SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

Good evening on a beautiful fall evening.

It's October 15th, 2024. Meeting of the Seattle Parks District Board will come to order.

It is 5.30 p.m.

I'm Joy Hollingsworth, President of the Board.

Will the Clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_04

Board Member Kettle?

SPEAKER_11

Here.

SPEAKER_04

Board Member Moore?

Present.

Board Member Morales?

Here.

Board Member Nelson?

Here.

Board Member Rivera?

Here.

Board Member Saka?

Here.

Board Member Strauss?

Present.

Board Member Wu?

Present.

Board President Hollingsworth?

Present.

Seven present.

Oh, excuse me, and Council Member Rivera?

Present.

Board Member Rivera, eight present.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

Thank you.

Board Member Nelson has been excused.

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

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And if there's no objection to the minutes of June 24th, 2024, Seattle Park District meeting is approved.

Hearing no objection, the June 24th, 2024, Seattle Parks District meeting minutes are approved.

And will the clerk please affix my signature to the minutes?

Thank you.

Clerk, will you please read item one and two?

Yes.

SPEAKER_04

Agenda item one, the Seattle Parks District 2025 proposed budget, which will be followed by agenda item two, a public hearing.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

And before we open today's public hearing, we will hear a short presentation from the Seattle Parks Department.

and recreation and council central staff.

I apologize, it's the end of the day and I'm getting tongue twisted on my words and trying to read too fast.

I know that we are honored to have AP Diaz here, Michelle, and we also have central staff here, Tracy and Karina, but would you please state your names for the record and then you can go ahead and jump right into the presentation.

SPEAKER_09

Yes, good afternoon, AP Diaz, Seattle Superintendent.

SPEAKER_06

Michelle Finnegan, Policy and Finance, Seattle Parks and Rec.

SPEAKER_05

Tracy Raslow for Council Central Staff.

SPEAKER_13

Karina Bull, Council Central Staff.

SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Park District President Hollingsworth and Seattle Park District Board members.

I actually just introduced myself as the Superintendent of Seattle, but Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the proposed 2025 MPD budget for Seattle Parks and Recreation with you this evening.

This presentation aligns with our presentation we provided on the entirety of SPR's proposed 2025 budget on September 30th, but it will be focused on the park district funding source.

As we walk through the key changes to the MPD today, I hope you will see the efforts made to address the city's general fund shortfall and overall pressures of escalating costs within the city while also aiming to preserve our essential parks and recreation programs and services and making the most efficient use of flexible park district funds.

Does the mic sound okay?

Or is it?

It's good?

Okay.

Our agenda this evening will include the following.

A quick overview of the guiding principles of the MPD, the key changes to the MPD in 2025, a summary of the budget legislation that you'll be considering for adoption on November 21st.

This is a repeat of a slide we shared at our June meeting.

It is provided today as a quick overview of the MPD governance model for you and the people participating or watching tonight's public hearing.

The relationship between the City of Seattle and the Park District is governed by an interlocal agreement and the roles include the following.

The City Council, you all, sits funding levels and broad policy direction for the Parks and Recreation Department.

The mayor appoints department leadership and provides more specific direction within the bounds of the budget and the policy set by the council.

And 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 vibrant community.

As most of SPR's lines of businesses are supported by multiple funds, this slide provides an overview of our proposed 2025 budget with the Park District highlighted.

That slice of the pie is the focus of tonight's public hearing.

You can see here that our 2025 proposed budget includes both operating and capital funds for about $340 million across all funds within the general fund and MPD, providing almost equal amounts and making up nearly 75% of the total budget.

Moving to the blue table on the top right is showing our 2025 proposed operating budget, which is about $259 million, or 76% total.

The primary funding source is the General Fund, which is supporting about 50% of the operating budget, followed by the NPD and Parked Fund at 30% and 18%, respectively.

As a reminder, the Park Fund is where our earned revenues go to support a like amount.

Sorry, my notes are freezing on me.

Go back.

I'm gonna switch to paper.

Give me one second, just because I wanna be accurate on the actual amounts.

interlocal we discussed on the last slide also includes a commitment to a base level of general fund support for parks and recreation services i'd like to highlight here that the proposed 2025 budget does meet this commitment and the green table shown on the bottom right is our 2025 proposed capital budget which is about 81 million supported mostly by the park district and reit Reminder, this does not include the MPD funds going to the Seattle Center, which is about $6 million that is shown on slide six.

