds a spending restriction requiring up to $2 million of equitable park development funding in 2023 to be designated to support the Garfield Superblock Project and to build a play area at Mara DeSimone Park, as called for in Phase 2 of the Long-Range Development Plan.

Thank you, Tracy.

I move Amendment 1A.

Is there a second?

The amendment has been moved and seconded, so I will hand it off to the sponsor to speak to the amendment.

Thank you so much.

I want to just speak to my appreciation for the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners who not only helped conceive of the Equity Fund itself, but also identified four projects as quote, excellent candidates for funding within the first years.

Those projects include Garfield Superblock Project, the Little Brook renovation, Mara Desimone Play Area, and Rainier Beach Skate Park.

Two of those projects, Little Brook Park and the skate park, have specific dollars dedicated to them in 2024 in the proposed package.

I had been advocating for the Mara Desimone Park Play Area to be an early recipient of equity funding since commissioners first approved the work back in 2006. 2006, folks.

and because the project will serve South Park, which has the highest concentration of kids of any neighborhood in the city, with the least access to green space.

Council Member Mosqueda's staff reached out to us yesterday to explore whether or not there would be sufficient funding for the Garfield Superblock, the last project left unaddressed on the commissioner's list of four in 2003 as well.

With a total of $3 million available annually, the equity fund will be available to provide meaningful funding to both projects in 2023, and I'm really happy to offer this revised amendment, Amendment 1A, the language of which was circulated by my office today at 153, and that this amendment makes both priorities possible.

Many thanks to Erin House in Council Member Mosqueda's office for working with my staff, Christina Kotsubos, thank you to Christina as well, and working on this change, and thank you as well to Emilio Sanchez, our Deputy Clerk, for advising on the procedure today.

And of course, Tracy Ratzcliff and Eric McConaughey on Council Central staff for supporting the development both of the original language and the compromise language with Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

I misspoke, it should be $3 million, up to $3 million, not up to $2 million.

I should not have been reading it as such, so it's up to $3 million.

Board Member Mosqueda.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to follow up and express my appreciation to Council Member Herbold for her team and her staff's willingness to work with us on this amendment.

I want to thank Aaron House as well and Christina for their joint efforts here between our offices.

This amendment lifts up this important project in South Park.

We know this is about investing in frontline communities that are underserved and have historically not seen as much investments in green spaces.

They experienced disproportionate environmental injustice.

They experienced the impacts of climate change higher due to air quality flooding frequency or the likelihood that floods could occur there and higher heat during our excessive heat warnings.

So I want to thank Councilmember Herbold again for helping to broaden this amendment to include the Garfield Superblock as a project to receive funding as needed in 2023, another important project that will increase park equity.

and access to realize community vision for arts and open public space in the Central District.

I'm excited about this package overall, and I'm excited that this amendment here helps get us up near $3 million per year for important projects that will help reduce environmental disparities, create community space, and invest in community capacity in areas that have been historically under-invested in, and to really help try to close some of those I think today by including Garfield Superblock again in one of the council's budget priorities, this is an amendment that really helps to ensure that the four projects identified as current potential projects for the equity fund will be provided funding through this package.

that we are going to continue to work with the community to make sure that we can continue to support projects that come online here in the future years.

Thank you, President Lewis.

I am voting yes on this amendment.

The Garfield Superblock has been a grassroots effort to create a vital civic space that honors and tells the story through art and cultural presentations of the people who have lived here over the millennia, from the Duwamish people to Black Americans today.

The Garfield Superblock, working with staff from the Parks and Recreation Department, aims to enhance the area around the Garfield Community Center, Medgar Evers Pool, and Garfield High School with art that celebrates the area's history.

new trees and walkways to ensure access for all new safe publicly accessible bathroom facilities which of which we need are all across the city in reality and other urgently needed community amenities and it will be a gem for the community as I've said repeatedly last year.

My office has proudly worked for the Garfield Superblock alongside Central District community members.

Last year, we met with the activists multiple times.

My office launched a community petition that garnered over 600 signatures.

We sent four mass emails encouraging people to speak in public comment, and I thank all the people who did, and explaining why the GSB would be a wonderful project for the Central District community.

I also personally had the opportunity to speak at a GSB event outside the Garfield Community Center last summer, while community organizers from my office talked to community members about getting actively involved in the push for GSB funding.

Last year, the People's Budget Campaign from my office and many activist communities across the city won pre-development funding for the Garfield Superblock to prepare the designs for the project.

Thanks to all the People's Budget activists and I would like to make a motion to approve the amendment.

I would like to make a motion to approve the amendment.

As I've explained in the past, the capitalist system and the politicians who uphold this unjust system pit working class communities against each other, robbing Peter to pay Paul, forcing working people and communities to compete over inadequate funds.

Let's also not forget that the funds in this case, a property tax levy, are being raised through regressive property taxes, which disproportionately targets some of the same working people, and in reality targets the lowest income people the most.

and this is in a city with some of the world's wealthiest people and corporations.

I am very happy to advocate for funding for the play area at Mara Desmond Park and the Garfield Superblock and really all the extremely worthy and necessary projects that we need all across the city, especially to serve our most marginalized communities.

At the same time, I think it's extremely important and my office thinks it's extremely important to continue to fight for adequate funding for every such project across the city.

This $3 million fund will not be enough to fully fund these projects, never mind all the equitable projects that are needed across the city.

Ultimately, this shows that we need to expand the Amazon tax working people won in 2020 to adequately fund all our neighborhoods, not to mention affordable housing that's publicly owned.

And I urge all council members to vote yes on a budget amendment that I will be bringing forward from the people's budget this fall.

But for now, I support this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, board members who want.

Board member Peterson.

Thank you, Board President Lewis.

These 11 newer amendments generated a practical question on whether council members may abstain on amendments to a resolution, and the answer is yes, according to Rule 5A, since we basically, the Parks District adopts the rules of a full council, so I confer with the City Clerk and Council President on this.

The reason I bring it up is that So I'm consistent with my vote on the final amended bill.

I may be abstaining from some of these amendments that specify funding amounts.

Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Peterson.

I do not see any additional comments.

So, Board Member Herbold, would you like to give the closing remarks on the amendment before we call for a vote?

I have no closing remarks, but I do urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, the amendment has been moved and seconded, so I think all that's left is to ask the clerks to call the roll on Amendment 1A to Resolution 51.

Board Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Aye.

Board Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment does pass and is incorporated into Resolution 51. Central staff, will you please walk us through amendment two?

I will.

Amendment number two, again sponsored by Council Member Herbold, would modify resolution 51 to add a statement of intent indicating the Park District intends that funding allocated for accessibility barrier removal may be used to purchase and install hearing loops in park facilities.

Thank you.

I move Amendment 2 to Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

It has been moved and seconded.

Council Member Herbold, or Board Member Herbold, please speak to your amendment.

Thank you so much.

As I've mentioned previously, hearing loops are a type of assisted listening system that transmits sound directly to a listener.

The Commission for People with Disabilities has long advocated for increasing access to public meetings and public accommodations for people with disabilities.

We have worked here on the council to add hearing loops here to our council chambers, as well as to the boards and commissions rooms downstairs.

Advocates continue to remind me that our community centers also have public meeting rooms.

which could be made much more accessible if hearing loops were available.

This is a simple amendment to ensure that park district funds dedicated to accessibility may be used to purchase and install hearing loops in parks facilities.

It does not require any specific expenditure.

This step is necessary because hearing loops are not currently included on the citywide barrier removal schedule.

We should get on that, but in the interim, an amendment like this will permit for funds to be used for this purpose.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any comments on the proposed amendment?

Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 2?

Board Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Aye.

Board Member Peterson?

Aye.

Board Member Sawant?

Yes.

Board Member Strauss?

Yes.

Board Member Herbold?

Yes.

Board Member Juarez?

Aye.

Board Member Morales?

Yes.

And Board President Lewis?

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

All right, that amendment passes and will be incorporated into Resolution 51. Will central staff please queue up Amendment 3?

Moving on to amendment number three, sponsor is Council Member Morales.

The first part of the amendment would add $202,000 in 2023 and $2,002,000 in 2024 to the attachment one six-year spending plan.

This funding would be used for a protected path on SPR's property that can accommodate people using mobility devices, riding bicycles, and walking along Lake Washington Boulevard from Mount Baker Beach to Seward Park.

In addition, the second portion of this amendment would modify Resolution 51 to impose a spending restriction of these funds.

Thank you, Tracy.

I move Amendment 3 to Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Board Member Morales, please speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Board President Lewis.

Well, as we're talking about disabilities especially, I think it's important to note we heard last week from Disability Rights Washington during their week without driving that one in four people in our community cannot drive.

So that includes children and elders and people who can't afford the cost of owning a car.

and people with disabilities that prevent them from being able to drive.

So these are folks who don't have access to most of the almost 4,000 miles of street in Seattle, including the three miles on Lake Washington Boulevard.

So this funding will help allow all users to enjoy the boulevard.

And this is really building, so this property is built on Parks property.

The boulevard is built on Parks property.

And this is a follow-up to the budget item that we got in last year's budget to do equitable community outreach and visioning for Lake Washington Boulevard.

The idea really is for this funding to be used to construct the option that's chosen through that process, which is in place right now.

and lake washington boulevard will look different in the future.

this money ensures that all people will be able to use the boulevard safely regardless of their age or ability or the mobility options and from what we have seen in the options that are provided will also allow folks to drive down the boulevard.

So this isn't, the intent here isn't to exclude anyone.

It really is to make sure that people who can't drive also can use the boulevard and do so safely.

I do want to thank my staff, Devin Silverdale, who's been working closely with community advocates and with SDOT to make sure that this process continues.

Thank you, Board Member Morales.

Are there any comments on the proposed amendment?

Okay, I don't see any.

Thank you, Board Member Morales, for bringing this forward.

We know there's been a lot of public safety concerns for people who are walking and rolling through this corridor that this critical public safety investment can help to make sure that this is a safer corridor in our city.

Board Member Nelson.

Thank you very much.

I really like this project, but I'll be voting against this amendment as well as five and six for the same reason, so I'll just state my reason for all three.

So voters approved the formation of this new taxing authority, the Municipal Park District, in 2014 before the change to district elections.

And that change to district elections set up a dynamic that's reflected here and throughout our deliberations on this package.

which kind of changed the way we make decisions that weren't foreseen when the district was approved.

So instead of nine council members having to consider the benefits and opportunity costs of funding projects across the city, district representatives are very rightly focused on advocating for investments that directly benefit their constituents.

And as a citywide council member, I don't have a district to bring projects home to, but I do have to consider constituents across the city that really want to see fairness and equity as we determine our investments.

So from the map, I don't know if you can't really see this, from the map that was distributed of past projects, pre-committed projects, and the new projects, it does seem as though geographic equity is really central to our planning.

I'm already concerned about the size of this package, and I don't really want to add another project that, anyway, I don't want to add to that in this project, nor do I want to put some projects in the front of the line without input from parks and the department on how they stack up against other priority projects.

So I'll just be, you know, Saying no to this, it's no reflection of the importance of these projects.

I just feel like we need to keep some flexibility available to us because we don't know the costs of these projects in the future with inflation and because we haven't done detailed design and engineering on them.

So I just want to preserve some flexibility for those needs in the future.

Thanks.

Thank you, Board Member Nelson.

Board Member Morales, I don't see any additional comments.

Do you want to have the last word?

Oh, my apologies, Board Member Juarez.

Yes, I'm sorry, I kind of got, I thought it was, oops, I apologize.

I just want to make a comment to Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Nelson, all due respect, and I do have tremendous respect for you, as well as Council Member Esqueda, being elected citywide.

However, I think every district representative here tries to honor the needs of their district, but represent the city, as you do, citywide.

That's why there's nine of us.

That's why we also do that in our city and county and other committee assignments.

I think it's a bit unfortunate, but obviously it's your vote to vote no on items 3, 4, 5, 6, 3, 4, 5, and 6. But I just think it's really important to point out that again, We do try to honor the needs of our district, but my vote weighs just as much as your vote, which weighs just as much as Council Member Mosqueda's or any other council member.

So I wouldn't necessarily agree with your statement that you don't have a district.

That's why we have seven districts in which we talk to you and Council Member Mosqueda about what we think some of our interests are citywide.

But at the end of the day, all nine of us represent the city of Seattle.

and the Metropolitan Park District and what the voters wanted when they passed this in 2014 and under now Council Member Lewis's leadership, I think has done a pretty good job of addressing what those needs are for these particular funds.

This second six-year cycle, which was not easy to do because COVID shut a lot of things down.

With that, I will be supporting this amendment and probably the rest of them.

Thank you.

Is that an old hand, board member Nelson?

Okay.

Board member Morales, do you want to close out your amendment here and we can go to a vote?

Sure.

I don't have anything more to add except that I do think it is important for us to contemplate as we're looking at this entire budget processes that we are considering the notion of targeted universalism.

which is that those areas, those people in our community, our neighbors who have been the least invested in for generations, do get some prioritization as we're starting to move forward.

That's how we start to shift culture in the city.

That's how we start to repair the harm done to some of these communities.

And I certainly think that I am meager for my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Morales.

Always good to vote on critical public safety infrastructure.

So, Clerk, will you please call the roll on the amendment?

Board Member Musqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Nay.

Board Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Board Member Sawant?

Yes.

Board Member Strauss?

Yes.

Board Member Herbold?

Yes.

Board Member Juarez?

Aye.

Board Member Morales?

Yes.

And Board President Lewis?

Yes.

That is seven in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

Thank you.

The amendment passes and is incorporated into Resolution 51. Central staff, will you please give us the overview here on Amendment 4?

Oh, amendment number four, sponsored by board member Morales, would modify attachment one to add $50,000 in 2023 for the installation of buoys in Andrews Bay.

In addition, it would modify resolution 51 to impose a spending restriction.

Thank you.

I move amendment four to resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Council Member, or Board Member Morales, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Yes, thank you.

Colleagues, I'm sure we've all heard of the work that has been happening at Andrews Bay.

My office has been working with the Boating Association, with community members for the last couple of years to try to address boating and recreational safety in Andrews Bay.

As you may know, it is the only place on Lake Washington where people are allowed to drop anchor overnight.

And so this creates very crowded conditions in the summertime.

It's fun to hear folks having a good time in the summer, but we have over the last couple of years received lots of complaints related to noise related to concerns about unsafe recreation.

And we do have multiple drownings in the area every year, as well as erosion to the shoreline.

So this is a modest investment in buoys and signage that would provide rules and guidance to those who are using the waterway.

This idea actually came from the Recreational Boating Association when they invited me to go out on the bay with them last summer and talk to boaters.

So I do want to note, so that is the request here is to invest in some buoys that are a little bit bigger, that offer a little bit better signage so people understand what some of the rules are.

I do want to note that due to labor issues, while the buoys are parks, Harbor Patrol must install the buoys.

And so we will be, my office will be working to address the funding for installation during the upcoming budget deliberations.

