Seattle Park District Board - Special Meeting 10/21/2026

Oh, I know what I can do.

I can make this go down.

Wow, that's the trick.

We're ready to go.

Oh, are we on?

Mm-hmm.

Oh.

We're on.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Today is a special meeting and a public hearing.

It's Wednesday, October 21st.

It is 2-10, and I am Deborah Juarez, President of the Board.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Board Member Foster.

Here.

Board Member Hollingsworth?

Present.

Board Member Kettle?

Here.

Board Member Lin?

Here.

Board Member Rink?

Board Member Rivera?

Board Member Sacca?

Here.

Board Member Strauss and Board President Juarez.

Here.

And for the record, Madam Clerk, Council Member Rink and Council Member Strauss are excused.

We have six present.

Six present.

So we have a quorum.

Thank you.

So with that, if there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is indeed adopted.

Moving on to approval of the minutes.

If there is no objection, the minutes of June 16th, 2026, Seattle Park District meeting will be approved.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the June 16th, 2026, Seattle Park District meeting minutes are approved.

Will the clerk please affix my signature to those minutes?

Before we go to the items of business, a quick overview of today.

We have two items.

We have no votes.

Item one is the Seattle Park District 2027 proposed budget, and we have a 10-page presentation.

We have our presenters, I'm sure who can also introduce themselves again, and I'll just say it for the record.

Michelle Finnegan interim superintendent and Amy Williams Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Item two as you know is a public hearing and that would be the public comment regarding the proposed Seattle Park District budget and budget legislation.

So just a quick note, this is our second to last meeting.

Our last meeting will be November 20th, 2026, which we will discuss and vote on four standard resolutions regarding the budget, the levy of taxes, and setting the Seattle Park District Board meetings dates for 2027. So with that, Madam Clerk, can you please read item one into the record?

Agenda Item 1, Seattle Park District 2027 Proposed Budget for Briefing and Discussion.

Thank you.

And let's have our friends from parks come on up.

I see Michelle.

Hey, Michelle.

Good to see you, Michelle Finnegan.

It looks like you'll be presenting today, and I will let all of you introduce yourselves, and then we'll go right into your presentation.

Thank you for having us today.

Michelle Finnegan, Interim Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Amy Williams, SPR Policy and Finance.

And Karina Bull, Council Central Staff.

Good afternoon.

So with that, you have your PowerPoint set up.

And again, we're going to do public comment after this.

The public hearing, I'm sorry, will come after this.

All right.

The floor is yours, and I have in front of me your PowerPoint.

And I'm guessing you're just going to walk us through this.

Okay, thank you Board President Juarez and Seattle Park District Board for having us here today.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide an overview of the 2027 proposed park district budget.

As we walk through the key changes to the park district today, I hope you will see the efforts that we made to address general fund shortfalls and escalating costs while also preserving parks and recreation services and meeting the commitments.

laid out in the Cycle 2 funding plan.

Our agenda is to provide a quick overview of the Park District structure for anybody new listening, and then we'll cover the key changes to the Park District in 2027. And we'll close with a summary of the legislation you just described, Council Member, for adoption on the 20th of November.

So as I said before jumping in, we just thought it might be good to provide a quick overview of the park district governance model and respective roles involved for anyone that may be listening new to this.

But as you all know, the city council sets funding levels and broad policy direction for the Seattle Parks and Recreation.

The mayor proposes budgets and provides direction to SPR.

Seattle Parks and Recreation owns and operates parks and recreation facilities for the residents of Seattle to further our three goals of healthy people, a thriving environment, and a vibrant community.

The Park District Board, which is the members of the City Council wearing a different hat, governs the Seattle Park District, a taxing jurisdiction that aligns with the borders of the City of Seattle and exists to support parks and recreation services within those borders.

The relationship between the city and the park district is governed by an interlocal agreement with the key provisions outlined on this slide.

And last but not least, our Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners, comprised of 15 residents, provides advice on parks and recreation matters and has specific roles for the park district planning and oversight.

and that just on this slide, I just wanna point out that our proposed budget does meet the interlocal agreement requirement of the general fund floor.

We have on the city side, we have 134.2 million in the proposed budget for the general fund and the floor for the park district, according to the ILA would be 131.7.

Before I have you slide into my favorite page, I love pie charts, I'd like to recognize and welcome Council Member Rivera who has just joined us.

Council Member Rivera, welcome.

Thank you.

All right.

So here we go.

Okay.

So just for context, this slide is intended to provide an overview of our department's entire budget with the multiple funding sources.

You will see the operating budget in blue and the capital budget in green.

And for today's discussion, we are focused on the yellow highlights of the park district components of that budget.

We covered the other funding sources at our last department overview.

As you see in the operating budget, the park district provides The general fund provides almost half of the department's budget with the park district and the park fund at 31 and 18% respectively.

And on the capital side, we have $124 million, which is supported mostly by the park district and real estate excise tax.

You will note on this part of the pie chart that we have long-term obligation, general obligation bonds highlighted as those are related to some park district projects for Green Lake, Loyal Heights and Lake City and Queen Anne that we would be issuing bonds beginning next year.

So those are highlighted here and will be repaid with park district funds in the future.

So just to be clear, the two yellow orbs, Park District, 87 million is part of the operating budget for the general, the whole park fund, Seattle Parks.

And then the other orb, the yellow orb, Park District, the 42 million is the capital part where we're actually building stuff.

And that's when we talk about the long-term government obligation bonds.

We'll be repaid with some of those capital funds.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay, the only other thing I'll note on here is the Park District also funds $7 million for the Seattle Center's budget related to operating and maintaining the waterfront, which is not shown on this slide except in the little footnote at the bottom.

So there is another $7 million for that.

Oh, okay.

Oh, how come it's not in there?

Because this slide is showing, as context, the parks and recreation budget.

So when we get to a future slide and you see the park district financial plan, you will see the line for the waterfront operations, which goes to the Seattle Center.

Correct.

Thank you.

As I mentioned in our overall department budget presentation a few weeks ago, we believe that public serving organizations work best when they are mission driven and guided by organizational values.

As we approach the biennial budgeting process, we prioritize delivering services for community and ensuring our dedicated staff are retained.

As part of developing this people first budget, we reviewed baseline budgets for efficiencies and potential funding realignments to mitigate general fund revenue shortfalls.

Some of these efficiencies and funding realignments recognize where we are on certain park district projects.

and how that informs spending plans for the upcoming biennium.

In developing our recommendations, we are mindful of our Park District Cycle 2 commitments and our baseline service levels, but we also heard the Council and their desire to have more informed capital budgets and less capital carry forward.

This review included a deep dive on community center project schedules and park district fund balance.

As you'll see in the upcoming slides, some of the identified capacity from that review is proposed to offset general fund and some is proposed to meet emergent needs.

This slide is a wild slide.

I was wondering why you had that in tiny, tiny font when you used to do.

I'm guessing on November 20th you'll have the whole, not just this little one.