This slide provides context for the MPD within SPR's budget.

As I mentioned in our overall budget presentation a few weeks ago, we believe public-serving organizations work best when they are purpose-driven and guided by defined goals.

SBR has adopted an organizational affirmation to drive our strategic direction and illuminate our commitment to be a shining park and recreation system for all residents and visitors, the infamous hashtag SeattleShines.

These were front and center as we developed our proposed budget and framed our budget priorities, and we are excited that the proposed 2025 budget includes significant resources to continue helping Seattle shine through parks and recreation programs and services.

As with SPR's overall budget, you will find the same themes with the proposed 2025 MPD budget.

A people-first budget that preserves critical services, programming, and our incredibly talented staff through a reprioritization of park district resources and other funding sources while maintaining thoughtful investments in mayoral and city priorities.

This slide has a lot of information, but it's a recap of the MPD changes reviewed with you a few weeks ago in a visual format that shows the key changes by three main categories to the right, which include, in the aqua color, a general fund savings, which is the park district flexibility.

That's around $8.8 million.

This source, the park district, excuse me, This is our most flexible funding source and the Park District to support core programming and people.

This includes some changes to the MPD capital program.

Resources are being shifted from SPR's capital major maintenance and asset preservation program to support core department services previously funded by the general fund.

About $2 million in this total reduction is ongoing, with $500,000 in reductions occurring only in 2025. So again, we're using these funds to help meet our 2025 objectives.

Resources are also shifted from the park community fund to the operating budget to support core services previously funded by the general fund The Community Fund, previously called the Major Projects Challenge, was increased from $1.5 million to $2.5 million in 2023 as part of the Cycle 2 of the MPD.

This change removes that expansion.

However, funding added for the two staff positions to engage with and continue to support our community in the capital improvement projects and processes are being retained.

Additionally, $440,000 is shifted away from SPR's park acquisition program to the operating budget to support core department services previously funded by the general fund.

The budget retains $1 million annually to leverage acquisition grant opportunities and to support other low-cost priority acquisitions, such as green space additions.

In addition to these ongoing changes, the proposed budget shifts planned debt payments to align with current project schedules, which is about $2.5 million, and includes a one-time use of accrued park district interest income, which equates to $2.4 million.

In the green slide is our general fund savings, efficiencies, and strategic alignments with other funding sources, which equate to $1.3 million.

Approximately 846,000 of general fund savings is achieved through some strategic realignments with two other city funding sources, the payroll tax and admissions tax, allowing the MPD to support additional general operating expenses.

The Arts in the Parks program, which is about $436,000, is shifted to the admission tax revenues.

Through this program, artists and art organizations activate park spaces throughout the city in a process coordinated in partnership with the Office of Arts and Culture.

The budget also makes two changes to the Center City Activation Program, which is offered in partnership with the Associated Recreation Council.

The proposed budget shifts a portion of concierge services to the payroll expense tax fund, which is about $186,000.

It also shifts the busker program to the admission tax revenues, which is about $224,000.

So again, using these fundings to preserve some of our most critical and also activated programs.

Another $454,000 is saved through some programmatic changes on the operating side.

The budget removes one position and a portion of non-labor funding for SPR to activate neighborhood parks outside of the center city.

This change returns funding back to the cycle one level.

The proposed budget consolidates two community granting programs called the Recreation for All and Get Moving into one program, reducing grant funding available to $400,000 from $600,000.

In the blue line, you'll see the budget neutral technical alignments.

These are about $2.8 million.

This last group of changes includes two budget neutral realignments related to timing of community center projects.

These one-time realignment shift resources identified for Lake City Community Center in 2025 to the Soundview Athletic Field Conversion Project, about a $1 million in planned debt service, and from the Queen Anne Community Center Project to the West Queen Anne Playfield Conversion Project for about $1.3 million.

And finally, the plan includes a shift of planned debt contingency funding to the Green Lake Community Center and the Evans Pool Project to support ongoing planning work and restoration of this site, which is about $521,000.

Finally, we want to note that the proposed 2025 MPD budget also reflects the technical implementation of the 2025 AWI across all lines of businesses.

This is a budget neutral in that the MPD was able to cover the additional expenses through its planning reserves, but not neutral across the various operating lines of business.

So you will see associated changes at the line of business level.