I want to give huge thanks to Tracy, to Alexis Turla and my staff who have been in regular communication with folks about how we can move forward here.

Thank you.

Thank you, board member Morales.

Are there any comments from board members?

Seeing none, let's go ahead and call the vote on the amendment.

Board Member Musqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Aye.

Board Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Board Member Sawant?

Yes.

Board Member Strauss?

Yes.

Board Member Herbold?

Yes.

Board Member Juarez?

Yes.

Board Member Morales?

Yes.

Board Member Lewis?

Yes.

Eight in favor.

None opposed.

Thank you.

And that amendment passes and it will be adopted into Resolution 51. Central staff, will you please read Amendment 5 into the record and give us the overview.

Amendment number five is sponsored by board member Morales.

It would modify attachment one to add $200,000 in 2023 for the design and non-construction improvements at Kubota Gardens.

It would also modify resolution 51 to impose a spending restriction.

Thank you.

I will move amendment five to resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Having been moved and seconded, the amendment is in front of the board.

Council Member Morales, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you.

As Tracy mentioned, the current design process here was partially funded in the major parks major projects challenge fund in the first parks district funding cycle.

The balance of permitting and construction documents and the construction itself is not funded, but does include the gathering plaza that's outside the entry gate of Kubota Garden.

And if you haven't been to Kubota Garden, please come down to the south end and check it out.

It's absolutely stunning.

So this is to help with the gathering plaza outside and the Ishigaki, which is a stone rampart retaining wall at the south end of a parking lot that they are trying to expand.

The project does address some stormwater improvements that are needed to improve water quality in Mapes Creek and the ponds of Kubota Garden, and some improvements to security and ADA accessibility.

So that is what we're trying to do and look forward to my colleagues support for this amendment.

Thank you, Board Member Morales, Board Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, just wanted to take this moment to thank you, Council Member Morales, for bringing this amendment forward.

As per Council President's words just now, we have to also be serving the entire city, and while Cabooda Gardens, it oftentimes takes me a faster amount of time to get to Everett from my home than to the gardens.

This is a completely unique park for our city and the improvements that you're discussing really are not only important, they're critical for the park maintaining the important cultural and just environmental benefits that it provides our city and I just wanted to take this moment to thank you for doing that.

I'm going to be supporting you in this full-heartedly.

Any additional remarks from board members Okay, seeing none, Madam Clerk, let's go ahead and call the roll on the amendment.

Board Member Musqueda.

Aye.

Board Member Nelson.

Nay.

Board Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Seven in favor, one opposed, and one abstained.

All right, the amendment passes and it will be incorporated into Resolution 51. Central staff, will you please queue up Resolution, or Amendment 6 to Resolution 51?

Moving to amendment number six, sponsored by board member Strauss.

This amendment would modify resolution 51 to add a spending restriction requiring funding of up to $2 million of the bathroom renovation funding to be used to fund renovations of the Gilman Field bathroom and the Salmon Bay bathroom.

Thank you.

I will move Amendment 6 to Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, moved and seconded.

Board Member Strauss, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

The mayor's proposal for the Metropolitan Parks District included about 24 restroom renovations or replacements.

Council Member Lewis added another four, totaling about 28 restroom renovations over six years.

This far exceeds the 10 potential early project candidates identified by the BPRC.

Amendment six simply allocates funding for two out of those 29 bathrooms, restrooms.

And folks, I guess I'll be candid, and I have to say these bathrooms were already old when I was in elementary school and played Ballard Little League at Gilman Field.

We all know conditions have not gotten better since then.

Gilman Field's restrooms are in a brick building.

The interiors are in deep need of renovation.

And that's better than salmon Bayfield, which is a cinder block building with concrete filled in in between and.

I will spare you the visual image of inside the restroom.

So with that, these restrooms are in serious need of renovation.

I'm not saying these restrooms need attention over others or other places in the city.

I'm just saying that these restrooms need the attention.

We have the room in this plan to do so as we have more funding than restrooms identified.

This amendment lists up to two million dollars in an overemphasis of caution because previous experiences with unexpected escalating costs and I'm hoping that it's not going to cost that much.

Chair, those are my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Strauss.

I can personally speak to the Salmon Bay Comfort Station.

Similarly, I went to elementary and middle school at Salmon Bay in the Ballard neighborhood, and a lot of the programming that we did growing up at that school took place at Salmon Bay.

And yes, I can also attest that decades ago the condition of the Salmon Bay comfort station was much the same it is today, and I know that that comfort station is frequently closed and not well maintained, so I can speak to that same need.

I would note, Board Member Strauss, we are both about the same age as the current average replacement or renovation for comfort stations, so So maybe they had been renovated right around when we were born for the first time.

So it's time for us to catch up with this and I support your amendment.

Board member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

And thanks to the board member, the prime sponsor, board member Strauss.

I also will be supporting this amendment.

I want to lift up the why here.

I understand the intent is to lift up the need for bathroom renovations.

And this is specific to one district.

I also agree that all of us, but especially citywide, we do need to continue to apply a equity lens across our city to make sure that the conversations that we're using about renewal and the parks levy not only increase equity, but address past inequities within our systems, within many of the districts around the city, and to make sure that our parks investments help address those past inequities.

So again, I want to thank the sponsor for providing information to my office for your work with Aaron house in our team to make sure we understand the impact of this amendment on available funding for other potential bathroom renovations and projects across the city, particularly in neighborhoods that have been historically underserved.

Given the information that we received, I will be supporting this amendment because I think it continues to allow for us to invest citywide and other bathrooms as well.

I believe central staff helped clarify with our office that the amendment leaves funding for the 10 identified projects intact and does not impact other renovation projects that may be needed.

I'm pleased with the answer.

And overall, I just want to thank the board president for adding and really emphasizing the support for robust funding for bathroom renovations.

As the council members have noted, this package includes weatherization, winterization, and cleaning funding to ensure that all 129 bathrooms within the park system are open year round, which we know is currently, thanks to Erica C. Barnett's reporting, that only about half of those bathrooms are currently open year round.

I look forward to what we can do here and in the upcoming budget to make sure that more people around our city, whether or not they're visiting or residence, house or unhoused, that people have the ability to go to the bathroom when needed and wash their hands, especially in the midst of a pandemic with other communicable diseases as well on the rise in our community.

So thanks for the real focus here on health and sanitation.

Thank you, Board Member Mosqueda.

With that, I'm not seeing any other board members wanting to weigh in on this amendment, so will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment?

Board Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Nay.

Board Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Board Member Sawant?

Yes.

Board Member Strauss?

Yes.

Board Member Herbold?

Yes.

Board Member Juarez?

Aye.

Board Member Morales?

Yes.

And Board President Lewis?

Yes.

Seven in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

The amendment passes and will be incorporated into Resolution 51. Will central staff please give the overview for Amendment 7?

Moving to amendment number seven sponsored by board member Council Strauss, it would modify resolution 51 to add a statement of intent, recognizing the Green Lake Community Center expansion and rebuild has been in planning since 2016. and that renovations completed during cycle one of Park District have not met the needs of the building and indicating the Park District's intent that the funding included in the cycle two funding plan will be used for an expansion or rebuild of this community center in combination with other allocated funding, understanding that further analysis is needed to assess the total cost of the project.

Thank you for queuing that up, Tracy.

I will move Amendment 7 to Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Board Member Strauss, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you, Chair Lewis.

Candidly speaking, this package has put a fair amount of money in the budget for Green Lake Community Center and Green Lake is as heard in public testimony and I'll say again today it is the most heavily used park in Seattle and possibly the region.

The replacement of the community center has been discussed for a very long time.