Well, we break it out in the next two slides, too.

So this is just to give you all a big picture of the four key changes that we're proposing in the Park District budget.

two that are a little bit more technical, and then we'll build out and deep dive into the operating changes and the capital changes on the next slide.

But I do wanna cover a couple quick things on this slide.

First, which is, I know it's tiny, but on the right-hand side of the very, very top line, I just wanna point out that the property taxes in the baseline budget that was assumed in the original financial plan, of the $137 million is unchanged from the proposed.

So our overall approach to this park district budget has no change on the overall taxing authority that we're proposing for you today.

Oh, I see.

That's why it's in yellow to mark the budget neutral technical.

Those will be the, yep.

The next ones will be the highlight, but on the very, very top of the.

I see it.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay.

Moving to the technical changes, I want to bring your attention to two things highlighted in that top category and shown on the right in the yellow.

There is a proposed budget includes a reappropriation of approximately $740,000 in waterfront underspend into the Seattle Center's budget in 2027, and that's highlighted in yellow.

In addition, the proposed budget does make some typical technical budget changes associated with citywide costs like health care, retirement, and other central costs across all of our lines of business and funding sources.

So while those aren't highlighted, if you look in any particular line, you may see a $10,000 adjustment or something like that, and that's just related to those central costs for healthcare and IT services, those sorts of things.

The next thing I'd like to highlight on this slide is in the green for the general fund-related savings.

As we previously discussed at our department overview, in order to sustain core services, the proposed budget includes reallocating Park District capital resources to the operating budget in order to offset a like amount of general fund.

The first change continues a realignment made in the 2025 and 2026 biennium More specifically, the budget continues reallocations of $4.1 million in park district revenues previously supporting acquisitions, major maintenance, park community fund, and, sorry, those three, to support operations.

These transfers are operationalized between the major maintenance category and the grounds maintenance line of business.

So that's what's showing in green on this slide.

In addition to continuing that previous realignment, the proposed budget increases the reallocation from capital major maintenance to operations by another $3 million, which is also operationalized within the grounds maintenance line of business.

So on the city side, you would see a reduction in general fund on the grounds maintenance line of business.

and I'll go to the next slide and cover the blue and the orange unless you want me to pause here.

I think we're tracking.

Does anyone have any questions?

I think we're good so far.

Yeah.

Great.

So we're on the blue ones.

On to the blue ones.

Okay.

So this slide covers the third key grouping of proposed changes which is related to reinvesting operating funds within the park district in order to support city priorities.

These are primarily funded with one-time capacity related to community center project schedules and the O&M for those projects.

The proposed park district budget is intended to support our aquatics line of business, that's what we're proposing, recognizing that our pools continue to experience some financial challenges The proposal includes $1.6 million in revenue subsidy in 2027 and 2028 to ensure that services are not impacted.

This funding is coming from the community center line of business, so tracking the blue moving from community centers to aquatics in alignment with planned O&M timelines for new facilities.

That said, I do want to clarify that our aquatics line of business is still required for generating over $6 million in earned revenue each year in the biennium and that we have identified this line of business as a key program to review as part of our Park District mid-cycle report to better understand the operational and financial issues.

We are also proposing to use some of this O&M capacity to almost double our recreation scholarship program.

So you'll again see some funding moving from community centers to the scholarship line of business on this chart.

And this is in recognition of the demand for scholarship resources.

The final operating budget change proposed in the park district is repurposing about $600,000 identified in cycle two for a youth opportunity fund included in the teen programming line of business.

We are recommending piloting a high school community learning center at Rainier Beach, as well as expanding team programming in that area and investing in the development of our staff that serve teens.

On this particular slide that doesn't change from line of business, it's all within the teen program line of business, but we did highlight it in blue just to highlight that we are proposing some changes within that area.

Hey, Michelle, I've never seen you use LOB before.

Is that new?

Line of business.

I know it means, but it took me a while to figure it out.

Sorry.

That's OK.

It's how our new performance management structure is.

The framework that we're using are these various lines of business.

ChatGP?

No.

No, I'm just kidding.

I'm just giving you a hard time.

Maybe they're taking it from us.

Okay, then on the capital side, we talked about this at our department overview as well, but we are proposing to realign funding assumed for debt issuance and repayment based on our updated project schedules.

Over the two-year biennium, this provides an additional $16.5 million in one-time capacity

on this slide though you'll only be seeing the first year of that the 2027 as the park district does adopt their budgets annually and so I'll walk through a little bit more of the specifics but Michelle let me just stop you right there so the seven that we have listed and we talked about this at the last park the camp long the seven things that you have listed discovery park all that this is just for the one this is just a one one one time

It's one time, if you're wearing your city hat, it's one time in the biennium.

Here you're only seeing the 2027 slice of it because the park district adopts a one-year budget.

So when you get to your resolutions and you see the financial plan, it's also referenced in 2028, the changes.

So some of the changes are occurring in 2028 and some are in 2027. But as you said, there are seven different things.

The first grouping is in our what we call our buildings line of business on the capital side, moving $700,000 into the building line of business in order to support the Camp Long Lodge renovation project.

and this will position Seattle Parks and Recreation to have a better cost certainty with these additional funds in order to deliver the project and look for other funding sources to get through construction.

We're also proposing to upgrade our existing safety and security cameras at 19 sites, moving funding from the debt service line of business to our buildings at about 1.3 million.

and then to supplement the resources that REIT is providing at the Discovery Park Environmental Learning Center to get that facility back online next year by doing an in-kind upgrade of our electrical and mechanical systems following the flooding we experienced at that site.

We also have money supporting two new restrooms, one at Cheryl Chow Park, which is both Park District of 300,000 and some one-time resources from King County Levy, and a site in Northeast Seattle that we're still working through the exact proposal, but that is something that was raised in the Park Community Fund process about a gap in Northeast.

So that's the $400,000?

It's $400,000 in 2027 and another, well, for that particular project, it's another $100,000 in 27 and $800,000 in 28, so a $900,000 investment for that.

Correct.

Okay.

And then within the park features line of business, we're proposing to increase the allocation for Little Brook Park in order to meet a higher engineer's estimate for the preferred design.

And so we can move forward with bidding that project.

adding $570,000 to the West Magnolia Playfield Playground Project, say that a couple times fast, in order to have inclusive play elements added to that scope.

And finally, given the REIT constraints, we proposed replacing the REIT for the Magnuson Park Athletic Field 12 with some of this capacity created within the park district at 9.5.

$6 million And those are the changes and all of those would be reflected in the proposed legislation.

So for the public hearing today and also for your consideration at the November 20th meeting, we have four budget resolutions that would be required to adopt the 2027 budget and establish the property tax collection for 2027. Karina can certainly Chime in with any additional comments, but the first resolution, resolution 80, is our standard budget resolution that adopts the budget by BSL and that is outlined in attachment A.

and an attachment BU, see that full Park District financial plan that we were showing parts of on the screen today.