On November 21st, you'll be voting on the following six budget resolutions, including two supplemental changes to the 2024 budget that have also been legislated on the city side, along with the resolutions that adopted the 2025 budget and established the property tax collection for 2025. Tracy, please feel free to add anything, additional comments on the resolutions, or I can go through the following resolutions.

SPEAKER_13

Resolution 73 is the resolution that sets the dates for these meetings next year.

And those dates would be June 23rd, October 20th, and November 20th.

SPEAKER_09

In resolution 68 relates to the carry forward of unspent waterfront maintenance money from 2023. This was already approved on the city side.

The maintenance and programming responsibilities for the waterfront transition to Seattle Center in 2023, along with associated MPD funding.

Seattle Center had savings last year and is utilizing those funds in 2024 to support those efforts.

Resolution 69, this is a technical resolution to shift funds between a few park district BSLs related service lines, right?

to implementation of AWI retro payments.

It's budget neutral, just not BSL neutral.

Resolution 70, this is the standard budget resolution adopting the 2025 MPD budget by BSL and includes an updated 2023-2028 financial plan as an attachment.

Resolution 71 the standard budget resolution known as the short property tax resolution sets the 2025 tax rate the 2025 tax rate is 42 cents with the Point yep 42 cents with the estimated homeowner impact being 341 dollars annually resolution 72 this standard budget resolution known as the long property tax resolution approves levying the taxes and AND THEN CENTRAL STAFF DISCUSSED RESOLUTION 73. AND THAT IS A SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THE RECOMMENDATION.

AND AGAIN, IN YOUR AUTHORITY TONIGHT, WE'RE FOCUSING, BECAUSE THAT'S THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, JUST ON 2025, EVEN THOUGH THE OVERALL BUDGET YOU'RE CONSIDERING FOR THE CITY IS 2025-2026.

And with that, Michelle and I or central staff are available for any questions.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome, thank you, Superintendent Diaz.

Thank you for clarifying which superintendent you are.

I know.

SPEAKER_09

My neighbor calls me the Super Nintendo.

to his kids, so many titles can be used many ways.

SPEAKER_11

Super Nintendo, I'll remember that.

Anyways, I'd love to open it up to my colleagues.

I've received this presentation from our central staff, and you also really appreciate it.

Would love to open it up to my colleagues to see if they had any questions, and I'll pause here, because I know there's some people online as well that might have some questions, so I'll just pause here.

SPEAKER_14

and i see council member moore thank you from the great district five council member moore hey thank you very much chair um i just had a clarification question relating to the lake city community center debt can you explain how that how that's going to work

SPEAKER_06

That's a great question, Council Member Moore.

Given our current timeline with the project for that community center redevelopment, we're not at the point in the project where we need to issue debt in 2025. And so we're making a one-time shift of using those park district resources to support another project that's underfunded right now, which is the, it's sound view, right?

SPEAKER_99

Okay.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you to support the Soundview project and we believe with that transfer of funding we can go to bid on that project in Q1 of next year without having any impact on the Lake City redevelopment project.

SPEAKER_14

And Sheriff, I may just ask a follow up.

Yeah, so that's my question.

So where does the money?

How do you replenish that money when you need it for the Lake City Community Center?

SPEAKER_06

Once the debt is issued, it would just drive the payment out one more year at the end of the 20 year is probably what we're gonna do, 20 year debt.

So it would just push it out one more year at the end of the cycle.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, got it.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Council Member Moore.

Council Member Kettle, I see your hand is raised.

You are recognized.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair Hollingsworth.

Thank you for being here this evening and going over this.

I really appreciate it.

I just feel the need to ask.

I know that the answer is, because you just gave it to council member Moore, but I'm keenly interested in the Queen Anne Community Center and the West Queen Anne conversion point.

So for the public, can you go through that piece as well?

Which I think will mirror what you just said, but.

SPEAKER_06

Exactly, yes.

So we are moving forward with the Queen Anne Community Center stabilization and enhancement project.

And that said, we are not at the point in 2025 of being ready to issue debt for that project.

We won't be going to construction next year.

And so the proposed budget is proposing to move that planned resource to the West Queen Anne conversion project that is still underfunded.

And we would then issue debt hopefully in 2026 for the Queen Anne project.

SPEAKER_10

And that second part, can you explain how that aids the West Queen Anne conversion project?