The most recent conversation was it was considered to be replaced during cycle one of the Metropolitan Parks District and instead the decision to renovate the building was made at that time.

The renovations were completed.

These renovations have not met the needs of the community center.

And that's not because the renovations aren't good.

That's not because the renovations weren't done to the best standards possible.

It is because the building is that old.

At this time, we need a replacement or, excuse me, a replacement or expansion of the community center.

During the Metropolitan Parks District process, there was a public discussion from the Parks Department that we only have enough money for a renovation.

What I discovered during this process is that we do not know the total costs needed for a replacement.

And $60 million is a lot of money.

Rainier Beach Community Center was replaced for $35 million.

And I understand that Green Lake Community Center has unique challenges as it is built on unstable soil because to create Green Lake as a park, the level of the lake was lowered and the community center was built on that former lake bed.

And I know that there's aspects of the building that are historically designated.

And quite frankly, the building is just very, very old.

What I do know at this time is that renovating the community center is not fiscally responsible.

We need to receive a total cost of a replacement or expansion project.

And if the total cost is more than $60 million, we will find the funding sources for that Delta.

The amendment before you today really highlights the fact that if we continue to renovate this community center, we will be throwing good money after bad.

We've had the discussions of renovations before we have done those renovations, and they have not met the needs of the community center, they've not met the needs of the building or the community that surrounds it.

And we've heard from public testimony today about the growth that is happening at the community center.

The fact that this community center is centrally located in the North End, it is the crossroads from District 5, District 4, District 6, and heck, I bet you people from District 7 even come up here too.

So all that to say, the amendment today before you highlights the important decision we have to make today that we need to replace or expand the community center.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Board Member Strauss, and I do appreciate you bringing this forward.

definitely want to do a lot of work on getting comprehensive funding for a rebuild or expansion of the Green Lake Community Center and I had a great conversation with our Office of Intergovernmental Relations federal folks as a follow-up to their presentation the other day and specifically mentioned this project as a promising lead for federal infrastructure money and I'm happy to work with you on building that regional coalition around this that is envisioned by this amendment.

So I'm happy to support this today.

Board member Nelson.

I want to thank you board member Strauss, because you have been dogged and consistent on, on, on, on wanting a rebuild.

And that's the right thing to do.

This is a pre commitment project.

And we do know that renovations of old buildings often cost more than rebuild.

So I will be supporting this in the in the following one.

Okay, any other board members?

All right, thank you so much.

Will the clerk please call the roll on amendment seven.

Board member Musqueda.

Aye.

Board member Nelson.

Aye.

Board member Peterson.

Aye.

Board member Sawant.

Yes.

Board member Strauss.

Yes.

Board member Herbold.

Yes.

Board member Juarez.

Aye.

Board member Morales.

Yes.

And board president Lewis.

Yes.

Nine in favor and none opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment passes and will be incorporated into resolution 51. Central staff, will you please queue up amendment number eight?

So this one also is sponsored by board member Strauss.

It would modify resolution 51 and specifically modify an existing statement of intent which deals with the decarbonization of community centers.

it would state that it was recognized that the commitment projects, including Loyal Heights Community Center, Green Lake Community Center expansion or rebuild, and Lake City Community Center will all be fossil fuel-free facilities when completed, and that those community centers would count towards the goal of half of SPR's community centers being decarbonized by the end of 2028.

Thank you, Tracy.

I will move Amendment 8 to Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, been moved and seconded.

Board Member Strauss, will you please speak to your amendment?

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment is very simple in nature.

We've heard the importance of creating climate-resilient hubs through the Healthy Through Heat and Smoke campaigns.

This amendment simply states that our remodeled or replaced community centers also adhere to these climate-resilient performance standards.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, yeah, and I'm happy to support this amendment.

I think it, in a sense, it's part of our accountability metrics that we're including to just be as specific as possible.

So I am happy to support this and appreciate the sponsorship.

Are there any other board member comments on the amendment?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of amendment eight?

Board member Mosqueda.

Board Member Nelson.

Aye.

Board Member Peterson.

Aye.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment passes and is incorporated into Resolution 51. Will Central staff please queue up Amendment 9?

And at number nine, sponsored by President Lewis, it would modify Resolution 51 to add an additional request that the city do a performance audit on the replacement or renovation of playgrounds, community centers, comfort stations, off-leash areas, wading pools, and swimming pools, and to measure SPR's progress in completing such replacements or renovations consistent with national best practices and timelines for such replacements or renovations.

Thank you, Tracy.

I will move Amendment 9. Is there a second?

Second.

and moved and seconded, and I will briefly speak to this.

So in the Metropolitan Park District the other day, we talked about adoption of performance metrics with Seattle Parks and Recreation.

One of the things we really drilled into was identifying what the national best practice standard is to replace a given piece of equipment or a capital facility, and then you know, what is the current timeline or expectation that Seattle Parks and Rec has to replace that particular piece of infrastructure.

Throughout the course of the Metropolitan Park District, there's been a number of things where we have heard what the national expectation is and what our current practice is and in many cases we are off the mark but we are getting closer with the investments we're making through the NPD to realize that standard.

So I thought from reviewing with central staff and having discussion.

So if we.

Discussed that an open session.

It would be another good area to add to our list of requested performance audits to continue to assess.

progress that we're making as a city in meeting or exceeding the replacement timelines for some of these pieces of infrastructure, large and On the amendment, I don't see any.

So, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 9?

Board Member Mosqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Aye.

Board Member Peterson.

Aye.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you.

The amendment is adopted and incorporated into Resolution 51. Central staff, will you please queue up Amendment 10. Tracy, you might be muted.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you, Council President.

So the next one is, the next amendment is sponsored by Board Member Muscata, and it would modify Resolution 51 to add a couple of different reporting requirements.

So the first set of reporting requirements, which both relate to the Park Ranger Program, would request Seattle Parks and Rec to provide information on the recruitment strategy for hiring the new park rangers that are gonna be funded with the MPD funding.

to include information regarding the specific duties of the park rangers, and also a description of the training protocols that will be used for new park rangers and parks and rec is requested to submit this information by January 30 of 2023. The second part of this amendment would require SPR to provide quarterly reports beginning April 1, 2023 on the Park Ranger program, including but not limited to the following information.

The number of verbal warnings issued and reasons for issuance of warnings, the number of written warnings or citations issued and reasons for issuance of written warnings or citations, and the number that led to a criminal trespass arrest.

update on the number of park rangers hired and locations where park rangers are being deployed.

Thank you, Tracy.

I will move amendment 10.

Second.

Moved and seconded.

Board member Mosqueda, would you like to speak to your amendment?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I want to thank the members of the community who have suggested that we need additional information to better understand the growing role of Rangers.

I want to also thank Local 242 for their support for the language that allows for us all to have a better picture of what Rangers will be doing.

I think that this is really an important effort that we are putting forward in this amendment to make sure that we're incorporating that community and labor feedback, that we have heard this request, and I want to thank them for their support for this approach.

The amendment that we're proposing from my office is coming forward because we've spent a lot of time over the last few weeks trying to get a better understanding of what the limitations are on Rangers.

I want to thank board member Herbold, who in committee at about two hours and 35 minutes into a meeting two weeks ago, really spent a lot of time explaining how the current policy came to be.

We've heard a lot from central staff as well over the last few weeks about what rangers won't be doing.

The community question still remains about how these new now total 28 rangers, what they will be doing in their limited downtown geographic area.

So in talking with central staff, with President Lewis, and thanks again to Public Safety Chair Herbold for elaborating on what the past and current practices are.