Resolution 81 is the standard resolution, also referred to as the short property tax resolution, which authorizes the tax increase in 2027. And resolution 82, lovingly called the long property tax resolution sets the actual rate and the rate is 44 cents with the estimated homeowner's impact of $399 annually.

The final resolution, as you mentioned, President Juarez sets the meeting dates for next year.

But 82 is the resolution that we look at when we talk about the tax rate and increasing it from in 2026 to 0.442 and 2027 to 0.443.

So can you just for those of us that are still have to catch up on the homeowner impact on the dollar amount what that means?

So that means an average homeowner, which...

Looks like 391 in 2026.

Right.

Yeah, the actual tax rate isn't changing much at all, but the homeowner impact around it, based on the medium homeowner, would be supporting parks and recreation services at $399.

So this is what I didn't understand on the math because I see this little footnote down here that 81 is connected to the at the bottom box that you have so if it 2026 it's 44 cents right so in 2027 it'll be 44 Well, it says $44.3.

Yes.

So just that little increase bumps it to $3.91 to $3.99, $8.

Just that little bit.

Well, it's also using what's changing about the median homeowner cost.

Oh, okay.

So it's multi-variable.

Okay, so we shouldn't, this won't be a final number.

Correct.

It's an estimate that's given to the King County Assessor, but they actually collect the tax revenue at that $137 million that you set at the overall budget.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure I understood, and maybe the public, because I know I was a little confused, just so we're clear on the increase in the property tax rate and what that actually comes out to each household for parks.

Estimated.

Estimated, I'm sorry.

If they're median.

Estimated, thank you.

Okay.

Karina, did I miss anything on that one?

I think you covered it.

Okay, great, thank you.

So with that, I'm gonna open the floor to my colleagues if they have questions regarding, for anyone, for any of our guests at the panel.

No?

Oh yeah, good.

Council Member Lynn.

Thank you.

Could you go back to that last slide?

The tax rate.

So the overall amount that we're collecting, is that changing, or is that staying the same?

It is changing.

It is set at this very top line of the financial plan.

So for 2027, it would be the $137 million.

And that has an inflationary adjustment every year.

But in the Park District financial plan, There is not a change between what the council and the park district board would have approved in 2022 for what was assumed to be collected in 2027 and what we're actually proposing to collect.

So we are consistent with the financial plan, but it does increase over 2026, recognizing inflationary costs.

Got it.

And could you go back to the other slide again?

So that difference is inflation and maybe other impacts.

Like, for example, we've seen downtown commercial rates values plummet, which is creating additional pressure on homeowner taxes.

So I'm assuming maybe there could be a lot of variables that are affecting those rates, homeowner values, and so on.

Yes.

The overall assessed value changes every year.

Our very smart colleagues in the revenue forecasting team help us put these numbers together.

Great.

Thank you.

Could you go to the slide that talks about the Rainier Beach High School funding?

and could you just talk a little bit more about the pilot?

My understanding is community learning centers historically are for middle school age or perhaps younger.

Could you just speak a little bit more about what the plan is to expand it to high school?

and how much of it is the community learning center versus the expanding the teen center programming at the community center.

If it's not fully fleshed out, that's fine, but just curious if you can share any more details there.

I can give you a high level.

I didn't bring the breakdown with me today, but we have it, so I can get you that.

Yes, this proposal is doing three things.

One is piloting a high school model of a community learning center.

you are correct right now, all of our kind of deal-funded community learning centers are at the middle school level, so this is us trying something new, and the intent of those, this pilot would fund two days a week where we're trying to provide after-school activities that are both supporting their learning and keeping them on campus.

Thankfully, the Rainier Beach High School and the community center are really close, so we're still working through what activities may be at the high school versus the community center, so that's still in the works.

Then we're, in addition to that structured community learning center project, we are developing Some additional increase in teen programming ran out of the community center itself, modeled after some of the activities that we were doing at Garfield Teen Life Center.

And actually, it was just on Friday, they had a, I don't know what I would call it, an event where we could walk around with the teens that had just participated this summer in a learning cohort.

And that's kind of the model that they're looking at bringing down to down to Rainier Beach.

I think council member Hollingsworth has actually been interviewed by that group and has participated in that too.

So it was a fun event.

The current cohort and last year's cohorts were mentors, so I got introduced to a few of the lovely young Very smart, better eye contact than me, better speakers than me.

It was just a really great group out there.

And then the third thing, and I think that's in the $60,000 range, is to just have some additional development opportunities for the staff that serve teens so that what they're doing is relevant and best management practices for serving that age group.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

As we're out in community, certainly having a safe place for teens to go after school, evenings, weekends, and just in general, there's a lot of support for that.

So certainly excited to learn more and to learn more about what was done at Garfield.

And then I guess this is a little bit more general, but on that same vein, there's been a lot of requests from the Rainier Beach community for a teen life center down there.

Our understanding is the community center down there is at capacity in terms of wouldn't be able to have a full teen life center down there.

And we've just been trying to think ahead to the next levy in 2028, but also just trying to get ahead of it.

I don't know if there's any plans to look at it.

I know there's expanding hours at some teen life centers, but is there any plans of looking at expanding locations for teen life centers as part of your capital long-term?

planning that could be built in?

I'm not sure where your capital planning budget is part of your budget.

Is there a flexible pot of money that you can use for capital planning?

A flexible pile of money?

Good, yeah.

Well, I'm assuming that you have capital planning dollars that you somehow program.

Are you asking if they have a slush fund?

Is that what you're asking?

No, well, yeah, I think about, like, you know, I know that there's plans to buy, you know, new green space.

Like, there's sort of like these funds that, you know, you're long-term planning, and I just don't know where that sits.

That's a good question.

How would that work?

We are just kicking off the next parks and open space plan that will come back to this body.

I think we're thinking Q1 of 2028. But one of the elements of that planning process is a recreation demand analysis.

that work is just kicking off.

We have a consultant on board.

I'm not sure if it's for that particular element, but for the overall helping us with the parks and open space plan.

So that could be a place that we can kind of look at is additional brick and mortar.

needed for team programs, or can we leverage our buildings and school buildings and do other things as well?

I think these buildings do cost a lot of money to build, so if we can leverage what we have in our inventory, we also want to make sure that we're doing that as efficiently as possible.

I think one thing that...

I'm sorry, go ahead.

No, just that I would love to connect more next year, once you have that consultant on board on how to be a part of that.

That was what I was gonna, thank you for that.

I was gonna just say, I think some of the confusion, well, I'm not saying you're confused, Council Member Lynn, but can you just briefly explain how we have the Seattle Park District.

We don't, are we still, and then we have the board.

I thought we combined those two.

Are we still saying Metropolitan Park District?

Am I getting this wrong on all the names, the alphabet?

We call it the Seattle Park District, but we don't call it SPD.

So we then use MPD, which we keep trying to not have any documents.

So we have the Seattle Park District, and you all are the board.

And then we have the advisory group, which is the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners, which advise us and you all both on park and recreation programs for all of the city.

