Seattle Park District Board Meeting 9/19/22

The Seattle Park District Board will come to order.

It is 4 p.m.

I'm Andrew Lewis, president of the board.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Board member Morales.

Here.

Board member Mosqueda.

Present.

Board member Nelson.

Present.

Board member Peterson.

Board member Sawant.

Present.

Board member Strauss.

Present.

Board member Herbold.

President Lewis.

Present.

Six present.

And we will note the attendance of additional board members as they trickle in throughout the early portion of the meeting.

So first approval of the agenda.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Approval of the minutes.

The minutes of the September 15th, 2022 Park District Board Meeting have been reviewed.

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

Hearing no objection, those minutes are adopted.

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

public comment.

We will now begin the public comment session.

But first, Madam Clerk, how many public commenters do we have signed up in person and virtually?

We have two signed up in person and we have seven virtually with only three of those present so far.

Okay, why don't we go ahead and start with all in person comment commenters and then move on to all virtual commenters, and that'll give a few more minutes if you are a virtual commenter that is not present.

You have a few more minutes to jump in, and Madam Clerk I don't think we need to do the.

The video for the public comment session, I'll just very briefly state the rules for the public comment.

When you are recognized for the public comment by the clerk who will preside over the public comment period.

You will have two minutes to speak to an item that is on today's metropolitan board meeting park board agenda.

Once you hear the chime to begin speaking, press star six to make sure you're unmuted for our guests who are coming in virtually.

And you will hear a chime with 10 seconds remaining to give you a warning that your time is about to expire.

So when you hear that chime, do please wrap up your comments before the conclusion.

of the two-minute period.

So with that, I will hand it over to Madam Clerk to preside over the public comment period, starting with in-person commenters.

Okay, our first in-person public commenter is Erica Bush.

And Erica, you're welcome to use any of the mics up front.

Oh, it's me.

Excuse me.

Let me get it going.

Hi, can you hear me now?

Okay.

Hi, thank you for having me.

My name is Erica Bush.

I'm the public rail manager with the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

I'm providing comments in support of the park district budget proposal of 3.6 million investment.

Parks are a critical asset to our community and two thirds of our voters support continued investment in our parks.

In order for parks to best serve community residents in the heart of our city, they really need that additional support.

The MPD budget proposal provides significant funding to restore and reopen Seattle Parks, serve the public, and also addresses some key issues in parks identified by the community.

Public safety is a particular interest for the Pioneer Square community and beyond.

A survey completed by the Parks Foundation this spring validated that 81% of voters felt safety was an important need in our parks.

This investment is a critical means of providing additional programs and the need for safe activation within our parks.

We encourage this program to focus on areas of the city with the greatest need.

We specifically believe there needs to be dedicated rangers in Pioneer Square and other South downtown parks, the waterfront and other areas where those have been challenged by COVID.

It's very important that those who work in these spaces are able to integrate into the neighborhood culture and be supported by community partners.

Thank you to the Park Board for your willingness to step up your leadership to ensure Seattle leads the country in parks and public space funding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rebecca Baer.

Thank you, this is Rebecca Bair, CEO of the Seattle Parks Foundation.

I'm here in support of Park Board President's proposal and would like to thank the Park Board President Lewis and Mayor Harrell for their expanded proposal, which includes Little Brook Park, Rainier Beach Skate Park, Beersheba Park.

And we also appreciate the investment in our city's trees and the equity fund.

In February 2022, Seattle Parks Recreation did a survey of residents that found public safety concerns, cleanliness, maintenance, weigh heavily on people's perceptions of parks.

In that survey, 48% of voters gave the city a D or F for the safety in parks.

38% of those were BIPOC community members, giving the city of park a failing grade.

By comparison in 2016, only 12% of citizens gave the city a failing grade.

Seattle Parks Foundation did a follow-up survey in April, and it validated these concerns.

81% of those surveyed said safety was important or extremely important in our parks.

The park district budget goes a long way to addressing people's concerns, particularly maintenance funding.

Park rangers can also play a part in solving safety concerns.

They are a friendly face, providing customer service and connecting people to support services, and can even provide interpretive services to the community.

Law enforcement or park ordinance enforcement is a very small part of their job.

For example, in Portland, where there is a robust ranger program, they've had 8,000 warnings.

Of them, only 2% were referred to the police department.

98% were resolved.

They've had 26,000 positive engagements.

Park rangers have the ability to cultivate stewardship and conserve our cultural and natural resources, educate the public, and be a friendly face in our parks.