SPEAKER_06

How it what?

I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_10

How it impacts the West Queen Anne conversion project?

SPEAKER_06

Yes, so the West Queen Anne conversion project is still not fully funded with that investment, but it does get us closer to fully funding and allows us to continue seeking grants and other opportunities to make that fully funded before we would go to, it allows us to keep planning on that.

SPEAKER_10

To keep it on schedule with the scheduling that I've been given?

SPEAKER_06

Yes.

SPEAKER_10

Okay, great.

Can I ask just two questions more broadly?

And I think it's important.

in District 7 with the slopes that we have and the green belts.

And it's not something that's really talked about.

And previously, years ago, I was told that there wasn't really funds available.

And I was just thinking regarding natural resource maintenance.

Can you speak to that line item in the bill?

It seems like my voice is echoing, by the way.

Or is it just the fact that nobody's here?

Okay.

SPEAKER_06

Looking at our crazy slide with all the colors.

Yes.

SPEAKER_10

Slide six.

SPEAKER_06

Yes.

So the natural resources line of business is...

It's the Green Seattle Partnership, which both has funding on the operating side and the capital side.

So that's forest restoration programming.

And then there's some additional funding in that program that supports trail maintenance and other landscape improvements.

SPEAKER_10

Would that include the project?

I think it's a project on the south side of, I think it's Wheeler on 15th and Interbay, just south of the golf course and the Interbay P patch.

Would that be like in terms of restoration and what we're looking to do on that slope as it comes down to the access road to BNSF?

SPEAKER_06

I believe it's a forest restoration project, but we can confirm that for you.

SPEAKER_10

And I think there's others too, like an Aurora with the East Queen Anne Greenbelt.

SPEAKER_06

Yes, a lot of them.

SPEAKER_10

OK, thank you.

Both are great examples and vital in terms of, and it has ripple effects in other areas to include public safety, which as you can imagine is on the forefront of a lot of people's thinking.

And that's a great transition to talk about.

I'm just curious about just speaking to the emergency management and security services line item in that same slide, slide six.

SPEAKER_06

So that one is greatly enhanced with cycle two of the park district because you all voted to increase the number of park rangers.

And it's since then become a citywide program this year.

So that's an exciting investment.

But there is some more traditional emergency management planning work in that team as well that prepares for staff, the EOC, and does things like that.

So it's an important line of business for us.

SPEAKER_10

Okay, great.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_11

Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

And I wanted to point out too, and correct me if I'm wrong, the three projects that are being shifted to 2026, you kept them, the ones that we're moving forward with, you kept them all in the same districts.

So like, and I don't know if I've asked that question correctly, but like the Lake City Community Center, it's gonna be Soundview, like you've kept that in the same district, same with the Queen Anne, you've chose a project in the same district.

Did I say that correctly?

SPEAKER_09

You're saying that correctly, but.

SPEAKER_06

Match Soundview isn't it in D6 with the change in the border.

SPEAKER_11

It's in D5 and so is Lake, yeah, it's in D5.

Okay, so it's been in the same area.

You've kept like the projects in the same area.

Anyways, I didn't ask that right.

SPEAKER_02

I don't have my reading glasses like Superintendent Diaz.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

Well, we have a Council Member Saka online and next Council Member Morales.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Superintendent Diaz.

Appreciate this overview.

I have a question on slide two, I guess starting on slide two, that kind of overview agenda slide.

So it notes there in that second major bullet area or sub-bullet, rather, the general fund savings, and it calls out certain capital realignments.

And I'm just wondering between...

What does that intended to capture at a high level?

And I'm kind of cross-referencing the information presented on slide six.

Some of the proposed technical changes seem self-explanatory, but yeah, just wanted to better understand what is the scope and nature of the proposed capital realignments?

SPEAKER_06

Primarily this aqua box here that you see on slide six.

SPEAKER_07

Michelle, can you?

SPEAKER_06

Sorry, thank you.

It's mainly trying to reference what you see in the aqua part of the slide six that the superintendent walked through where it's basically using the flexibility of the park district in order to support ongoing operations.

And to do that, we are reducing some investments on the capital side of the park district budget.

SPEAKER_05

It's the top box.

So it's the major maintenance funding that's reduced, the community fund, the acquisition fund.

Those are all capital activities, Councilmember.

SPEAKER_01

Okay.