I think we now have a better understanding of what the limited capacity rangers are, but also I have a better understanding of what we as Park District Board members can do in this moment versus what we can do wearing our City Council hat.

So I look forward to working with parks and recreation to provide additional details.

This says including but not limited in its language.

And we're going to flesh out a little bit more about what the metrics could be in partnership with community, labor, and Seattle Parks and Recreation.

In terms of what we've heard from central staff about what rangers won't be doing, I think it's important to lift up a few pieces of information that we've heard from central staff.

Notably, and I quote, the SPR staff who are involved in encampment cleanups are funded entirely with general fund.

This is a specialized crew that is involved in this effort, not general Seattle Parks and Recreation's maintenance workers.

The Metropolitan Parks District proposed funding for bathroom and park cleaning is for bathroom cleanings and general park litter and garbage, et cetera.

This is entirely separate from general fund that the other city budget funds.

Additionally, and I quote, park rangers are funded with park district funds and they do not participate in encampment removals.

I want to thank Councilmember and Board President here, Councilmember Lewis, for the language that they've included in Resolution 51, which notes now explicitly, no park district funds will be used for park rangers to participate in the work of removing encampments.

This is very helpful in addition to the language that's in section 33.2 of the interlocal agreement related to park employees.

Nothing in this section affects the authority of the city to implement projects, programs, or services funded by the Seattle Park District as it deems appropriate.

So there's additional work for us to do as City Council members, but today as Park District Board members, this is a great opportunity for us to include a request for regular quarterly reports and outside of these meetings to work in partnership with folks who've been working on this issue for a very long time and community and labor.

I would like to make sure that we continue to evolve the language here so that we are I'm looking forward to working with parks to get regular reports the language that we have to ensure voluntary compliance with park rules and what activities rangers are participating in since we now know, and it's codified here, that rangers will not be participating in sweeps or referring people for arrest based on trespasser warnings, as clarified by central staff.

So we obviously have a lot more work to do as city council members around the issues of sweeps.

We obviously have seen some very problematic behavior that the community has lifted up on behalf of one employee.

I am I am glad to know that we have specific sideboards on what rangers do and that the problematic activity on behalf of one employee was indeed not a park ranger.

But the underlying issue still remains for us as city council members wearing a hat outside of this meeting, that we have seen footage and we have seen reports and we have heard testimony that destruction of property continues to happen despite a policy that does not allow for that from the encampment team.

We have heard concerns about language that's been used towards community members.

And even if this person is not a park ranger, which they are not, we should not be accepting that behavior on behalf of anybody who's representing the city.

Again, I want to underscore the importance of us having a conversation that is outside of parks board meetings, since this is not specific to any encampment cleaning efforts.

But our unhoused neighbors, the folks who work with folks know how important it is for medications and ID cards to be preserved.

And as we've heard from our team at just cares, what may appear to trash what may appear as trash to someone can be an essential item to someone who especially has behavioral health challenges.

So this issue will continue to be addressed.

I'm comforted.

that in the short term, we have been assured that these cleaners funded through the levy will have no presence at or immediately following any of the suites and that there is going to be a dedicated and separately trained clean team.

I understand we are limited in our capacity today as board members and as a council member, I look forward to working with All of you with community and labor to make sure that we're continuing to monitor the growing work of Rangers and to help make sure that this is a referral system that can help get folks in need into care, and that we have a coordinated system for for for litter and additional needs within the parks that these.

I want to emphasize the importance of doing this in support with community and labor and really appreciate that.

Separately, I also had a conversation with the mayor about my concern that these new Rangers should not be coming from a pool of applicants, for example, within police or corrections.

And I really appreciate that.

The mayor has articulated a vision.

of trying to promote hiring from within community, looking at community hiring approach.

I know that that's something that our labor partners have actively supported in the past for community hire.

So with our council colleagues and with the exec, I look forward to supporting that vision of how hiring can happen.

Thank you.

Thanks again to the board president for allowing me to add this potential amendment here with our colleagues support and to public safety chair for all of the work that she has done in the past and to really try to articulate the limitations that are currently in place, recognizing much more conversations would need to be done about the to be able to work with the community members of local 242, my council colleagues, and all of you in trying to find out how we can get additional information and data metrics on these additional staff members as we seek to answer and respond to some of the concerns we've heard.

Thanks to Melanie Cray in my office for her work on this effort over the last few weeks, along with Tracy Rasliff on central staff.

Thank you.

Thank you board member mosquito I'm going to make a few comments and then hand it over to board member her bold, and then go down the list accordingly if any other board members seeking to be recognized.

I am happy to support this amendment.

I like data reporting I like transparency.

I like the check-in timeline that's indicated here and our ability to, over time, consult with the ranger program to modify, advise, and consent as needed in our partnership with the department.

I just want to clarify a couple of things because there's been confusion from multiple different perspectives in the community, so I just want to clarify a couple of things that are important.

On the one hand, rangers are not involved in sweeps, have not been involved in sweeps, they're not trained to do removal work, encampment outreach work.

That is not the purpose for the ranger program and it never has been.

That has led to some confusion also from other folks in the community who have read some of the things in this resolution as hamstringing or a policy shift toward the Rangers.

And I just want to clarify, there is no change in policy that's reflected in what we're bringing forward today.

And maybe Board Member Herbold will speak to this.

And Board Member Herbold did speak a few weeks ago laying out the history that led to a meeting of minds in 2012 that came up with the current and in practice standing policy of how the ranger program operates, which emphasize outreach, diplomatic presence, seeking to get compliance with park rules in non-coercive ways, just through education and outreach and being a friendly and physical presence in a park.

And that has been the role and the purpose of the park rangers.

That does not mean, to be clear, that the Herald Administration's policy, or indeed the City of Seattle's general policy on resolutions of encampments and parks, is not going to sometimes result in removals.

But that process occurs through the MDARs, which we're all very familiar with, the multi-departmental administrative rules.

There are special teams of people who do encampment resolution work in compliance with certain laws and regulations and practices that rangers are not trained to participate in.

And that's a whole discussion that we will have through the budget process.

But I just wanna clarify to all members of the community what the lay of the land is. that is not the intention of Rangers to be an addendum or a part of that process.

They never have been, they aren't intended to be.

It is a separate body of work done by a separate group of people.

And it is work that is ongoing and your perspective will be different on that based on how you are engaging with this issue.

But I'm just providing information to clarify confusion in the community and to queue up a discussion that we are no doubt going to have in the budget process.

So I just wanted to take a moment to do that today in open session.

I would also just as one last thing say part of what was really instructive for me to answer a lot of my questions that I've had and I've had very similar questions months in advance when we were working on this initially with the department and the mayor's office, very similar questions that have been raised by folks in community about the Rangers.

And what was really instructive to answer those was to go on a ride along with one of our current Rangers for an entire morning with a member of my staff, Camilla Brown and I, in early August.

and I would I would say that that is something that any council A ride along with a ranger I think can be very instructive to see the utility and the role that they play, and also have an ability to ask very practical on hand questions about their day to day, things that they would like to be doing, and things that they currently do as part of their duties so.

I would just give a plug for that if people are interested.

It was a really good experience and I do want to do a shout out to Ranger Sandy.

Really appreciate the day that you spent with Camila and I and look forward to being able to do more of that work.

So with that, I'm going to recognize board member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

Just a couple of quick words.

to say I appreciate this amendment.

My office, like many of our offices, have been in contact with advocates who have had questions about the Parks Ranger program and this particular expansion.

And I think it's very useful to bring more daylight to a program that is scheduled for a significant expansion via the Park District funding.