Please support our park ranger program, similar to those in New York, Los Angeles, Austin, Portland, and many other cities around the country.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes our in-person speakers.

We'll now move to remote public commenters.

And reminder, when we call your name and it says you've been unmuted, you still need to press star six in order for us to hear you.

So our first remote speaker is going to be Beth Purcell.

I'm sorry, Beth is not present.

Our second speaker will be Brad Glaberson.

And Brad, you may just need to hit star six.

There you go.

It's still working.

I'll call you back.

I think we can hear you.

Should we maybe move to an additional speaker?

Okay, we will move on to, we'll see if Brad's able to get connected.

Can you guys hear me?

Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry about that.

I kept hitting star six, but nothing was happening.

We can hear you.

We'll start your two minutes now if that is okay.

Perfect.

Yeah, I don't need very much of your time.

Hello, I'd like to thank you for taking time today to hear my concerns.

My name is Brad.

I live near Denny Blaine Park.

The park has unfortunately transitioned from a very family-friendly place where my wife and I used to be able to take our two children to.

It has now become a clothing optional park unsuitable for children.

The nudity in the park, the adjoining streets, and the center island is no place for families with kids.

There's open alcohol consumption as well as open sex acts, couples and solo and not trying to be funny, but it's true.

The paddle boarding is naked as well.

All of this has made the park unusable for families with children like my own.

The only way to get consistent control of this issue is through enforcement.

So adding the 26 park rangers would certainly be of help.

And I know the park rangers are set to be downtown, but it would be great if one or two can be allocated to outside of the downtown area.

So I strongly support the addition of the park rangers.

So please help return our little neighborhood park, our beach and our streets back to a a family-friendly place that we can all use and be proud of.

And that's it.

Just thank you so much for all your time, everybody.

Thank you.

Our next public speaker will be Beth Purcell.

Hi.

My name is Beth Purcell.

I have worked on community-initiated park and open space projects for the past 30 years.

I also sit on the board of The Seattle Park District was tasked in lieu of continued levies to provide more and reliable resources for our parks throughout the city.

You are in position now to do just that.

You've listened to hours and hours of testimony over the past few months.

I urge you to think about who you are not hearing from today.

There are many communities who are underserved and under-resourced and do not have the ability to come into council chambers or sit on the phone until they can be heard.

I urge you to also not base your decisions on who was heard last and loudest on any one cause.

Look at the projects and the communities in need.

Foundations, nonprofits, and community groups are working tirelessly to raise funds, pursue grants, and help communities who are historically underserved.

In many cases, these groups need the city to provide matching dollars to the grants they are pursuing.

So while you might not hear from dozens of people on the following project, That doesn't mean they are less deserving of funds and implementation.

And many of these groups have been waiting for years and years for funding.

Projects include Caton Corner, Garfield Superblock, Hutchinson Playground, Gateway Park North, Duwamish Waterway Park Expansion, Kubota Garden Parking Lot Expansion, just to name a few.

In addition, I urge you to fully fund the Park Ranger Program as it has been proposed.

This program has been invaluable in our downtown park and should be expanded as other parks and communities are also in need of this unique program that has been successful, making our parks and our communities both inclusive and safe.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carrie Christensen.

Carrie.

And Carrie, it looks like you'll just need to press star six once.

Hello?

Hello.

Okay.

Good afternoon.

My name is Carrie Christensen, and I'm asking for you to approve funding for more park rangers.

I work five days a week in the Denny Blaine Park area and have for several years.

Well I've seen it progress or should I say regress into what it is today.

Street parking is a mess unless parking enforcement is on site.

This has only recently occurred and the parks department with limited resources has done a very good job.

Life safety is a huge issue for people in the park as well as the neighbors.

The streets are so blocked with cars parked along well-signed red curbs.

The fire department couldn't possibly pass.

It's just not safe.

The behavior of park visitors is unbelievable.

Walking down Lake Washington Boulevard naked, naked in the middle of Denny Blaine Park, in trees, naked, displaying themselves naked on the low walls in the park.

There are naked people swimming, paddle boarding, laying on rafts, etc.

I've seen various men masturbating more than once in the park as he parked cars at the park.

I've had a man approach me naked and ask if I wanted to touch his penis.

9-1-1 was called.

The same man returned to the park later the same day.

There was no alcohol.

Clothes required.

Park is open from 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

No camping, no.

We must have enforcement of park rules, whether it's park rangers, park ambassadors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Madam Clerk, sorry, just one moment.

I did just want to say for the public that we've been joined by Board Member Peterson.

I just wanted to reflect that into the record.

Sorry for the interruption.

Continue.