SPEAKER_09

Thank you.

And the two projects we were just talking about for Lake City and Queen Anne, that's an example of sort of a delayed project, not cancellation, but delayed capital projects to utilize funding to support the general fund shortfalls this year or next year, 2025. Okay.

SPEAKER_01

got it thank you and also on slide two it makes reference to it you know across the presentation materials but what is AWI sorry another acronym got caught twice annual wage increases okay okay all the city raises that went in for the workforce got it we had to okay final question I have for now pertains to slide seven and at the bottom and I have the proposed resolutions here sort of printed out, but took an initial pass at those.

But at the bottom of that slide, it talks about the 2025 proposed tax rate and the homeowner impact estimate.

So I note that the proposed 2025 rate is, you know, looks like Well, roughly 42 cents per $1,000 of assessed value.

But what does homeowner impact estimate mean?

Why is that?

And why does there appear to be some sort of inverse relationship?

The 24, it's 41 cents per $1,000 assessed value, but the homeowner impact is higher.

What does that mean?

SPEAKER_06

So there are much smarter people than I in the Office of Economics, I don't remember their name, but they create this tax rate for us to say in order to collect the amount of money that the Park District Plan has, what would be the tax rate per $1,000 of assessed value needed.

And that's the 42%.

And then because the assessed value changes from year to year, it can result in a different impact to the median home value.

So the second reference there is for a medium home value in 2025, the cost to that homeowner would be $341.

Okay.

Okay.

SPEAKER_05

And also, our budget every year for the NPD goes up by 4%.

That was built in.

So there probably is a slight impact of the amount that we're collecting this year is more than last year because the budget is set at 4% higher.

SPEAKER_01

Got it.

Thank you.

And then just be curious to better understand where the proposed 0.42% tax rate for 25, again, I'm noting that that is approximately one cent higher roughly than last year.

How that kind of compares to historical averages, is that typical?

Is that in line with historical averages that we have or we're being called upon every year to consider?

How is it similar?

How does it depart?

SPEAKER_06

I would say it's pretty similar in cycle two.

In cycle one, mid-2018, 2017, the assessed value of Seattle was going up so high that actually the tax rate was going down, but the impact to the median homeowner was kind of staying steady.

That would be my recollection of that.

SPEAKER_05

And then just to add onto that, cycle one was half the amount of cycle two.

So in cycle one, we were collecting approximately 50-ish and a little bit higher amount every year.

We're now collecting 127 million.

So we doubled the amount that's being collected.

So you are correct that when the, When we started this exercise in 2014, the tax rate was lower, but also what we were collecting on an annual basis was lower.

However, there was a reality of the assessed value going up quite significantly, and there is a relationship between the tax rate and the assessed value.

The broader the base, you collect less from each individual taxpayer.

So that's kind of the relation, in a rough sense, the relationship between the tax rate charged and assessed value.

But it's also how much you're collecting every year, which is dramatically different in cycle two than it was in cycle one.

SPEAKER_01

So the tax rate is a flat rate, is a flat number, it's a fixed number.

So yes, with the understanding that the amount of assessed value is gonna vary and likely increase year over year, but the flat rate itself is, the tax rate itself in this case is one cent higher per $1,000 of assessed value.

So I guess like just comparing the like apples to apples here, the actual rate is that, in line with kind of what we've seen the the actual rate increase sheer rate increase itself of in this case one cent is that in line roughly with kind of what what we have seen recently within the mbd or just like broadly i'm not sure i understand your question council member is it compared like are you trying to compare the mpd tax rate So yeah, I think what we're being called upon to consider and potentially vote on next time is for the MPD, right?

So this proposed tax rate.

So I just want to get a better basis and historical grounding on what we're being asked to consider, how that flat or that absolute rate varies to recent years, I guess.

SPEAKER_06

My recollection, and to Tracy's point, we can check this in the morning.

My recollection was when we were talking about cycle two and increasing it quite a bit, we were talking about going to about 40 cents.

And so it would seem then if last year went to 41, that was one penny more.

And now we would be proposing about one penny more for the going to 2025. So in that way from cycle two, I would say it was consistent, but it is all related to the assessed value.

SPEAKER_01

And how is that proposed figure calculated?

SPEAKER_06

So it's calculated by these really smart people in the Office of Economics.

And they look at AV, and they help us calculate what it would need to.