Right, and I see this is where the problem, the issue is during budget with some of my colleagues, and I had the same issue too, is, and Council Member Lynn kind of underscored this.

Elected officials, council members, want to know how to access and get in front of or let their concerns or needs known to the commissioners what kind of projects they would like to see in their district.

Because by the time it gets here, it's already baked.

The oversight board has already told as CL Parks District and then tells us.

So there's not a lot of wiggle room.

So what you would have with Newark council members and some other, including me, is, and I've had a few council members where I would say, I think that's a Metropolitan Park District bucket of money that you may be able to access, like for turf or for lights, for why the initiative was passed.

Was it passed in 2015, Parks?

Was it 42?

The first one was 2014 and then we did one in 2022.

Right, so we did, but we did the one in 2014, which was a great idea because we told the voters, you're gonna pay a tax and this money is only going to go to Parks.

That was great.

And then in 2022, if I remember correctly, well, you helped me.

What did we do in 2022?

Do you remember?

We did the next six-year plan, which was through 2028, and that, to your point, I think, came through the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners with a recommendation to you, the mayor and the superintendent, all of...

which you guys then made some changes based on that.

But in the six year plan, we had to delay it one year because of COVID, did we not?

Two years.

Two years.

And so next year would be the year, 2028, right?

That council members can start having direct conversations or recommendations to the oversight board for projects, capital or operations that they would like to see.

Is that correct?

Yes, although I would like to staff that for you.

Okay, well, I don't want to get in the weeds and hot, but I think they don't know how to unlock those funds.

That's what I'm saying is, because by the time it gets here, then you have council members saying, well, we need turf, or we would need the pool fixed.

And I'm like, it's already done.

and they're like, well, then how do we get back in?

I'm like, well, it's a six year plan and we had to delay it two years.

So I guess I'm trying to tee up for conversations in 2028 going through you, that council members should come to you and say, hey, director, interim director, if you're still, if you're not director by then.

These are the things that I would like to see, not just in my district, but citywide.

and how do we access those funds?

No one's ever done like a chart of like, you start here and this is where you go.

Even I get confused.

I've been doing this a decade.

I think that's what Councilman Rowan was getting at.

Like, is it, you know, how do we get more bathrooms?

You know, how do we get the waiting pools opened up more?

How do we keep the teen centers?

You know, you know what I'm talking about.

And the criteria.

Yeah, exactly.

And next June, we have, our work plan is to bring you the mid-cycle report for this particular cycle, and I think that's the moment we can say, here's where we are in our metrics, here's what we're seeing, please tell us what you're seeing.

I think that would be a great time to do it, and then bake that into the proposal-making, and that would go to the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners to help.

So I think we could bring you that kind of a timeline in June along with the mid-cycle about engagement with you all, with the general public.

Okay, Michelle, this is what I love about you.

You and I both like to get wonky and get in the weeds, but before I go to Councilor Osaka, who has his hand up, I'm just saying that perhaps we can be a little bit more aggressive or assertive and notice the Seattle City Council that the time is now, 2028, for the six-year plan.

Start telling us what you want to be in here so they don't have to go through the regular budget process and parks and the general fund.

So maybe, I don't know, you do a big newsletter.

I don't know how you do it, but if you did that, that would be great.

Kasper Saka.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Interim Superintendent Finnegan, Ms. Williams, and Ms. Bull, as always.

Really appreciate the presentation here.

A couple questions.

First on slide six, and thank you for including those very helpful slide numbers.

So it looks like there's a proposed transfer of some money from capital to ops at a high level, specifically $3 million in offsetting cuts from capital to support operating costs.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So of that $3 million major maintenance funds is the category there, Two-part question, I guess.

What are some sample capital investments that that money would typically fund?

And then the second part of the question is, because, and I know you all work in plans and timelines and schedules and queues and all those things, because of this significant proposed transfer and $3 million in major maintenance funds, What got put just below the cut line?

What got cut or delayed?

What specific capital projects were cut or delayed to accommodate the proposed transfer of $3 million?

It's a two-part question.

If you don't mind, I'm going to go to the slide that has slightly larger fonts, but the same information on the capitals.

Yeah, I'm under this Liliputian writing here.

I know.

So this is the same part of the capital side.

If I can point out...

Page eight.

It's a big one.

There's a category, and unfortunately it's not highlighted on this slide, okay, called major maintenance other, and that's where you see the $3 million reduction.

That pot of money for us covers some of our smaller, what we call ongoing programs, so like roof repairs, drainage, pavement restoration, some of those types of things.

And it's also the place that each year we are assessing what's happening right now and making some changes, so being a little bit more adaptable to what we're seeing on the ground.

So as an example, right now we have a project underway at West Seattle Stadium.

There's a change order that needs some more money.

we would go to something like that and say, we had a project, we had an engineer's estimate, we got a bid, we've run into this situation, it needs some more money, we would go to this place and move more money.

So it could be a design is coming in higher, we would go to that place.

It could be that it's October and a roof starts leaking and we need to respond to it, so we put some more money in the roof program.

So it's that kind of 6,400 acres, hundreds of assets, that's the kind of major maintenance other, as opposed to, you know, we say we're going to do X number of play areas every year and Y number of restroom renovations.

kind of covering some of the less community-facing projects.

It's more the infrastructure projects.

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, response to your first question is, what are some exemplar illustrative capital projects that this funding would ordinarily be used to fund or used for.

And I hear you say leaky roofs, gutters, pavement conditions.

And I'm thinking in Southwest Teen Life Center right now, There are one too many potholes for my liking in the parking lot.

And when you say reduces pavement condition maintenance budget, I get a little heartburn.

So that's the first part of the question.

And then I also hear you saying that it's primarily at the program level as opposed to specific projects in a CIP list, for example.

It's administered at the program level and kind of on an ad hoc as needed.

Oh, leaky roof over here.

Too many potholes in this parking lot in West Seattle, whatever it is.

And that's kind of how it's administered.

So is it also true then that there are no material or significant capital projects that are being cut or delayed as a direct result of the proposed $3 million transfer from capital.

As far as I understand it, we did not have named projects for that part, but it does impact our ability to be responsive to things that are coming up in 2027 that we may not know right now because we aren't at that point of a current capital project or an asset is failing in a way, the Queen Anne pool stuff that we've talked about before.

Things happen mid-year, and this is a pot of money that we would go to for- Got it.

So it reduces our ability and flexibility to be responsive to emergent capital needs on a spot repair or improvement basis.

Would that pot of money be able to cover maintenance upgrades at existing restrooms' assets and infrastructure.

And I ask because, as we know, the 2025 audit report from the City Auditor's Office included a number of key findings, including at least at a high level, the opportunity that we have because of persistent graffiti and vandalism across our parks, restrooms, and the significant strain that it imposes on operations and personnel to clean and It's literally the worst game of whack-a-mole possible.

And one of the things we can do to address that is harden and upgrade those existing assets, make them more tamper-resistant, graffiti-resistant, harder to vandalize, easier to clean if it does get vandalized or damaged.

