City Council May Pare $223 Million PRO Parks Levy Package

By Jeff Boone

Pete Lukevitch of the PRO Parks committee.

With an adjustment for inflation, the total levy amount would be $178 million. City Council must decide whether or not to approve the levy; if approved, the levy would appear on the September or November ballot. The levy requires a 50 percent majority to pass.

Pro Parks 2000 is a 26-member citizen committee that was convened by the mayor in June 1999 to prepare a parks funding measure for the November ballot. The committee recommended a $200 million eight-year property tax levy, which would fund property acquisitions, development, and maintenance and operations costs for parks; the mayor added $23 million for inflation. Property taxes would increase 39 cents for each $1000 of assessed value.

The measure allocates $40 million for the acquisition of neighborhood parks and green space; $118 million for restoration and renovation of playfields as well as development of parks, trails and parks properties adjoining the historic Olmsted boulevard system; and $66 million for maintenance and recreational programming including $22 million for improvements at the Woodland Park Zoo.

But hesitant councilmembers cited numerous reasons to pare the levy amount, from voter fatigue with tax measures to doubt that the parks department has the capacity to implement the measure in an eight-year period.

PRO Parks committee member Pete Lukevich warned that City Council's meddling with the parks levy could risk undoing committee work based on sound neighborhood planning as well as jeopardize committee support.

"PRO Parks will not be supportive of a levy less than $200 million," said Lukevich. "$160 million has already been considered and rejected."

A recent public hearing may have won at least one councilmember over--Heidi Wills, the most articulate of the levy's Council critics. Wills had favored the smaller amount, fearing that the size of the parks levy would eat up capacity for a transportation levy next year. Should the City Council and voters approve the $223 million levy, remaining levy capacity would run around $25-30 million.

A large number of the neighborhood planning requests were transportation-related, said Wills. "And so far," added Wills, "we haven't found an additional funding mechanism aside from the general fund."

Wills estimates that neighborhood-related transportation requests amount to $400 million. Thirty million, said Wills, would not get us very far in responding to neighborhood plans.

"We're trying to restore bus cuts and the mechanism the legislature gave us was the sales tax--a regressive tax. If we aren't given a mechanism by the state legislature next year, the city of Seattle will be left needing to find a way to fund transportation."

"I can't say my wish is to fund transportation because it's a seesaw--parks and transportation. But we need to keep in mind that transportation is an equal priority for our citizens."

Wills said public testimony in favor of the $223 million package was very compelling, and she would reconsider her earlier stance.

"I was talking before I heard from the public. I see all sides now. There were needs expressed at the public hearing that a lower levy amount would not satisfy."

"And," said Wills, "I am convinced that the maintenance and operations component of the levy is extremely important."

Wills said she wasn't sure if she would go for the full amount, but she was leaning that way. According to Wills, it's a matter of determining how to accommodate park and open space needs while maintaining capacity for transportation needs.

Lukevich does not believe the parks levy would come at the expense of transportation.

"Capacity," said Lukevich, "is a prudent discussion. But we've been assured that this levy does not exceed our means or jeopardize city capacity to handle emergencies. There is sufficient capacity left for transportation."

But dissatisfaction with the levy comes from other sectors as well, some surprising. Groundswell NW, the Ballard parks development organization, said it would not support the levy unless Ballard was allotted more acquisition dollars.

"We're not going to support it in the northwest sector unless we get our fair share," said Groundswell NW member Chuck Nafziger. "We're $6 million short. You can look at the levy in terms of geographic distribution, or you can look at it in terms of parks. Ballard is deficient in parks, and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing. This is the opportunity for the money to come to Ballard."

Nafziger noted that a significant portion of the proposed levy is earmarked for the northeast sector of Seattle.

"A lot of dollars are going to the northeast for improvements, not establishment of properties. We need to establish properties in Ballard."

And off-leash advocates were unhappy with the Sand Point/Magnuson Park distribution of redevelopment dollars. COLA (Coalition of Off-Leash Areas) noted that the share allotted to the off-leash area at Sand Point was not enough to recreate the original off-leash area.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!