All right, our next speaker is Donald Harris.

Donald?

Good afternoon.

My name is Donald Harris.

First of all, I want to thank you for the level of attention and detail and process that you have applied to your decision-making process for allocation of Park District funding.

I followed this process since its inception.

I was involved in the campaign to get it approved.

I've seen nothing as diligent as the work you've put in.

I came today with the intent of telling you that the money allocated for our trees and developed parks was far from adequate, necessary to avoid a net loss of trees in our parks.

The proposal that was put forward this morning that includes a million dollars for trees will get us a good start.

As you know, the Trees for Seattle Parks campaign is prepared to try to match that money with private donations, and we've already got a good start on that effort.

So thank you very much.

I hope this is sustained through the rest of the process, but it will be money well spent and it applies to all the issues of climate change and the enjoyment of our parks throughout the city, all neighborhoods, all parks.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, sorry.

I also want to indicate board member Herbold is also here and I apologize board member Herbold for not announcing your presence sooner.

Thanks.

Thank you for that.

And our last speaker is Billy Heatherington.

And Billy, it looks on my end like you just need to hit star six once.

There we go.

All right.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Good afternoon, council members.

My name is Billy Heatherington.

I'm a proud member of Labor's Local Union 242. I had the honor of attending the council member board president Lewis's announcement this morning on this funding plan.

And it was a really good coalition of business, environmental groups, and unions.

That was a great showing there.

I wanted to first speak to the money that's going to the climate resiliency hubs and the opportunities that those jobs will create through Seattle's Priory Hire and for the members of the surrounding community in Seattle and the access to the state approved apprenticeship programs that they will provide to the Seattle residents as well.

Secondly, the expanding community center hours and the impact that'll have for Seattle residents coming out of the COVID pandemic to the services and after school programs for the youth.

It's a great thing and I really appreciate that.

Lastly, it's been kind of spoke about before, but the proper funding for the park rangers and proper staffing levels.

So the residents and visitors to the Seattle parks can have a safe and quality experience.

So again, I want to speak in support of all that and thank Park Board President Lewis and Mayor Harold for their work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that concludes our public commenters today.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

And we will now move to the items on our agenda.

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

Agenda item one, discussion of President Lewis's proposed Seattle Park District six-year funding plan for 2023 through 2028.

Thank you so much and we are now joined by Tracy rassle if and Eric McConnie from our council central staff, and they will go through some of the changes that working with central staff and the executive my offices made to the initial proposal that was sent to the council.

Tomorrow, it will have been two weeks ago so about 13 days ago.

that builds on the initial work that we have done since the spring in collaboration with Mayor Harrell.

I do just want to state at the top.

really great to work with a broad coalition of people to identify priorities and be able to put this together.

I will flag that there is some remaining capacity in this levy, which will be part of the discussion with central staff if there are outstanding priorities that board members would like to discuss and pursue.

What I would ask is that board members hold their questions until the conclusion of the presentation, and then we will accordingly work through the possible areas where a little more detail would be helpful from central staff.

So with that, I'm gonna go ahead and hand it over to the panel.

Thank you, President Lewis and district board members.

Tracy Ratzliff from your central staff, joined by my colleague,

Eric McConaghy, also on the central staff.

Good to see you all.

Thank you.

So today we will walk through President Lewis's proposed funding plan.

That plan does begin with the mayor's proposal for the six-year funding plan with some modifications that we will go through.

It adds new funding elements that we will also discuss in more detail.

It adds spending restrictions included in the Resolution 51 that adopts the spending plan.

We will also walk through.

And then finally, it adds statements of legislative intent also included in the Resolution 51 that we will walk through in detail.

So this is the chart that we actually went through in quite a bit of detail last Friday.

It's a summary of the mayor's proposed funding plan elements using 2023 as the base year.

You see there his plan includes continuation of funding cycle one initiatives in 2023. That's a $58.2 million level of spending.

It includes cycle two investments that were recommended by the BPRC as modified by the mayor that includes 34 investments, six of which he has modified, as we again discussed on Friday.

It included new proposed investments five new proposals, totaling $11 million a year.

That included the Youth Opportunity Fund, the Park Rangers, Green Seattle Partnership just to name a few of those.

It included the pre-commitment projects, the capital funding of about $12 million in cash, and on average about $4 to $11 million annually in debt service.

And that, of course, the debt service occurs later in the cycle.

It includes the pre-commitment projects, the operating and maintenance money that is required to operate several of those new facilities, Lake City Community Center in particular, and the 8th and Mercer.

community center price tag of 2.3 to $2.5 million a year again occurring later in the cycle.