As mentioned by both Board President Lewis and Board Member Mosqueda, we have included language in Resolution 51 in a previous discussion at the urging of advocates to ensure that Rangers will not participate in removing encampments moving forward.

and will only use their enforcement authority as they have been doing since 2012, consistent with the parks policy regarding the Parks Trespass Warning.

Again, the parks policy itself constrains the parks rangers from using the full authority granted to it in the Parks Exclusion Ordinance, a Sidren-era ordinance and under the leadership of Christopher Williams in 2012, reaffirmed in 2016, and with the assistance of advocates and attorneys representing their clients.

They worked together to accomplish what some of us were working to accomplish legislatively in 1999 with amendments to the Parks Exclusion Ordinance.

This is a great example of fantastic work that has really produced an interface between the parks rangers and members of the public that is really focused on reducing harm.

I do understand that community members still have questions about what Rangers will do.

We've heard interest in ensuring that Rangers carry, for instance, naloxone, coordinate purple bags, and other programs safely dispose of sharps, all services that would benefit everyone using the parks without excluding some park users.

And this is the interest in what parks Rangers do and will do, leads me to have interest in sharing that in a recent response to a District 1 constituent writing to me to praise two Parks concierge workers, different than the Parks Rangers, but praising the concierge workers for successfully reversing an overdose with Narcan, Parks Department Liaison to Council Paula Hoff wrote to myself and to the constituent that Seattle Parks and Recreation is providing public-facing staff, concierges, lifeguards, rangers, et cetera, with Narcan Naloxone.

They can provide it to anyone who asks for it or is in distress and needs our staff to administer it.

The instructions are simple, making it easy for anyone to administer an emergency.

The Narcan products we use do not require special training.

And Park Rangers all receive crisis intervention, management of aggressive behaviors, and first aid training.

Additionally, many have mental health first aid training.

So I appreciate the opportunity to get more information and share it with the public about the work the Rangers are doing, but I think this is a snapshot into, in some cases, life-saving work that these public servants are doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Herbold.

Board Member Nelson.

So we're about to double the amount of money people are using are going to pay to use their park.

So we I think we should make sure that people feel safe using them.

And the Parks Department closed Golden Gardens and Alki Beach at an earlier hour last summer because of public safety concerns.

So clearly there are problems in parks that call for some sort of increased official presence.

Rangers also render assistance to people, NARCAN, wayfinding, et cetera.

We're not calling for reporting of the positive interactions if we really want to understand what they do.

And I don't want to call for that because that would be a lot of work.

So anyway, the whole premise of this amendment seems to be based on the idea that giving citations to people breaking the rules is bad.

And I think that sends the wrong message, so I'll be voting against it.

Thank you board member Nelson, a board member, let me see board member mosquito if there's anyone else that wants to be recognized and you can just close us out if that's the case and board member mosquito you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I think clarification is necessary here.

And, you know, of course, welcome central staff to add or to clarify anything.

What we have done here is identify a handful of metrics that we know we have at the ready and have included language to indicate that we are going to be working with Seattle parks.

on identifying additional metrics.

It says limited to, excuse me, including but not limited to the following metrics.

We've identified these ones because these are some of the key indicators that have numbers associated that can be reported on a quarterly basis.

But as I said, I have heard directly from community partners and in working with labor as well, that there is a a joint interest in lifting up some of the things that we hear park rangers will do.

The entire purpose of this amendment is to better understand what they will be doing since we've talked a lot about what they won't be doing.

So some of the specific examples that we had brainstormed but are beyond the scope of what we can include in the parks board district discussion is to work with the Seattle Parks Department wearing our City Council hat outside of these meetings to include additional metrics to make sure that, and as I said before, and I'll quote myself, that new park rangers are equipped to support harm reduction efforts, to provide referrals, to help problem solve litter and sanitation issues, And to have a better understanding of how they are helping individuals voluntarily comply with park rules.

These are the positive aspects that we had discussed with central staff, including additional metrics, but are truly beyond the sort of scope of what we could ask for in this document, because that needs to be discussed in detail with parks.

but is absolutely part of the conversation here.

We are going to be adding to this a better holistic view of those positive things that folks are interested in knowing if and how they are engaging in these efforts so that we can do things like harm reduction efforts, provide referrals, and problem solve litter and sanitation issues, among other items.

I'm going to call the roll on the adoption of the amendment.

Mister chair I spent a lot of time on this topic I know you're at the end of your amendments almost so I will hope that people will support this with obviously many more conversations to have come.

In the upcoming policy and budget deliberations that City Council will have outside of the parks board meeting.

Thank you board member will

Board Member Peterson.

Abstain.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Luez.

Yes.

Seven in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

Thank you.

The amendment passes and will be incorporated into Resolution 51. And we have one more amendment in front of us.

Will central staff please give us an overview of Amendment 11?

This is the final amendment to resolution 51. It is sponsored by board member Nelson.

It would modify an existing statement of intent essentially in the accountability measures section related to the Burke consultant recommendations to add some language related to the potential of requesting further work be done by Burke or another consultant regarding SPR's project delivery capacity and efficiency in delivering capital projects.

It also adds in a language just highlighting the process that the Council now has at the Park District obviously participates in which is a review of quarterly capital improvement projects in order to provide heightened oversight and review of of SPR's capital projects in addition to obviously that report applies to all city departments, but in particular, it will help us as it relates to the capital projects funded by the NPD and other fund sources.

Thank you.

I move Amendment 11 to Resolution 51. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, moved and seconded.

Board Member Nelson, please speak to your amendment.

Thank you.

So, Board President Lewis and I worked with central staff to clarify the original language and acknowledge the work that we're already doing to track capital projects, her resolution 3247 32047 and that's across all departments.

The original language in this resolution asked for an update on the progress of implementation of recommendations made by Burke to determine if further review is needed.

And this amendment explains that that work was suspended because of the pandemic and makes the specific request that SPR re-engage with Burke, in my opinion, because we've already invested in that body of work.

And the whole goal for me is to ensure, basically to give me more confidence that SPR will get the projects that we're paying for out the door this cycle, because we'll, and this work will give us a better understanding of maybe why some of the projects were difficult to implement beyond just the pandemic.

And this will help overall maintain the trust of the people who are counting on us to deliver.

Thank you, board member Nelson.

And I do appreciate this amendment and we'll be supporting it.

I think it clarifies and strengthens some of the language in the resolution.

And this is a great addition to our accountability language to make sure that these projects go from paper to reality and really appreciate you bringing this forward.

Are there any other comments on board member Nelson's amendment?

It looks good.

Okay, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of the amendment?

Board Member Mosqueda.

Aye.

Board Member Nelson.

Aye.

Board Member Peterson.

Aye.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Abstain.

Wait, I'm sorry, just kidding.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

yes and board president lewis yes nine in favor none opposed council president i wonder if that's the origin of our no abstention at full council rule

Yes, it is.

All right, well, the the amendment passes and is adopted and that was the the final amendment to be considered for the entire package.

So let's walk through the next steps.

So are there any comments now on the amended resolution that is before the city council or the poor sorry the metropolitan park district board council sitting as board commissioners council uh remember rather board member peterson uh you are recognized thank you board president lewis i definitely appreciate your skill eloquence and

I want to thank you for your patience, lots of patience and handling all the moving pieces with this fluctuating funding package and for providing ample time over the past few weeks for public input and colleagues as I've mentioned consistently throughout this process many of my constituents are concerned about city hall, doubling the parks district portion of their property taxes.

we're going to have to make a final remarks on the package.

We're going to have to make a final

Sure.

So we are going to do we're going to dispense with the resolution.