If you look at the resolution that has the ridiculously small attachment with all the numbers, they are telling us in order to collect the 154 million two hundred and ninety seven whatever that little tiny number is in order to collect that number you would need this tax rate and that tax rate would equate to this for a So in order in other words in order to fund the things on that list and like spreadsheet This is what the proposed tax amount should be.

SPEAKER_05

Yes, correct.

SPEAKER_01

Okay, so

SPEAKER_05

Based on the assessed value, the number of taxpayers, and so forth, yeah.

We can get you the 2023, which was actually the first year of the Cycle 2. I think you want to compare apples to apples, and we can get you just a little reaffirmation of what we just have told you in terms of what goes into that calculation.

But Michelle's got it right.

It is how much are we supposed to be collecting, what's the assessed value, and then what is the rate that has to be assessed to people per $1,000 of assessed value to get you that amount that you want to collect this year to fund the spending plan for this year.

And we are only doing 2025. We only ask for increases in property tax once a year.

We don't do a two-year increase.

We do it one year at a time.

SPEAKER_01

Got it.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Madam Chair.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Our board member.

We call it board.

I'm supposed to say board.

My apologies.

Board member.

SPEAKER_12

I wanted to really just get a sense of what the impact of some of these reductions is going to be.

So I'm looking at the consolidation of the outdoor, the grant program.

So is that, that's rec for all and the...

get moving is that those two and then I'm also looking at the reduction in teen programming and the youth learning and academics and so it looks I'm just trying to understand what the potential impact would be in terms of fewer programming opportunities for young people and fewer organizations that might serve young people who are going to be able to participate in these programs.

SPEAKER_09

On the first question, so you're right.

We have a couple of different programs that do different granting opportunities.

And we looked at, we needed to find about $200,000 to help with all of the other programs.

necessary reductions to try to balance out the general fund shortcomings.

So between the two programs, there was allocation annually of about $600,000 in grant funding.

What this program or this proposed reduction would do would combine two programs, and the overall impact would be there would be $200,000 less granting opportunities in 2025. there would still be $400,000 available funding for granting, but it would reduce the amount by $200,000.

SPEAKER_12

Do you have a sense, though, of is that two organizations?

Is that one organization?

How many kids do they or people would participate in that?

SPEAKER_06

In 2023, we actually allocated about $440,000 of that money.

So we feel like it won't be a significant impact across the board.

But I would say historically, people probably apply for about $10,000 grants.

Okay.

SPEAKER_12

I'm just trying to get a sense of the scale of what this really means.

And then the outdoor park activation, I'm not quite sure I understand what that is.

I see center city activation, and you mentioned something about parks outside of the center city, so what is this line item really talking about?

SPEAKER_06

So that is a program that does a lot of what the center city activation does, but in the the broader community, so they partner with community groups, so like the Lake City Collective or CAPA up at Cal Anderson, they'll help support those entities in trying to build activation that they're leading, but we do capacity building with them, and then we do some programming directly, like we'll bring movie nights or that sort of thing out into the community.

So we had proposed an increase in that program in cycle two, and this takes it back to cycle one levels.

SPEAKER_12

And then my last question is the grounds maintenance line item.

I got to say, maybe I'm colorblind or maybe my 56-year-old eyes just don't see what they used to see, but these all would fall into the aqua color for me.

Aqua green or aqua?

the fire department was here last week or two weeks ago and they're all their things were shades of orange and i'm like come on guys um you're not colorblind any of you um so i don't know what color it is but um but my question is what um that one is dramatically different and it's an increase so can you talk about what that increase is about

SPEAKER_06

Yes, so great question.

So when the superintendent mentioned that reducing these things on the capital side in order to support ongoing programs and services that had been primarily funded by the general fund in the past, we actually moved all of that up into grounds maintenance and cut an equivalent amount of general fund from the ground maintenance line of business.

So that's what you're actually seeing, the million dollars from the community fund going up to support grounds maintenance in order to get that savings on the general fund side.

SPEAKER_12

Okay, so it's not going to result in a greater deployment of ground crews or something, it's just...

It's a fun swap.

Color of money, okay.

It's a fun swap, yep, color of money.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you, Board Member Morales.