It includes the COVID recovery reserve of $3.1 million in 2023, dropping down to 1.8 in 2024 and $900,000 in 2024. It includes the new proposed park fund stabilization reserve that was at a an amount of $735,000 in 2023, and then increasing in 2024 through 2028 with some modifications that you will see included in Council Member Lewis's proposal.

And then finally included the one-time Smith Cove revenue backfill of $2.6 million for a total of $114.7 million.

Moving to Board President Lewis's proposed new funding elements.

$3.3 million in additional funding for the equity fund grant program over the six year period, equates to about $500,000 a year inflated every year by about 4%.

$2 million of cash and $16.9 million in debt financing to fund the planning and substantial improvement of the Queen Anne Community Center.

$1.3 million for additional park activation at parks outside downtown.

This equates to about $200,000 a year.

$3.6 million to renovate four or more additional bathrooms over six years this equates to about $900,000 a year for the first four years of the cycle.

$4.2 million in additional funding for tree replacement in developed parks equates to about $637,000 annually, inflated by 4%.

$3.4 million for planning and construction of two new off-leash areas, one in West Seattle and one at a location to be determined by Seattle Parks and Rec, plus about $161,000 for operations and maintenance costs.

Those costs are over the six-year period.

Modification of the unreinforced masonry proposal.

This was an investment proposal that was recommended to be cash financed and the proposal from President Lewis would have that be moved predominantly to bond financing with about $900,000 in cash to actually be funded in the first three years to help with facility improvements or not improvements but assessments before they make the improvements with the bond financing.

includes $2 million for Rainier Beach Skate Park project, includes $252,000 for the Bear Sheba Park art installation, includes $1 million for Little Brook Park renovation, includes $4 million of cash and $18.3 million in bond financing and additional funding for the climate conscious buildings.

And this is spread by about $2 million in 2024, and $2 million in 2025, and then the $18.3 million in debt being issued in 2027. And then finally $5 million in additional funding for the waterfront park maintenance, which is accomplished by reducing the park fund fee stabilization reserve by about $2.5 million over the six-year period, and also using some of that unreserved balance to help pay for that amount, which equals about $1.2 million annually beginning in 2025 and throughout the remainder of the cycle.

Resolution 51 would impose the following spending restrictions.

Funding provided for community center planning and renovation would be used for improvements at Queen Anne Community Center.

Funding provided to plan three new off-leash areas and develop one new off-leash area, or two, I'm sorry, develop two new off-leash areas, one in West Seattle, and the additional OLAs would be in locations determined by SPR.

states that no park district funds will be used for park rangers to participate in the work of removing encampments.

And park rangers will continue to use the enforcement authority consistent with the parks policy.

And this is actually a slight change that we'll make in the legislation where we cite the actual policy number as it relates to trespass warnings issued by the park rangers.

And that's policy number P0607151.

and also request the executive to inform the park district should those park rules be modified relative to some disenforcement authority.

Moving to statements of legislative intent, there's several related to turf installation, one at Judkins Park and one at Inner Bay Athletic Complex.

Both of these two individual statements of legislative intent would request Seattle Parks and Rec to work with Seattle Public Schools to explore the feasibility of each of these projects and report back to the Park District by June 1 of 2023. would state the intent to allocate funding for the park district if available and or to pursue other funds to support these projects if they're deemed feasible.

Statement of legislative intent would also request SPR to work collaboratively with the Office of Sustainability and Environment on development of resilient hub strategy.

It also would request SPR, there would also be a statement of legislative intent that request SPR after completing the construction of Smithcote Park phase one to provide a report on the proposed schedule process and cost estimates for construction of Smithco Park phase two.

Statement of the intent would also state the intent that Park District funding in combination with funding from the Green New Deal and other sources will be used to decarbonize a prioritized list of community centers, including Van Asselt, High Point, Rainier, and Garfield Community Centers.

It also would state the goal of decarbonizing half of SPRs community centers by the end of 2028, recognizing that additional funding from other sources would be required to achieve this goal.

It would also, the statement of intent would also request SPR to provide detailed design and cost estimates for any project that would be unfinanced and to submit that information in advance of the city council's approval of legislation that authorizes the bond issuance for such projects.

Hi, on this slide we see a comparison between President Lewis's proposed plan in the green tones across the top and the Mayor's proposed plan.

These are the same numbers that you've seen in various ways over the past few weeks, and also they roll up the numbers from what Tracy has just described in detail for the President's plan.

Overall, the thing that I want to orient you to on this page are the two lines.