So all I have to say is that $3 million $3 million in proposed transfer from the capital major maintenance funds.

Could any of that funds be used to support capital upgrades in restrooms, in existing restrooms?

Yes.

There is no hard line that says it can't.

We were here talking about the city side, and I will just remind that we did get an increment increase in the King County levy resources to the Parks Department, and we are putting some more money into restrooms through that funding source.

Restroom capital?

Yeah.

Okay.

Maintenance or net new assets?

our renovation program of existing assets.

Okay.

These are the two new ones in here.

So I'm just, I'm intrigued, surprised and confused that we are proposing to cut $3 million or transfer $3 million that could be used for capital, major maintenance capital on the one hand, and then on the other hand, in a different breath, in a different conversation, the proposals would add $1.2 million for new assets.

This transfer would impede our ability to properly look after our existing stuff, in this case, restroom assets, but we're gonna go and add more assets and more overhead and more...

Okay.

All right, switching topics for just a moment.

Speaking to the points from our esteemed chair a moment ago, in a couple years, you mentioned the parks and open space plan that's anticipated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but presumably that will help guide and shape a potential renewal on an investment side, dollars and cents investment side, for the Parks District levy in 28. It expires in 28, so if it were renewed, it would have to go before voters in 28. How is Parks currently preparing for the potential, preparing and planning for the potential renewal of the parks district levy, which again would likely come up in 28 is my understanding, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

How are you planning and preparing for that currently?

So the wise people that put together the interlocal agreement between the city and the park district set forth a performance reporting framework and requires we do annual reports every year, which we bring to you in June.

And at the mid-cycle point, at the end of four years, which is December of 2026, we are required to do a mid-cycle report.

So where are we?

on our measures for the cycle.

What are our lessons learned?

What are our themes?

What are our opportunities?

That all is coming up.

We're beginning to do some of the back of the house work for that right now.

I mentioned earlier that we're talking about that with the aquatics program and looking at what's happening in that line of business.

that's all happening right now and we would be bringing that to this body at the June meeting next year to say this is what we're seeing and get more feedback from you at that time.

So next June, if I heard you correctly, Superintendent, thank you for that.

If I heard you correctly, next June is would be the opportunity that you all would have.

You would come back and report to us, share out kind of data metrics around what you're seeing on your end, and then that would be the time that we as council members could provide direction, policy direction, and guidance to help shape and influence whatever it is, whether it's the parks and open space plan or a potential renewal in 28 of the parks district levy, but you're saying the next sort of seminal moment for this conversation is going to occur in June of 27. Is that correct?

Yes, I also would say, as Board President Morris says, we take feedback and are listening to you and community all the time, so don't feel like you have to wait to talk to us about that.

We do try to keep your themes at the front of our attention.

I know you do, and I appreciate our regular syncs and meetings, one-on-ones that we have and that I've had with your predecessor.

because parks are critically important to my constituents.

It's exactly the province of local government.

It's what we need to be crushing and excelling, these details and nitty gritty details.

That's why I get heartburned and I'm confused when I are building new shiny things and we can't even look after our existing things that are dull and dirty and need a lot of love.

But I appreciate, so plus one, I definitely know is an ongoing, iterative conversation that we have publicly and then offline as well.

So I appreciate that relationship.

All this to say, and I've been very clear and consistent about this, as I am really, frankly, everything.

But there's a lot of, at a high level, When we talk about the upcoming parks and open space plan and some specific investments for a potential renewal of the levy, there's a lot of excitement and energy citywide and in my district for turf field conversions for play fields.

and this council has shown over the last couple of years a lot of interest in funding specific turf projects that were outside of the park's existing queue of projects that were gonna convert anyway.

And so looking for continuing opportunities to do that and the next big opportunity to do that would be coming up.

But citywide, there's a lot of excitement and energy.

Ultimately, this is about kids.

can all get behind and rally and support kids.

It's about youth recreation and sports.

It's about supporting working families.

It's about safety, sports and recreation.

Safety, these muddy, nasty fields in Seattle weather.

There's a gender equity, gender parity element associated with this because when we talk about girls' softball fields, more of those teams generally play on dirt, muddy fields when boys are over here playing.

and doing drills in these fancy turf fields.

So I'm hearing a lot of excitement and energy about turf field projects, including in my district.

West Seattle baseball, for example, strongly supportive.

Appreciate that sly that you guys did.

It sounds like your data and information is in line with kind of priorities that I'm sharing and, you know, which reflect my constituents' priorities.

And so, yeah, high level, love to see as many of those new turf projects, conversion projects as possible coming up citywide, especially and including in West Seattle, District 1. Final question here.

Thank you, Chair, for entertaining me.

How do you anticipate...

So we have iterative conversations.

You guys are always engaging on a daily basis.

You're on the front lines of a lot of this work.

How will community input and priorities related to turf conversions be incorporated into a potential renewal of the 28 Parks District levy?

Great question.

We are working right now to develop our engagement plan for the parks and open space plan, lots of planning.

And so that I think will be a place where a community can really engage on what their priorities are and specific to turf, that's an asset that the parks and open space plan will be looking at in terms of condition assessment.

So I think we'll be able to have some really good information for you at the time.

We are also working towards the next conversation we have with the school district on the joint use agreement, and fields are obviously a very key element there.

We also, well, I say I also, speak for myself on this one maybe, but I also really wanna talk about our aging pools.

and the use that the schools have of those pools and how we collaborate together to invest in those assets.

So I think that's another place that there'll be some dialogue over the next year that can help inform what you guys are deciding on in 2028 and whether or not to go to voters or what you want to do with it.

Awesome.

Thank you so much, Interim Superintendent.

I really appreciate the clarity here and the receptiveness and willingness to take our direct policy directive here publicly and behind the scenes as well.

Appreciate all the work.

Actually, final question.

I just got to ask because restrooms are important.

It's just there's always a trade-off and a balance between striking the most appropriate balance between maintaining what you have and adding net new shiny things.

I like ribbon cuttings too.

But I also know we need to be good stewards of our dollars in large part by looking after our existing assets.

So that parks audit, restroom audit a couple years ago, like I said, kind of damning.

And one of the things that revealed is that not There's some geographic disparity when we talk about the scope and severity of the problem.

There's some geographic disparity there, especially when we talk about some of the restrooms across the city that require the highest amount of maintenance hours, personnel hours to remediate problem graffiti, vandalism, etc.

And my district, has 40% of the top or the bottom, the worst restroom challenges across the city, 40% in my district, way overly represented.

And that's why I wanna thank my council member colleagues last year, especially Council President Hollingsworth, who was chair of the Parks Committee at the time.

for supporting my investment.

We were able to secure, I think, $1.2 million for up to two of those, I forgot the technical term, but like standalone refurbished restroom, I don't know what they're called.

Prefabricated.

Portland Lou's, what is it?

Prefabricated.

Prefabricated.

