Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent council authorizes letter urging changes to proposed $1.5 billion King County parks levy
Summary
After a presentation from Kent Parks Director Julie Paris Godola outlining concerns about fairness, transparency and limited direct investment in Kent, the City Council voted 7-0 to authorize a letter to King County urging a more equitable distribution if the 2026–2031 parks levy is placed on the ballot.
Kent City Council voted unanimously March 18 to authorize Council President Pro Tem to sign a letter urging King County to revise its proposed 2026–2031 parks levy so that funds are distributed more equitably to cities such as Kent.
Parks Director Julie Paris Godola told the council the draft levy — which she said would raise $1.5 billion countywide if approved — falls short on transparency, coordination with cities and direct investment in Kent. Godola said the county’s stakeholder process left municipalities’ concerns unaddressed when the levy was released publicly in February.
Godola said the levy’s presentation materials make apples-to-oranges comparisons across levy rounds and that Kent received little in direct capital investment despite contributing to the funding pool. She said the county’s proposed pass-through method would increase Kent’s guaranteed pass-through funding from $572,000 in 2024 to roughly $816,000 under the new formula, but that Kent residents would still pay an estimated $8 million annually into the levy and that, over six years, Kent would contribute roughly $48 million while receiving around $5 million in direct pass-through funds under the current proposal.
"The new levy is way too large," Godola said, adding that the county’s capital grants bucket — a core municipal priority — increased by only $5 million while operations and maintenance received a much larger increase in absolute dollars. Godola also said trail and capital investments were heavily weighted to other parts of the county, noting a $120 million earmark for north and east side trails versus $8 million for South King trails.
Council members asked questions about how projects would be prioritized and who decides when projects are "shovel ready." Councilmember Trautner and others said those answers had not been made clear. Councilmember Boyce urged colleagues to use the packet Godola provided to contact King County Council members.
Councilmember Michaud moved — and the council seconded — a motion to authorize the council president pro tem to sign a letter urging King County, should it pursue the levy, to distribute funds equitably to the city of Kent. The motion passed 7-0.
Mayor Dana Ralph said the signed letter would be distributed to the King County Council, the county executive and regional networks.
Why it matters: King County’s proposed levy would affect property-tax payers across the county and provide capital and operating funds to the county parks system and to municipalities through pass-through dollars and grants. Kent officials argued the proposal, as written, undercounts direct investment in Kent while increasing the overall levy size and shifting a large share of funding to other jurisdictions.
What’s next: The levy remains at the county level and would require placement on a ballot and approval by the Regional Policy Committee and King County Council before appearing to voters; the council’s letter is intended to influence those decisions. The council gave instructions to distribute the letter to key county officials and regional partners.