There's cents per thousand.

That's how the levy is actually sort of added up for each tax bill for folks.

And the annual impact for the median residential assessed value, both the cents per thousand and the impact are pegged to that median value.

And you can see that the range for the president's plan in 2023 were about $339, almost $340.

annually to $446 between 23 to 28. And then the comparison at the very bottom, you can see that the range of differences between what the mayor has proposed for the MPD levy range from about $9.32 in the low to nearly $19, about $18.73 at the high across the years.

but the average of course is less than that across those.

We can talk to any of the council members, park district board members that would like to talk in detail about these things, but we're sharing these numbers in the spirit of transparency also to meet the concerns and interest of the park district members who have expressed interest in seeing these in this kind of detail year by year.

So I just want to talk about some, some basic housekeeping things as we move towards the potential vote on adoption of the six year funding plan so we will have resolution 51 that will adopt a six year funding plan at the detailed line of business and you saw a version of this that was sent out this morning an email.

And is attached to will be attached to the agenda and it's called attachment one.

And it shows the additions that have been made to that detailed line of business attachment one that was sent to us by the mayor.

We have been spending a lot of time over the last few months, talking about a lot of initiatives, those initiatives role actually into lines of detailed lines of business so they don't exactly equate one for one with the same titles.

And so when it came to the budgeting process, we started to have to align, in fact, those initiatives into detailed line of business.

And you have begun to see those in the documents that we have sent last week, when we sent you the list of the mayor's proposed initiatives, as well as the BPRC initiatives, we showed you those initiatives by detailed line of business.

And that is what attachment one begins to show.

And we call out specifically our president Lewis's additions to that detailed line of business.

We will likely do some modifications, slight modifications to how those are categorized to make sure we have them in the right detailed line of business.

But for illustration purposes, we wanted you to see how that will look and that attachment that you will in fact adopt.

resolution 51 will also, as I indicated, include some proposed spending restrictions that we have walked through today and any additional ones that will come along.

It will also include proposed statements of intent.

There will also be a clerk file that will include the BPRC and the mayor's recommendations for spending at the initiative level, and will also include a spreadsheet that shows what the council's recommendation was at the initiative level.

And that all will reside in the clerk file that will be and we wanted to have that as the record for all folks so that as we made that transition from initiatives to the detailed line of business that we all knew kind of what the history was in terms of action and recommendations at that initiative level.

And then obviously when it comes to the actual adoption of the six year funding plan at that detailed line of business.

We are happy to entertain any questions that you have.

Tracy, thank you.

The first thing I want to do is I think we should take advantage of this opportunity to have a bit of an extended discussion at the front here about park rangers since there's been a lot of community concern raised about that program.

Can we go back to page five of your presentation, which included some of that language.

So, This section three here, discussing the spending restrictions.

This has been a discussion that we've had since there was widespread community concern raised about the potential role.

of park rangers.

We worked with the Harrell administration over the last week and a half to gather some information and be responsive to those potential concerns which came with these commitments around acknowledging the current policy which board member Herbold gave a pretty extensive recitation of the history and the process that created that current policy and this link to where that policy lives so it can be cited and referenced by the community and by board members.

We put in, for now, a requirement that the Parks Department give notice to the City Council if that policy is potentially going to be subject to change.

Again, this is a policy that's been in place for a decade and there is no indication of any interest in changing the policy.

It also indicates a pretty unequivocal commitment from the executive that would be enforceable by the spending restrictions that rangers cannot be used to participate in the work of removing encampments.

So I did just want to maybe take an opportunity to cue this up first if board members wanted to focus questions in this particular area and talk to central staff and, you know, get some of those questions answered so that there's there's clarity on the intent and the role around park rangers.

And then, hopefully that's an invitation to to solicit community feedback on those updates.

As we continue these deliberations so I'd like to queue up that initial discussion if that's all right if colleagues do have any questions, but I don't see any raised hands.

So we may be able to just move past that.

So with that issue, then dispensed of, I'll open this up a little bit broader.

One question that I did want to establish on climate conscious buildings, I did want us to acknowledge the, attachment B, appendix B, to the materials transmitted by Mayor Harrell.

Just to put into the record here too, when you sort of merge all these numbers together, there's a fairly substantial amount of money in 2023 and 2024 that will be available for climate conversion.

And I just wanted us to put into the record the REIT and Green New Deal money, if central staff could remind me. for 2023 and 2024 what has been indicated that will be in the mayor's package announced next week when they present the budget.

Just so we also have that context for the presentation.