Prefabricated restrooms, I'm writing that down, such as Portland Lou's.

I remember writing that language exactly.

My district, it's no secret, my district is the worst off.

There's some non-trivial geographic disparities when we talk about the severity and scope of the problem.

Please, please, please, please, at least tell me.

Taking the money away, three million that could be used for maintenance of existing restrooms and adding 1.2 million for two new shiny restrooms, please tell me at least one of those restrooms is going in my district.

Where are those restrooms going?

These two are Sheryl Chow Park and somewhere in Northeast, but we are working on the one from last year in your district of the Alki Bath House.

That one is underway.

That was the one that I identified.

We, I guess, identified and funded.

And I want to thank my colleagues again for allowing us to secure that funding.

But not one?

Not one going to District 1 in West Seattle?

OK.

Thank you again, Superintendent.

Appreciate you.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Interim Superintendent Finnegan, I really appreciate you.

We've been working together a really long time and I just always appreciate how responsive you are when we reach out and when I in particular reach out.

So thank you.

That's what a partnership looks like and I so appreciate you.

Related to this, I'm going to plus one on my colleague on the restrooms.

I know his district fared the worst in that audit.

But the restroom issue is across the city, including in my district.

And most notably, I will say that Dahl Field had a fire and now we're out.

the restroom at that play field.

So I would like, excuse me, I would love to know what the plan is for the replacement of that restroom.

It's well utilized because there are playing fields there in addition to them.

playground, so it's heavily utilized and would love to know what the plan for that is.

You know, I share the concerns that Council Member Saka has in terms of, you know, doing new things, but we need to maintain old things.

I suspect though some of the new things, so correct me if I'm wrong, but does new mean actually it's not a replacement because sometimes I know you're replacing something that was there and it would be a new but it actually was there before and it's just a brand new replacement because you had to take it down or is it actually new it's like an addition to what we already have because for instance doll you'd have to start I believe you had to have to would have to do a new one but there was one already there so are we talking about replacements are we talking about net new that we've never had before.

These two are net new.

So it's Cheryl Chow Park, a newer park, right?

Yes.

And so when we designed that, we A restroom was included in the design, but we didn't have the funding to bring that to fruition.

So the infrastructure is there, and this would be actually adding that bathroom that was planned with the park design project.

The Northeast one is coming out of a park community fund project where neighborhood proposed that there's a gap in that area, and they asked us to explore it.

So we're just working through a feasibility study related to that.

But the idea with that one is it would be net new to a site that doesn't currently have them.

But you're right, we use the term renovation when sometimes it is a truly new rebuild, most likely at a spot that used to have it, just because we use the same infrastructure.

But from time to time, we put it in a different part of a park based on SEPTED or some other rationale for community use improvements.

Thank you.

Interim Director Anan, and I understand also the new park, Cheryl Chow Park, it's new but it was always contemplated to have a bathroom and you probably ran out of funds and then you had to do a round two to actually complete the bathroom that was intended to be there to begin with.

So I understand that.

And the Northeast, what location is this feasibility study looking at or do we not have a location at all?

I mean you've indicated it's new, so it almost sounds like you know where it would go.

They explored a few different parks, but we haven't had the presentation and actually worked through it and had the broader conversation about SEPTED.

It was like, how far are these parks from water lines and that sort of thing?

So we still do have some work to do to actually identify a recommended site.

So we said D4 and D5 location, $400,000.

That doesn't sound like a lot of money for a new bathroom.

It's over two years.

So there's actually $900,000 total for that site.

Forgot, because it's the one-time.

Oh, okay.

900. Over the two years.

For two years.

This is where it gets weird that you only see one slice of the biennium here.

Well, next time we might want to see both slices.

I know.

Yeah.

But I was just trying...

I think I see what you were getting at, Council Member Rivera.

Like, is it renovated?

Is it new?

Are you fixing it up?

And if it is brand new or if it is renovated, because now we're focusing on D4 and D5, where does that stand now?

Yeah.

We are...

without a site yet.

Our intent is to add, so don't quote me, but my last recollection was we have 129 park restrooms.

130 would be the Alki bathhouse.

These two would be 31 and 32, so it would be a new

It looks like you're looking at different sites.

And I guess what you're hearing, at least from me and maybe even the board chair here, is that you do have, I mean, the feasibility study is looking somewhere, where?

So it looks like multiple locations you know, because you can't do a feasibility study without knowing where are the potential.

and I guess that's what we're looking for is information are where those, if you're looking at five potential sites and you're doing the feasibility study, what are those five sites?

I don't have it with me, but I can tell you what the team explored.

and that would be great.

I can tell you, I haven't been briefed yet on what the assessment is and what we know about other things happening.

It was more of a technical assessment and so there may be a site that you're like, I don't think that should have a bathroom right now.

What would be the timeline on that to follow up with Council Member Rivera's question?

We can get you that today.

That'd be great.

That'd be great.

I mean, there's a level of transparency here and I think you heard The Board Chair say earlier, we need this information so folks know what we're contemplating.

Otherwise it looks like we're withholding information and that doesn't feel good.

And I know you're not withholding information today, Interim Superintendent, I we've worked together a long time and I know you're above board and I really appreciate that so I'm not saying you're doing that today I just mean in general right we just want to make sure that we're giving constituents the information and also more importantly something that I want to plus one with the board chair and also council member Lynn said as well as just you know our constituents need the ability to weigh in and we weigh in on their behalf.

So if we don't have the information, it's hard for us to weigh in and we can tell you, I can tell you I need a restroom at Dahl Field.

There isn't, you know, there isn't a restroom now because unfortunately it was a fire.

It was unforeseen to follow on council member Saka's thread that 3 million that's for unanticipated that would qualify.

I would think because that was not into, it was an emerging need.

it's unfortunate there was a fire.

So, you know, that's the kind of thing.

I also want to switch gears and plus one to Councilmember Saka on the play fields and the replacement of turf.

You know, there is a disparity with the girls' fields and, you know, the softball, not insufficient softball fields and a lot of the girls do play.

that's what they're playing is softball.

And so we do give, we seem to give priority to the boy fields and not the girl fields.

And so when these decisions are being made, we want to be able to weigh in on behalf of our constituents.

And we don't always know how to do that, which is what I heard the board chair say earlier.

in this conversation is, when is the best time to weigh in?

Because by the time it comes to us, it's too late.

So at what point do we have the ability to weigh in?

Can we send a survey to our constituents so we can say, where would you like to see a turf field or a restroom, a playground, whatever it is, a teen center?

Let me also add that Magnuson Park, and you know, I really appreciate that you all there isn't an official teen night which I thought there was at Magnuson Community Center but you made accommodations to have hours open for the teens and you have teen activities there which I very much appreciate as do the residents at Mercy Housing and Solid Ground whose kids utilize that space.

I'm disappointed that the hours are getting cut for that unofficial teen night and I'd love to make it official and I would love for those hours to continue so that because I know that it is utilized and I want to make sure that the kids there you know have the ability to have access to that so I'll just say that and it looks like you want to respond so did you want to say something sorry you may have made a miscommunication because we're not we're not proposing any changes to Magnus and

to the hours.