And the final, the most appropriate time for remarks as I've been informed by the clerks and going over the procedure today I'm sorry I should have said this at the front when I asked for comments on the resolution is, is they should make final comments.

on the MPD spend plan when we amend the clerk file, which will be in a couple more turns of the process.

So I apologize.

I kind of set you up there to start, but we'll hear your remarks soon enough.

So sorry, with that admonition, are there, are there any comments on the resolution?

Seeing no comments on the amended resolution, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amended resolution?

Board President Mosqueda.

Excuse me, Board Member Mosqueda, thank you.

Oh, I like that promotion.

I will still vote aye, Mr. President.

Board Member Nelson.

Aye.

Board Member Peterson.

No.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Vote aye.

Board Member Strauss.

Vote aye.

Yes.

Thank you.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the resolution is adopted as amended and the president will sign it.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

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

Agenda Item 2, Clerk File 1, Adopted Seattle Park District Board Funding Plan at the Initiative Level, including the Mayor's and Board of Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations for the Park District Six-Year Funding Plan at the Initiative Level for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to file Clerk File 1. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to file Clerk File 1. Board members, I have one amendment to this item.

I move to amend Clerk File 1 to include the adopted Seattle Park District Board's funding plan at the initiative level.

Is there a second?

Second.

Moved and seconded.

It has been moved and seconded to adopt Amendment 1. Before I make my remarks, can Tracy and Eric please walk us through the amendment?

Council Members Tables 1 and 2, which you have had in front of you for about a week now, display the initiative level of funding as you now have just amended with some of the actions today.

So it in fact will show your Park District decisions as it relates to the funding proposals, just as it will show in the clerk file already.

the recommendations of the Board of Parks and Recreation Commission and the mayor also at the initiative level of funding and we are doing this just so there is in fact a historical document that shows how all the various parties voted for the next secure spending plan at that initiative level of funding.

Thank you, Tracy.

Are there any questions for Tracy or Eric before we move to this final round of votes and then make our final statements on the spend plan?

Okay, seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment 1.

Board Member Musqueda?

Aye.

Board Member Nelson?

Aye.

Board Member Peterson?

No.

Board Member Sawant?

Yes.

Board Member Strauss?

Yes.

Board Member Herbold?

Yes.

Board Member Juarez?

Aye.

Board Member Morales?

Yes.

And Board President Lewis?

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

Are there any further comments on the amended clerk file?

And this is the time for everyone to make their big speech.

So I will just go ahead and get, get us started and just say at the top that it has been, great to work with Council Central staff, with Tracy and Eric over the last several months in putting this together, and also with our executive partners in the Herald Administration, Krista Vallier, Dan Eater, Adiem Emery, of course, Deputy Superintendent and now Acting Superintendent Christopher Williams, and all of his staff at Parks.

we really were able to come together, talk about a lot of different ideas, do a lot of outreach in partnership with the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners who submitted their first plan in the spring, which was then the launching pad for our process leading to Mayor Harrell announcing his proposal in late August and then a week ago today some final small adjustments to that plan from myself and then of course this amendment process today with board members present here making some final additions impacting investments, impacting policy, impacting the possibility of what we're going to be able to produce as a community through a second cycle to a cycle to spend plan of the Metropolitan Park District for the city of Seattle.

This plan in front of us, as I announced last Monday, with representatives from business, from labor, from the environmental community, from the nonprofit world, off-leash area advocates from West Seattle, a very large coalition of people really seeking to build our recovery coming out of COVID by reinvesting, reinvigorating, reactivating our parks and open spaces.

In Seattle, we love our parks.

We've loved them ever since working with the Olmstead Brothers to create an unprecedented and dynamic, internationally renowned system of parks and open spaces.

COVID has tested the resiliency of those spaces, and this is a plan to protect, preserve, and enhance those spaces for future generations to enjoy.

At the beginning of this, I said I wanted to have a Metropolitan Park District Board plan that is going to make our parks clean, safe, and open.

Over time, that was able to evolve to include additional terms to those critical investments to make sure those spaces are also accessible, to make sure that those spaces are green, not just in terms of the tree planting, the landscape, and the natural environment of our parks, but also making sure that the capital structures, making sure that our community centers, making sure that we are making the investments to put real tangible resources behind our commitment to decarbonize those centers by 2035, to make sure that we are making them hubs of climate resiliency putting the investments necessary.

So on days, literally like the day today that we are voting on this, where the city of Seattle's air quality is suffering from wildfire smoke.

We have places that can be a refuge in those times and places that are contributing towards our goal of being a carbon neutral sustainable city.

It's making sure that we are putting investments into our partnerships to activate spaces and lean into our partnerships with groups like the various friends of organizations for our parks like friends of Denny Park Discovery Park Cal Anderson Park.

It's making sure that we are building on activating the new marquee Seattle waterfront park which is going to be one of the defining open public spaces on the entire west coast of the United States.

It's making sure we're reinvigorating the presence of the city in our parks by having a robust and accountable and adequately resourced park ranger program to have a diplomatic presence in our park spaces to assist with park rules to make sure that there's wayfinding to make sure that there's outreach.

and to make sure that in worst case scenarios, there's someone who can administer life-saving measures like the application of Narcan to save someone perishing from a potential overdose.

It's making sure that we are reinvigorating our commitment to tree canopy, which we discussed for a portion of our full council meeting earlier this afternoon, to make sure that we don't have a net loss of trees in our parks over the course of the next six years to make sure that we are at least replacing tree for tree or that we are hopefully increasing.

our tree canopy and our developed parks.

These investments and many more are present in this package, and I really appreciate the partnership and work of the Harrell administration.

I greatly appreciate Mayor Harrell's support for this program that we are passing today, and I really look forward to moving on to the budget, where, as we know, The majority of the resources for our parks department reside and where I hope that we can build on these investments to make sure that the Metropolitan Park District priorities are also well supported as part of our budget deliberations.

and that we can build on this progress to make open spaces and park facilities in our city that are clean, green, and accessible to all.

So with that, I'm gonna open it up to board members for their remarks.

Board members wishing to be recognized, do please signal.

And Council Member Peterson, I'll put, or Board Member Peterson, I'll put you in line first since you started your remarks earlier.

And I apologize again for the false start, but looking forward to hearing your remarks and appreciate your, So, Board Member Peterson first.

Thank you, Board President Lewis.

Again, I appreciate your skill and eloquence and patience in handling all the moving pieces with this fluctuating funding package and for providing ample time over the past few weeks for public input.

Colleagues, as I've mentioned consistently throughout this process, many of my constituents are concerned about City Hall doubling the Parks District portion of their property taxes.

increases in property taxes, as we know, can be passed along to renters, and we have several additional property tax levies coming, such as increases for affordable housing, increases for transportation, increases for education, and an important new tax for mental health programs.

To support our parks, I certainly would have voted for a reasonable back-to-basics approach to sustain existing core programs, to fund new capital projects we've already promised, to upgrade and convert several community centers into climate-resilient hubs in the face of climate change, and to increase the number of park rangers to improve safety.

Those reasonable investments would have resulted in approximately a 50% increase or so, but not a 100% increase in this property tax.

The price tag for this parks tax is just too steep to earn my vote today when considering the cumulative impact of so many other tax increases for important programs on the horizon.

So I'll be voting no.

As we know, the parks district just provides 1 3rd of the total funding for our parks department.

So I look forward to working with you all to review the separate city budget proposal we received earlier today, which contains the other 2 3rds of funding for our parks.

Thank you.

Thank you board member Peterson.

Other board members wishing to be recognized?

Okay, seeing none.