So the Green New Deal, I believe is $3.5 million in 2023. And I believe the community center renovation funding, if that's what you're referring to in terms of the REIT funding, I believe $4 million in 2023 and 2.7 in 2024. And I don't know if Christopher Williams is online and can check me on that, but I think those were the approximate amounts of the REIT for community center.

And that's on the right track, Tracy, that's pretty close.

That was gracious of you.

So it's, I believe then maybe Christopher can confirm, I believe it's, it's 4.3 million of REIT for 2023, 2.7 million of REIT for 2024, and 3.5 million of Green New Deal for 2023, and no indicated Green New Deal commitment at this time for 2024. Are those the confirmed numbers?

Yes.

Okay, great, I just wanted to make sure we also had that context in the broader presentation.

And with that, colleagues, I will open it up for some broader, oh, no, sorry, I had one more thing, Eric.

Eric, you didn't indicate outstanding capacity in the levy in that final slide.

And I wanted to, I think that would be relevant information for the board to hear now.

I think all the other context information is present but I don't see an indication of if board members did want to seek further rate increase or additional line items.

I don't see the additional capacity identified.

We do have those numbers we have shared those numbers with Park District members.

in one of the documents that was sent out.

You're right, it's not on the slide.

I can jump to that.

I'm looking at my colleague, Tracy, to see if she has that handy.

That might be simpler rather than the awkwardness of me jumping from this to another document and back.

So in 2023, there is $1.1 million worth of capacity.

In 2024, there is $1.7 million of capacity.

In 2025, there's $1.6 million of capacity.

In 2026, there's $2.7 million of capacity.

In 2027, there's $1.7 million of capacity.

And in 2028, there's $1.6 million of capacity.

Great, thank you.

That was the last piece of information that I thought would be good to get out there before we open it up to broader board member questions.

Okay, with that, let's open it up more broadly.

Are there any board members with questions seeking to be recognized board member her bold.

Thanks.

Um, things come to mind.

One.

The page that talks about the resolution and the items that are in the resolution related to planning for climate resiliency.

Oh, sorry.

I think they're legislative.

There we go.

Thank you.

Number two.

I would like to see that we also include the Office of Emergency Management, because they are working on all our all hazards mitigation plan and the council voted to ask the Office of Emergency Management to include preparation for extreme weather events as part of that planning.

Since they're doing the planning, they're going to be making recommendations too for how we get prepared for those sorts of events.

I just think that they are an important input to this critical resilience hub strategy work.

And then the other question I had relates to the added list of projects.

for funding as relates to the equity fund.

It looks to me that Council Member Lewis has added high priority projects of Council Members that may have been flagged for him.

As I understand it, these are not, no, the parks, So these, these locations as I understand it our locations that could be equity fund eligible.

Proper projects, but you aren't proposing to.

fund them through the equity project or through the equity fund you're proposing outright to fund them and I just want to flag that I have had a high priority park that I've wanted to address and it's the it's there two there's the larger phase two planning for Mar Desimone and then there's as part of that phase two planning, there's the smaller element, which is just the playground construction.

And those have been, I've received information that those are priority projects for the equity fund.

But I guess my question is, is if we are identifying projects now outside of the equity fund that are the types of projects that the equity fund might consider, I guess I would like to consider not just prioritizing the playground from our park through the equity fund, but funding it.

I think it's best to think of to think of these ads as one Um, the ongoing annual contribution further.

So the equity fund will be $3 million every year under this proposal, but in 2024, we add several million additional one-time dollars to, um, cover, uh, some of these projects that have been, um, big priorities and certainly Mara Desimone, um, would fit in well on that list.

So I'm happy to talk about how we might, um, uh, work on accommodating that with some of the existing capacity that is still in the levy.

But the other thing I would say is by removing some of these from that list, we free up additional capacity to make sure that things that remain on the equity fund list are then funded more quickly or have less competition for resources.

So like on both ends, I think that increases the the the viability for investment for Mara Desimone and I'm happy to talk about how we might work together to make sure that's that's reflected here.

So it's a good question and central staff do you have anything to add to that?

No.

Great.

And board member Herbold did you maybe have a follow-up then on that?

I do not.

Okay, additional questions from board members.

I'm asking for any board member who would like to be recognized.

Board member Nelson.

Thank you very much, board president.

You just made a note of highlighting sources of funding like REIT and the Green New Deal funding that will contribute to the decarbonization items in here.

And so do I understand correctly that that money is not reflected in the line item for those investments?

So they are taken out of these line items and we need to consider that what the spending plan proposes does not include that.

It's basically what will supplement those existing funds.