And I saw Board Member Strauss here, you are recognized, thank you.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, and thank you, Council Member Morales, for helping us understand a BSL change that is budget neutral.

good to that point I'm going to be taking a deeper review over the next month along with colleagues all of us to understand this in the context of in our other role passing the city's budget because the next time this will come before us will be the same day that we vote on the final package that means that if we are going to make changes in our other role In the budget, the city budget realm that implicate this will need to make those subsequent changes then as well.

And for the record, this is not clear.

Soundview did get gerrymandered out of my district.

It's no longer in District 6. It is across the street from District 6 now.

I'm still upset about losing Crown Hill, and I'm so excited to have Magnolia because now I get Discovery Park.

That's about it.

Thanks folks.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

Board member Strauss.

I saw a board member more.

Your hand was up.

I don't know if that was an old hand or new hand.

She's going to say she's happy to have sound view and proud to have it in her district, right?

SPEAKER_14

The words right out of my mouth.

Um, I did have a quick question about, sorry, the aquatic, um, It does look like there's a significant reduction.

Can you just give a little bit more detail about that?

SPEAKER_06

So all of the changes, and I totally hear you, Council Member Morales, about our aging eyes.

All of the changes Non-colored lines, let's call it that, are only technical changes related to the AWI.

So we had just assumed a 4% inflator across all of the lines of business.

But then when we were actually implementing the annual wage increases, there's different numbers of humans being funded in the different lines of business and they make different wages and the contracts were different.

So there's just a technical distribution of how that AWI was spread, but it's not outside of the policy change that you guys voted on as city council members earlier to adopt those contracts.

There's nothing else happening there besides the kind of technical distribution of funds.

SPEAKER_14

If I may ask a follow-up question, I'm just looking at the...

Attachment A to level 70, and that's where most of the chart...

under the operating.

SPEAKER_11

And board member, board member Moore.

I don't know if my ears are working.

Are you, are you all able to hear her?

It's a, it's a little distorted.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Yeah.

If you speak into the, our ears and eyes are struggling up here.

So if you just speak into the camera or the microphone.

SPEAKER_14

Wherever that may be.

Okay.

Is that better?

Perfect.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

SPEAKER_14

Much better.

Thank you.

I'm looking at attachment A to resolution 70, and it has this chart.

And it's talking about recreation facility operation aquatics.

And there's quite a reduction in the amount of money going towards aquatics.

And I'm just seeking clarification on what that means.

SPEAKER_08

Don't see aquatics.

Is it under the recreation facility programming?

SPEAKER_14

Yes, under recreation facility operations, and then it says aquatics.

SPEAKER_05

Council member, are you looking at 2024 column and then looking at the 2025 proposed?

So looking at the $3.1 million under the 2024 revised and then looking at the 2025 proposed?

That is correct, and the 2026. Yeah, so you're seeing the 1.9 in 2025 and 1.2 in 2026?

That's correct.

I think that's what you were just excellent.

SPEAKER_06

That, um, I think that's related to the, sorry.

I think that's related to the there's, I think it's related to the subsidy.

Um, so as we were ramping up for COVID, we had established, um, a subsidy in the park district to help us, um, get our revenues back as we open pools again and open community centers.

And that was all budgeted within the aquatics line of business.

So that subsidy is going away, which means they need to earn more revenues, which they're scheduled to do for next year.

So that's what you're seeing.

That's a great question, Council Member Moore.

Thank you.

So that's what you're seeing is the decrease in subsidy for that kind of COVID ramp up there.

SPEAKER_14

So does that mean that they will be charging more for swim lessons, or how do they make up the, how do they replace the subsidy?

SPEAKER_06

So two different things.

Here, I think as you may have remembered the last couple years, we were having a harder time getting just lifeguards hired and onboarded and all of that, and so our programming wasn't quite up to standard.

full throttle, I guess, as you would say, after the pandemic.

And so this subsidy was trying to support that growth.

So that's what this was for.

Separately, on the city side, we talked to you a couple weeks ago about part of stabilizing our park fund and addressing the cost of doing business there as we are proposing fee increases in athletics and community center rentals, those sorts of things.

The piece of the pie you're looking at today is not that, but it's a great question on the whole part.

SPEAKER_14

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_11

And I saw Board Member Rivera, I saw your hand up.

SPEAKER_12

I withdraw my hand.

SPEAKER_11

Understood, okay.

No worries at all.

I'll give a pause at Board Member Strauss.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you, one last one, coming back to the historical nature of the first round, the first six-year cycle was at one rate.

we increased that rate that was within the voter approved allowance.