Oh, board member Mosqueda.

Well, Mr. Chair, it would be out of character if I didn't thank you.

I want to thank you.

I was waiting for you, Council President.

Board President Lewis, I want to thank you for your stewardship of this process.

I'm excited about many of the elements in the levy renewal effort that we have in front of us.

I am very excited about the return on the investment that this package will deliver for our community in the midst of our efforts to try to recover from COVID in the midst of the pandemic that is ongoing.

Social cohesion could not be more important.

Investing in resiliency and equity of our city could not be more important.

And access to healthy spaces for outdoor play and activity is critical to improving the health of our city and the health of its residents.

The investments and support that you, the colleagues on council, the executive and the initial proposal, the community through your amendments, the investments that we are supporting today in both the physical and mental health of our community is embodied in what we are voting on by supporting the parks levy.

We are promoting and providing places for people to be active and relaxed.

We're creating place for habitat and local wildlife to to grow and to flourish.

We're protecting communities, communities who've been long harmed by past public policies that have divested from certain neighborhoods.

And we are investing in this package in front of us to prevent against heat waves and flooding.

I'm very excited that the proposal that we have put together today invests in the educational infrastructure by providing space for early learning and child care, for programming for youth and scholarship opportunities, and that this support will boost our local economy.

It will help activate spaces that's good for workers and for businesses.

It provides spaces for our small businesses to grow and thrive.

As we create denser living opportunities across our city, it will help create backyards for people in our public parks.

I'm very excited about overall the investment in good jobs as well.

I think this will promote jobs in the private sector as people continue to come here for more green spaces and places to live.

As climate refugees come here, as people come here for good jobs and to create new entrepreneurship opportunities, and the investments in this package itself create good union jobs.

I want to really highlight how this proposal invests in three specific areas that I think we can all walk away from and be proud.

This proposal invests in climate resilience, including funding to decarbonize our community centers, transitioning these buildings to green energy, including solar, and I want to thank my colleagues for the opportunity to work with you on some of those amendments.

Though our name was not associated, we know that this is an extension of our commitment to the Green New Deal investments that were embodied in Jump Start Seattle's progressive revenue, that this is a continuation of our city's commitment that while we are promoting density, we are also planting additional trees across the park system.

So thanks to the climate activists, folks from 350 Seattle for recognizing this as an opportunity in the levy, to the broad coalition of environmental justice advocates who called on us to expand on Green New Deal efforts.

And I'm particularly excited that this complements those Green New Deal investments that we just celebrated by signing into statute with Mayor Harreld through the Jumpstart Progressive Revenue payroll tax this week.

Secondly, this invest in equity funding.

The increased equity fund sets aside funding specifically for park projects that increase equity and provide funding to increase park access in communities that have been historically underinvested.

The funds support amazing projects like the one that we highlighted today, Garfield Superblock in the Central District, and so many more.

Ideas that came directly from community most harmed by divestment, most harmed by climate injustice, who are at the forefront of receiving funding in this proposal.

And finally, as I noted, when we were asked what our biggest priority was in the upcoming parks levy from a public health perspective, from a humanitarian perspective, from a perspective that wants to support workers, businesses, and visitors, we wanted to see all 120 bathrooms opened through this funding.

And I'm very excited, and thanks again to the President's support, We have enhanced funding for cleaning, maintaining and upgrading park bathrooms to get all 128 bathrooms open year round.

We cannot have a clean, accessible, healthy city without places for people to use the bathroom.

And as a mom of now a toddler who has learned to use the potty, having access to open, clean bathrooms is essential for working families.

just as it is essential for those who are traveling and visiting in here and those who are both housed and unhoused around our city.

According to the United Nations standard for public bathroom access, Seattle should have at least 224 public bathrooms to meet our needs of our population.

And that was in 2019. So we're making an important investment here to make sure that all of those 128 restrooms are open, and that we do our part to open the near half of the bathrooms that are currently closed that need upgrades.

So I'm very excited about this package.

Those three pieces are what I wanted to lift up, Mr. President.

And thanks again to Aaron House on my staff, Melanie Cray on my staff, and Sejal Parikh, Chief of Staff, along with Freddy de Cuevas for all of the work that's gone into this, but especially Aaron and Melanie for their dogged commitment to getting into the details with us over the last two weeks.

And to the President here, along with central staff, and the Parks Board of Recreations Commissioners and the City Parks Department and the Executive.

There's more to thank Mr. President as well as Council President, but I'll end there.

Thanks so much for pushing this package forward.

Thank you so much, Board Member Muscata.

Board Member Nelson.

Well, this is the hardest vote I have to take so far.

And even up to this morning, I was vacillating for three main reasons.

And board member Peterson already mentioned one of them, which is that this doubles the amount that people will already that will have to pay.

And I'm especially concerned about people that are already struggling with the cost of housing and that's homeowners and renters alike.

I just don't think that's what the voters had in mind when they voted for the parks district was doubling in the second cycle.

And some people say that, well, the average annual increase in cost from 155 to 343 in the first year isn't much when you spread it out over the course of a whole year.

But every single incremental increase we make and we add to people's property tax does matter.

Second, it shifts the cost of delivering a basic service to our residents.

Currently the parks district levy makes up 20% of the overall parks department budget and the city kicks in 80%.

This squeezes more out of our residents increasing their contribution to 30% in proportionately lowering the city's portion, and we don't really know yet, I don't, what kind of cuts the Parks Department is proposed to take in the mayor's budget.

And then finally, I've been questioning if it's realistic that the department will actually be able to spend all the money that we're giving in the first couple of years in this plan.

because it's hard to imagine that they'll be able to staff up all the new FTEs for the new initiatives and the expanded initiatives.

All right, so that's, those are my, those are the negatives.

All that said, parks are our commons.

They're a basic service and the people want their parks back.

So, you know, saying no to this package would mean saying no to cleaner and better bathrooms, no to fixing and maintaining facilities more regularly, no to completing promise projects, and no to feeling safer using the parks and community centers that we're paying for.

That's what people want.

And in fact, that's what I wanted to going into all of these deliberations, as presented in the meeting on July 25. So I have to say I would have liked a smaller package as described by board member Peterson, but that's not what we've got right now.

And the real kicker is that there was no organized opposition to this.

And so I feel that people really want this package.

And there are some safeguards in here for me around accountability.

We passed that amendment earlier.

Thank you all very much.

The language in Section 2B allows for, and I quote, considering, based on the report that we get every year, considering whether to amend the plan to reduce or reallocate total spending in light of underspend in the prior year.

That helps me.

Maybe it could fund the turfing of Judkins Park.

Also, I called for more detailed design and cost estimates before we actually put anything, before we issue bonds.

And that language is in section 1B subsection six.

So in the end, I am supporting this because I feel that this does deliver what people want to see in their parks right now.

And I'll continue to watch, and I will try to make sure that we are responsibly stewarding taxpayer resources.

But instead of saying no, I am saying yes to parks and yes to this resolution.

Thank you, Board Member Nelson.

Any other comments from board members?

Seeing no comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the filing of the amended clerk file?

Board Member Musqueda.

Aye.

Board Member Nelson.

Aye.

Board Member Peterson.

No.

Board Member Sawant.

Yes.

Board Member Strauss.

Votes yes.

Board Member Herbold.

Yes.

Board Member Juarez.

Aye.

Board Member Morales.

Yes.

And Board President Lewis.

Yes.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And with that, we're at the end of today's meeting of the Metropolitan Park District, and there's no further business before the Metropolitan Park District, so we will adjourn.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Park District Board is on October 17th at 5.30 p.m.

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.