You are correct, Council Member Nelson.

They are not NPD funds, so they are not reflected in the spending plan, which is only NPD funds.

Okay, and thank you very much for that.

And earlier today, we talked about, well, Board President, in our OIR briefing on federal funding for some of these priorities, how and there there are some billions of dollars that could be great grant opportunities for these things.

So how do we adjust this spending plan over time to accommodate additional outside funding?

And does that is that are those adjustments perhaps reflected in in the cents per $1,000 of value that people are charged.

I guess I'm just asking about the mechanics of accommodating additional sources of funding.

And also, as I've already noted, the fact that parks might not be able to spend all the money in the first year because of ramp up needs.

Well, we have no idea how much money we're going to get, nor when that money might arrive at the city and for what purposes.

So I think there's that big, huge question, frankly.

And what we do know is we have a ballpark estimate of $3 to $7 million to decarbonize a community center.

there's not that much money that's been allocated in this spending plan and the baseline that could accommodate the goal of wanting to try to decarbonize half the community centers.

So yeah, that's what I can say about that.

I don't know if the council member, President Lewis has anything to add.

Yeah, I mean a couple other areas of context to that would be, you know, I mean we're, we're doing by annual budgeting, which is great.

And so we have an indication for the next biennium of some of the support from other funding sources.

This might be a good time for the perennial reminder The overwhelming majority of parks funding comes from other sources than the NPD, although the NPD is a very significant source of park resources.

It is far from the only source.

what I would hope is two different, two considerations on the climate conversion.

And we do have slides in this proposal to stay on top of those considerations.

The first is we will be in a position to continue to budget throughout several different biennial budgets over the course of the life of the SEMPD.

to continue to put in Green New Deal and REIT money as recommended by the Executive and the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

I imagine those will continue to be priorities for those entities to have some support in each biannual budget we put forward.

So that's the first consideration.

The second consideration is we should start getting more clarity from our federal partners regarding the money that will be available through the Inflation Reduction Act.

And we discussed some potential funding sources today with our federal government relations folks about that process, which is still really, really early at this point.

But a lot of them look quite responsive to the work that we're trying to do.

Another area that I hadn't really been considering, but is within the four corners of the MPD is tree planting, and I didn't actually realize there was money in the Inflation Reduction Act to also support our efforts around tree planting and develop parks.

And we did see there was a line item and a responsive federal program today so I'm going to be continue to continuing to work with the Office of Intergovernmental Relations to make sure we're really aggressive on putting in those resources, and we'll continue to work with our partners on the Green New Deal oversight board.

and our partners in the mayor's office on Green New Deal and REIT money.

The important thing that we're doing here is making a substantial MPD contribution to that work, which will beget and unlock more money.

Anything else to add to that, Tracy?

That's good.

Thanks.

Board member Nelson, did you have a follow-up?

But just that we're passing a spending plan and I'd like it to accurately reflect what we're spending year to year.

I mean, so because there are carryovers in twenty seventeen, there was a four percent carryover in twenty sixteen.

There was a seven percent carryover.

And I can just ask more questions offline to figure out how we can make sure that we're not just charging the same, you know, want to reduce what we are Caroline Miller, OSBT – Michelle Estrella, COB.: : Charging our property owners, including you know nonprofit housing providers, etc, and if and how that can be adjusted as new money comes in, potentially, and also difficulty spending what we're already allocating in this resolution, so I can.

Caroline Miller, OSBT – Michelle Estrella, COB.: : find out more about how that might work to accommodate.

offline.

Thank you, and thank you for that line of questioning.

And it, I mean, it echoes a lot of the same sentiments I raised with our intergovernmental relations people earlier, because it's just so critical that we as a city don't leave money on the table when it's possible that federal partnerships can help with the projects we're trying to deliver in addition to our own efforts to raise resources locally.

Any other questions from board members?

Okay, seeing none, as I stated in council briefing today, we did respond to board members' requests for more time to consider this package.

And as Tracy indicated, there is additional capacity.

There's certainly, you know, some additional priorities that we've highlighted today from talking to some board members about some additional areas of potential focus.

And those amendments, if there's amendments people are seeking to bring, are due on Thursday the 22nd.

As I indicated, I am planning to keep the scheduled MPD meeting for Friday afternoon.

The 23rd, in order to potentially be a work session without votes to talk about potential areas of common interest around amendments, or the the universe of amendments to potentially workshop.

some areas where there might be a consent package when we reconvene on the 27th after full council to do the final vote on the MPD before we get into the budget process.