I thought you were shortening.

Right.

No, no, no.

I know.

It just isn't...

An official one.

It doesn't go to the midnight, but it'll stay with the same hours I told you that I, of course, don't remember off the top of my head if it's till 9 o'clock at night, whatever.

I think it was 11 and you said it was going to 9. That's where the confusion is.

So maybe we can follow up.

It'd be great if the hours were continued because I hate...

It's the same as what it is now.

That's what it's always been when we started it.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Because what I hate is we give access to kids and then we change it on them.

And I just don't think that that's fair and it's a safe place for teens to go.

So I want to make sure.

I will say it's the same as it is now.

I don't know if it was the same as it's always been forever, but it is the same as what?

2027 will look just like 2026.

Great.

And 2025, I hope, and four when I started here and we started it.

So I guess that's what I'm looking for.

I know it's the same as this year.

Okay.

Thank you for following up on that.

And again, just underscoring that it's, we can't give kids something and then take it away.

That's just, we need to be able to maintain that because those kids utilize it and they need it, the kids there.

And then also wanting to know where these, well, I guess you guys are only on the hook, Parks is for the two bathrooms here, the 10 Thrones, that's FAS, and I guess you guys don't make decisions about those.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

And then, you know, there always seems to be a little bit of seems a little amorphous on criteria for how projects are selected and getting more information about all of that that we can then share with our constituents is really important.

And maybe this is stuff I imagine that, you know, at years past this has been shared, but there's always new council members cycling in and so it's important every so often to share that information again.

So I would say I'd love to get that renewed, what's the criteria, how do you all select, you know, the projects that you're gonna do and what things, you know, there are things we know about in the district and there are things we don't that you are working on.

Sometimes we find out inadvertently through a constituent because they live nearby or sort of, and it'd be really great to have a list like here's all the projects that we're working on or we'll be working on in your district.

And that also helps us have the ability to weigh in.

and then I will say that there's a park at Wedgwood that I'm continuing, you know, like a pocket park, not like it will be, hoping that this will get completed.

Do you have any information about that?

And is that part in here, I mean, is that included in this or is that a separate?

It's park district funding.

It's not new appropriation in 2027, but it is.

I just had an update, because I just talked to a constituent at the Bert Gilman event, and so we provided an update, but I don't want to say the wrong dates, so I can get you an update.

But it's moving along towards bidding and delivery.

And I understand there were some environmental issues that were unknown and discovered and had to be you know there has had to be remediation and that's part of the delay but just people are anxiously awaiting the completion of that of that pocket park so getting the information would be really great.

And that would be something in the mid-cycle report that will report on all of our land bank site developments and where we are so that

you can see the whole picture too thank you interim superintendent thank you um for all the time thank you um board chair and um if i have any other questions i'll follow up okay thank you i see we have council president has her hand up council president thank you thank you chair and uh thank you um uh interim superintendent finnegan for the presentation i just have two quick questions or one comment Doubling down on what Councilmember Saka and Councilmember Rivera said, obviously about the turf piece, as well.

I know that the council the last couple of years have championed a lot of the turf projects, just understanding the safety that it brings to our community.

And one of the projects that we funded last year was Rogers Playfield, not for the turf project, but for the design, which is next to top school over in Eastlake, just because of the danger that that fill possesses regarding the rain, the drainage, the holes, the maintenance on it.

There are people that have, you know, just really have gotten injured and hurt on that field because of the, you know, how old it is and the wellness of that field.

So just always thinking about ways in which we can upgrade stuff.

but the one thing that I was curious about, we secured funding last year from the state for $1.5 million the governor had put in for just turf in Seattle and how do you all decide where that funding goes?

Do you choose a project?

Do you add it to a project?

That was funding that we advocated for with the governor and I know that they had saw about softball fields to Councilmember Rivera's credit regarding the equitable field accessibility for girls versus boys, softball versus baseball.

How does the parks district, how does that get incorporated, the 1.5 million that we secured from the state?

That's a great question, and I haven't got an update of that in a while, but we were working with the governor's office to confirm the site, so part of it was in dialogue with them, and then it would be similar to some of the other direct appropriations where we would enter into a contract for the state funding, but we can get you an update on where that's at, Council President.

That would be super helpful.

I didn't know if it was for an existing project or a new project.

I know that the governor, myself, Councilmember Kettle, I know Councilmember Rivera supported it as well, the park up north.

And I'm forgetting the name because it was a name change for a new park for a fallen soldier who had served our country and died in action.

and it was a park next to, he was there because that family had advocated to change the name and I know that you all were instrumental in that as well but it could have been for that park but I just wanted, I was curious if you had any other information so that's good to know.

We originally started talking about another field at Lower Woodland to try to package it because it was a pretty tight budget, but I do think that other field did come up in the conversation, so we'll get you an update on that.

We had a slide, thank you, we had a slide last year that included Jenkins Field, that park that I'm talking about up north, and another one, I think it was one in Councilmember Saka's district, I'm not sure.

My vote, if you all had a chance, it would be in Councilmember Rivera's district, and that would have been that park up north for that fallen soldier.

I'm not going to take a vote here, but if there was something, that would be my ask for that park that had three fields, or maybe two, I don't know, I can't remember how many fields, but that would have been my preference as well.

I know you all have a process, but I'm rooting for that part.

Thank you for sharing.

Thank you, Council President.

I just have a few follow up questions I want to clear up.

Just some basic.

Can you remind me, Michelle, when was the first the date on our first interlocal agreement between City of Seattle and MPD?

Yeah, Park District.

It was drafted in 2014 when the ballot measure.

Right.

It wasn't signed until after it passed, and there was a Seattle Park District board to sign it.

So it was, I think, signed in 2015. OK.

But it was.

So have we updated that since?

I can't remember.

I think, but they've been pretty

Are we still on TV?

Oh, here we go.

Okay.

Okay, well that was, okay.

So the only issues are, and now some of it's coming back to me when Tracy was still doing our stuff.

Not listening against you.

So I think that those were technical changes to the interlocal agreement.

Maybe whoever chairs or is the next president of MPD can revisit the interlocal agreement.

Because I think what I'm hearing and what I've seen since I've been back, and this has always been an issue, is I think that since 2014 or 2016, I think that we've kind of outgrown the cycle of when you report for the MPD.

Do you see what I'm saying?

So we do it twice a year.

We do it in June or July, then we have one during budget, and then we have the final one on the day, so that's three.

But what I think what I'm hearing here, what I've seen on the timing is because, and again, I remember having, and I think Tracy did it for me, I had her do a flowchart to say, okay, where do we start?

The 15-member Oversight Board You start there.

They advise with you guys, Seattle Parks and Rec, the money.

And then from there, they make a recommendation to us, the MPD, in which whoever sits here is the president, not the chair.

or the president, and then whatever we decide here, we'll go to full council.

