Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Kirkland council backs King County parks, trails and open‑space levy; approves resolution supporting Prop. 1

3858958 · June 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council voted to adopt Resolution 56‑85 supporting King County Proposition 1 (parks, recreation, trails and open space levy). The council highlighted local pass‑through allocations to Kirkland projects and voted 5–0 (one council recusal noted earlier).

KIRKLAND, Wash. — The Kirkland City Council on June 17 approved Resolution 56‑85 expressing support for King County Proposition 1, a replacement parks, recreation, trails and open‑space levy set for the August 5 ballot.

King County Parks Director Warren Jimenez briefed council on the levy proposal and its allocation plan. The levy rate in the proposal is 23.29 cents per $1,000 assessed value; the county estimates cost to the median King County homeowner at about $16.38 per month (a modest increase over the current levy). The levy would dedicate funds to maintaining regional parks and trails, expanding access to fields and aquatics programs, and doubling a municipal pass‑through fund that will distribute formula‑based funds to cities. Jimenez noted a combined $144 million in pass‑through allocations in the county plan; staff estimated Kirkland’s share from the levy pass‑throughs at roughly $6.4 million over the levy period, including direct allocations for the Green Loop and a Kirkland aquatics allocation.

During the required public hearing staff provided equal time for viewpoints; one speaker participated in the hearing. Councilmembers discussed the pass‑through formula and local project allocations. Deputy Mayor Arnold, who represents Kirkland at Sound Cities Association policy meetings, described work to preserve city allocations while refining the levy proposal. Councilman Tim Chisholm asked whether the city had administrative capacity to pursue competitive grants under the levy; staff said yes. The council approved the resolution supporting the county levy; the council’s motion passed 5–0 (a prior disclosure from a councilmember about board membership on Pacific Science Center was recorded and that councilmember recused from part of the discussion earlier in the meeting).