I do want to note that if there's not a significant amount of amendments.

or if there's a small amount of amendments that we can distribute to board members and just take care of it all on the 27th, it's possible that meeting on the 23rd will be canceled.

So with that, I'll also just flag my interest in continuing to meet with board members throughout this week.

on conversations around additional district priorities or language in the resolution regarding additional slides requests for more information or other policy considerations and Um, you know, hopefully be in a good position to complete this work, uh, a week from tomorrow.

I mean, with that, I do see that board member Strauss has raised his hand.

So I recognize board member Strauss.

Uh, thank you, council member Lewis.

My apologies.

I dropped in connection there for a moment.

And so you might've addressed this.

Uh, I've looked through your proposal a number of times, uh, searching backwards and forwards.

Looking to see if you increased any amount of funding for the Green Lake Community Center and I, I hadn't seen it I just wanted to ask, did I miss something or is Green Lake, just funded it what the mayor sent over.

Yeah, so the way that this current proposal sits, there is not an increase from the BPRC and the parks department and mayoral recommendation for the MPD contribution to the Green Lake Community Center to be $50 million.

That does not mean that there couldn't be an increase in the contribution.

I mean, it would probably be reflected in, an amendment to increase the debt issuance, given, given the size of the project, but it's also important to point out as I mentioned before and as we've talked in these sessions that in all of these cases what we're discussing is not necessarily fully funding a given project.

but what the MPD contribution to that project's completion will be.

At $50 million, Green Lake is the largest single capital investment in this proposal.

Totally understand it's a very capital-intensive project that is going to require seeking federal money and seeking additional support through our budget process and other capital sources.

But I have not diverted from the BPRC or the mayor's proposal.

I'm happy to talk more about what that could look like before the final vote a week from tomorrow.

Um, in terms of, uh, potentially, um, revising, uh, the Green Lake level, um, and it would be helpful to, to consider that work, um, in collaboration with the Parks Department on, um, what, what they would advise, um, as a suitable additional level as they seek additional sources of funding to, um, uh, to finish, uh, put a full lid on the capital investment for that project.

And board member Strauss, do you have a follow up?

I guess just that I'm sorry to hear that.

And when I was investigating what our ability is to issue more debt, it does require some cash buffer for us to pay to make payments towards that bond.

And it's my understanding that the delta between your proposal and the threshold to go back to the voters is so small that if I was hoping to raise more debt for Green Lake, that would almost be nearly impossible.

Is that also your understanding?

Well, it's not likely you would be able to get another 50 million, for example.

But again, I think part of it comes down to what is the appropriate MPD contribution?

And is there a way for some of the additional capacity to support a little bit more debt to get parks closer to what their ideal contribution from the MPD would be?

The ratio that for the most part, and maybe, I don't know, Tracy or Eric, if you'd be, better situated to answer this question, but it seems to be about.

Well, if you would answer the best question in terms of cashflow to debt, Tracy, in terms of, you know, per $500,000 of service, for example, how much debt that would be able to support, that might be illustrative of the question board member Strauss is asking.

Thank you, Chair.

I did do a little bit of work with her there.

I guess the question that I have is this, you know, Green Lake Community Center has been, a pre-commitment since before 2016. What was described earlier this year was $120 million project that the Green Lake Advisory Council, the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department and myself all recognized was too much.

And when the proposal came to the commissioners, it was described as a level of work less than significant alteration.

so that we did not need to meet the new building codes.

And that's frankly unacceptable.

And so I don't necessarily need another 50. I don't need 120. I guess what is striking to me is that the current level of support is designed to be less than a significant alteration when the conversation was initially about a replacement.

And that's the trouble that I'm having today.

And so we don't need to go back and forth on this.

I'm happy to talk to you offline, but it was unfortunate to not see any additional contribution.

And I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, board member Strauss.

Are there any other comments from board members or questions?

Okay, seeing none, we will go ahead and be able to adjourn at five, it looks like today.

So really appreciate everyone's questions for kicking this off into the final stretch.

And we will come back here potentially on Friday to discuss potential amendments.

Again, really want to thank Eric and Tracy for their work over the last several months, and definitely want to thank Mayor Harrell and his team, Dan Eater, Krista Vallier, along with Superintendent Williams, who's on the line here today, for their work in providing information and being very collaborative to really shape a practical policy that is informed by what the executive can and is motivated to implement for the level of government collaboration that we all expect to see and look forward to wrapping that work up a week from tomorrow.

With that, I'm gonna go ahead and say it is 5 p.m.

and this meeting of the Metropolitan Park District is hereby adjourned.

Recording stopped.