So I might suggest we revisit that kind of flow chart because I think what you're seeing is people don't see an on-ramp to how to get to MPD money for their districts.

So when you look at page four, and I only know this because I've been around a long time, when you look at the general fund, Seattle Parks and Rec, the fund, and it's $275 million.

Of that, 87 million is park district, MPD money.

On the capital side, the general budget for parks is 124 million, but 42 million again is MPD.

So you have $129 million, Seattle district or MPD, that council members want to be able to access and in order to access it, they would need a lot of notice when they can report and work with you via and also the Oversight Board to say, these are the things we think we need in our district.

I think that's the frustration.

I don't know if the mid-cycle or the model that we've been using is user-friendly anymore.

Is that what I'm hearing from folks?

Like I said, by the time you get to us, like today, everything's baked in.

There's nothing we can really do because the Oversight Board, this is it, right?

Is that fair to say?

I hear you.

I think it's great.

I think what Councilmember Rivera shared about like in community engagement also to see how we can align and leverage your relationships with constituents.

I would love to think about that as we work towards.

When is our six-year cycle is up next year?

The next six-year cycle would begin January 2029. Okay.

But that still gives everyone time to get all their asks in for that six-year cycle.

Yes.

What we were hoping to do in June was to bring the mid-cycle, which kind of talks baseline, and then talk to you about the engagement plan.

And I think we can...

to talk to the next park district board or in parks chair.

But I think you got to bring in the- To bringing it sooner.

I think you got to bring in the council members.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah.

To bring it.

This is the time to tell us what do you think your district or even, and those who represent those citywide as well, this is the time to start getting your projects in the queue.

I hear you.

Okay, good.

I hope I got that up.

Message received.

Go ahead.

President, if I may, just also the community engagement piece, sometimes we also find out post facto, so it's hard to get people there if we don't know ahead of time, and sometimes we only know a day's notice.

So just having more opportunity.

It's not as though this happens every year.

So having robust engagement is really important.

So constituents feel like they were at least they could give provide feedback because at the end of the day, I understand you're not going to meet everyone's needs, but what I find the city and not just parks.

So I don't want to put this on parks, a board president.

This happens with all departments is folks feel disenfranchised because they don't have an opportunity to give feedback.

They know they may not get their project funded, but it starts with at least us knowing about their project and them having the opportunity for us to pass it along to you all.

So ensuring that engagement piece that we can share with our constituents and having that timeline that a board president talked about is really important.

And then lastly, I wanted to say that fallen soldier was Will Stacey and it's Maple Leaf Reservoir Park baseball softball fields one and two council president.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was where my hand was raised.

Thank you.

Which was named the Will Stacey fields at Maple Leaf Park.

And those were to be both baseball and softball fields.

and there are two of them, and that's really important.

Especially, like I said, to our girls, because a lot of the girls do, they're playing softball.

So we need to support them.

Yeah, we do.

All right.

Okay, is there anything else before we move on to item two?

All right, I'm not seeing anything.

So, Madam Clerk, will you please read item two into the record?

Agenda item two, a public hearing, excuse me, agenda item two, a public hearing to accept public comment on revenue sources for the 2027 operations and capital budget and a potential property tax increase in 2027. We do have one in-person speaker and two online speakers are signed up, but not present, but maybe they'll sign in once our in-person finishes speaking.

Okay, so let me read this into the record and then we can, I'll have you call her in person.

As presiding officer, I'm now opening the public hearing.

We will call on speakers in the order of registration, beginning with the in-person speakers and then moving to any remote speakers.

With that, please call our first speaker, Madam Clerk.

Sure, give me one second to share the timer.

It'll be two minutes and our first speaker will be Caroline Villanova.

And let me get that timer up for you.

Thank you.

Hi Caroline.

Hi all.

Hi.

Just tell us when.

I'll watch the clock.

You'll watch the clock?

Okay, awesome.

Well, thank you council members and Parks District Board members for the opportunity to comment today.

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

I'm here today to request you consider adopting the proposed Seattle Park District budget and related legislation.

Seattle Parks Foundation is an independent 501 nonprofit.

We partner with community to champion thriving and equitable parks and public spaces, and our work bridges neighborhood groups with public agencies to ensure everyone has a seat at the table and that our public realm continues to be welcoming for all.

We support the proposed budget and levy amount as a pragmatic approach to meeting the needs of our citywide park system.

We are excited to see continued investments in recreation scholarships and teen programming in Southeast Seattle, as well as steps being taken to address our aging pool infrastructure.

We have a focus on growing urban resilience and fostering inclusive communities, and we encourage the Park District Board to focus on equity of projects in neighborhoods that need access to it most.

In these times of intense and ongoing drought, we also hope that the Creative Water Reuse Partnership Project can be continued in future years.

Robust funding for maintenance, operations, and capital investments in parks is essential for Seattle.

We are proud to have so many residents live within a 10-minute walk to a park on a map, and we also know that this walk is not always equitably distributed based on where you live, how safe and accessible the walk is, or if the park appropriately meets the needs of a growing community.

We need strong public funding and departments to address these challenges for that thriving public realm.

We also look forward to continuing to support our parks as essential community infrastructure across the city.

And we thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So you're from the Seattle Parks Foundation?

Yes.

Oh, good.

I'm glad you're here.

I'm glad to be here.

I've been communicating with some folks in your office.

Your name, Villanova, looked familiar to me, but I wasn't sure why.

Yeah, I've been with the Parks Foundation for about six months now, so it's probably with that.

Prior to that, I was at the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, leading a lot of their work.

So did you take good notes?

Yeah, maybe.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you all.

Madam Clerk, do we have anyone online?

We do not have any present speakers online.

OK.

Well, Caroline was our last speaker.

And so with that, the public hearing is now closed, correct?

Alright, so let me do a few of the little odds and ends here.

Last time I got, I lost my script, I lost a piece of paper.

Before we adjourn, I want to thank you Interim Superintendent Michelle Finnegan again for being here.

I want to thank Amy Williams for being here.

And of course Karina from Central Staff again, thank you for being here.

And hopefully we'll get all this done in our last meeting on November 20th.

Is there a meeting right after budget?

On the 20th?

I believe the...

Well, I don't have the calendar in front of me.

It's either right after city...

Well, maybe it's right after budget or it might be on its own day.

I can get back.

I can send it out to the board if you'd like what day that's on.

I know it's the 20th.

I didn't know if it was right after...

I think it has to be after budget, after we pass the budget.

If I may.

It is before budget.

It's before the big vote.

It's at 9.30 in the morning.

It's at 930?

Yeah, it's before the big vote.

Thank you, Karina.

Thank you, Karina.

You have one job and you just want to do it.

Thank you, Karina.

I agree she's doing this.

Thank you.

Okay, so with that, that concludes today's meeting.

If there's no further business, the board will adjourn.

The next scheduled meeting is, as I shared, November 20th, and we learned from Karina at 930. Hearing no further business to come before the board, this meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.