And we still have room on top of that, correct?

So if you could just walk me through a little bit of that history of the voters approved a ceiling for us to raise the rate within.

Round one was about half that rate.

We took up the majority of the rest of that voter approval, but there's still a little bit of give.

Is that a correct understanding?

SPEAKER_06

Yes.

Do you want a deeper dive into that?

SPEAKER_05

Your remembrance about that is correct.

We sized the cycle two spending plan from year one all the way through to year six so that we have left ourselves, let us say, a comfortable buffer so that we don't come anywhere close to going over the amount that would trigger a voter vote.

a vote to the people.

Yes.

SPEAKER_07

Thank you.

But that's your answers to council members, board member Saka, about the apples to apples doesn't really work before 2023. And then the other part was that we've still got a little bit of room before that we hit that voter approved ceiling.

That's about it.

Thanks again.

Chair.

President.

SPEAKER_11

No worries.

I call board member Strauss, our second floor historian.

Yeah.

You know, it's true.

He knows, like, everything, which is great.

Historical is always good for us to know and really appreciate you.

So I will pause to see if there's other questions that we have at all.

And I don't know if you all have anything else to add at this moment.

No?

Besides our eyes are really bad up here with colors?

Yeah?

Okay.

SPEAKER_09

Thank you again for your consideration.

And as we mentioned a couple of weeks ago, you know, we're thankful and grateful that we have an MPD for all of the benefits that it allows the park system to do.

And for such a time as this, when we're facing some budget general fund challenges.

But thankfully, I think we've proposed to you a budget that continues really strong services.

and hopefully retains as much good service to the people of Seattle that rely on their park system.

So we're just thankful for your oversight and governance of this important fund, which helps support our park system.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

Thank you, Parks Superintendent slash Nintendo, Diaz, Michelle, Tracy, and Corrine.

I really appreciate all your work that you put into this and the presentation and everything.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next, at this time we're gonna move into public hearing.

Will the clerk please read the instructions for public hearing if we have anyone signed up for public hearing?

SPEAKER_04

We have one remote speaker and that remote speaker will be given two minutes and we'll hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

And when we do call the remote speaker, once the public hearing is open, please remember to press star six after you've heard the message that you have been unmuted.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

Thank you.

And we will begin our public comment with our online.

I know we'll take a second to get uploaded.

And thank you for the speaker for waiting to give public comment.

Excuse me.

SPEAKER_04

Our remote speaker is Cesar Garcia and Cesar, remember to press star six when you hear you have been unmuted.

SPEAKER_00

Good evening.

My name is Cesar Garcia and I am one of the two co-founders of Lake City Collective.

I'm calling in support of approving the budget for a one program in particular.

And this is a park community fund where the work community has unity in uppercase.

We are one of the frontline community partners that along with community delegates participated in this well thought out internal and external process where the public at large had the opportunity to participate as well.

I would like to point out that the recommended projects over a diversity of facilities and communities, one in particular, Polar Lake Street and Park will bring hugely needed playground equipment within walking distance of the last two mobile home communities in Seattle, which is located near Aurora Avenue North, and a community that we have supported for years.

Despite the small size of this park, if Parks and Recreation is proactive in engaging with them, just like it has done with other projects, It will really bring recreation justice to these communities.

So I encourage you to please approve the budget as presented by APDS, you know, the superintendent.

Thank you so much for your attention.

SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

That's our last only speaker.

SPEAKER_11

Awesome.

Thank you, Cesar, for calling in.

Really appreciate you.

Seeing as we have no additional speakers signed up nor remote present, the public hearing is now closed and we will move to adjourn.

I also want to note, we did have a definition of AWI, but being an Arizona Wildcat, my coach used to say, Arizona Wildcat instinct.

That's what I need you to play.

So I That was my answer when I heard AWI.

That's still ingrained in my head.

Shout out to Joan Bombasini.

That concludes today's meeting.

If there is no further business before the Seattle Parks District Board, we will adjourn.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Seattle Parks District Board is going to be November 21st.

But do note that this date may change to coincide with the Seattle City Council anticipated date indicated.

of November 21st to adopt the 2025 budget.

Please note this possible date change and appropriate notices will be provided in advance.

Is there any other business for the committee to consider or the board to consider?

All right.

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.

The time is 6.22 p.m.

Thank you.