Council staff brief committee on $1.5 billion proposed parks levy renewal and remaining questions

Council staff presented an initial, detailed briefing on Feb. 26 about the executive’s proposed 2026–2031 parks levy renewal, a six‑year ballot proposition the executive estimates would raise approximately $1.5 billion if approved by voters on Aug. 5, 2025.

Sherry Shue and council central staff summarized the ordinance language and staff analysis. The proposed levy ordinance would set an initial levy rate of 24.43¢ per $1,000 of assessed value with annual adjustments tied to the prior‑year consumer price index plus estimated population growth. Staff estimated the levy would raise roughly $1.5 billion over six years compared with the current levy’s forecasted $851 million for an equivalent period. For the median King County single‑family home staff calculated an annual levy cost of about $206 under the proposal versus about $166 under the current levy — a roughly $40 annual increase for the median homeowner.

The ordinance text includes several "off‑the‑top" allocations and broad distribution rules. Explicit maximum off‑the‑top items in the ordinance include up to $42 million for Woodland Park Zoo, up to $15 million for the Seattle Aquarium, up to $9 million for Friends of Waterfront Park, up to $2.5 million for the Memorial Stadium project, up to $30 million for Parks Capital and Open Space grants, and up to $46 million for aquatic facility grants. After those allocations the ordinance directs roughly 43% of the remainder toward operations and maintenance (including a proposed Healthy Communities and Parks Grants program cap of $30 million) and about 48% of the remainder toward acquisition, conservation, capital projects, community partnerships and the aquatic center (the executive later clarified it intended a $22 million off‑the‑top allocation for the Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Center rather than placing it inside the 48% remainder). The ordinance would also dedicate 9% of the remainder to distributions for cities, towns and certain park districts.

Jake Tracy summarized operations and capital proposals in the executive allocation plan attached to the transmittal (staff noted the allocation plan is not automatically binding if the council adopts only the ordinance). The executive’s illustrative plan would significantly increase operations and maintenance funding (an estimated 84% increase over current forecasted O&M levels) to maintain the expanding system and to add programs such as: two additional Parks Patrol deputies funded over the levy life, expanded Parks safety and asset‑management programs, a land‑use stewardship and encroachment program, expansion of the Youth Conservation Corps, and continuation of a Parks jobs and beautification program. Capital proposals included $96 million for open space acquisition with $20 million for stewardship of newly acquired land; $179 million for regional and public trails (with a detailed list of projects provided to staff); $77 million for active recreation major maintenance and rehabilitation including regional trail rehabilitation and ADA upgrades; and multiple community park development projects.

Brandy Parabello reviewed city/town distributions and civic‑venue allocations. The proposed levy increases the cities/towns allocation from $60 million in the current levy to about $119 million under the proposed levy and would raise the annual minimum distribution to $100,000 per municipality (and add three park districts to the minimum allocation list). The distribution of the remainder would shift from a 50/50 population/assessed‑value split to a 60/40 split; staff noted corrected calculations would be provided in a later staff report.

Warren Jimenez, Director of Parks and Recreation, answered questions about trail safety, enforcement, park rangers and capacity to deliver capital projects. He said Parks intends to expand a ranger presence and the proposed safety program would increase the division’s ability to be proactive, but councilmembers and staff flagged the department’s capacity to deliver $1.5 billion of capital work in a six‑year period and asked for details on expected additional FTEs and project delivery plans.

Several initial policy choices were flagged for council direction: the initial levy rate and limit factor; whether the council wishes to adopt the executive allocation plan or adopt it via a companion council motion (the committee has a proposed companion motion on file); program‑level eligibility and advisory‑committee structures for grant programs; and whether to include exemptions for eligible low‑income seniors, veterans with disabilities and persons with disabilities (state law permits exemptions; 2019 data showed a 94% approval rate for applicants). Staff said additional corrected calculations and clarifications would be delivered in the next report and that the committee will consider striking amendments and further briefings before any ordinance referral to the full council.

Ending: The committee set an accelerated schedule for follow‑up briefings and staff will supply corrected allocation tables, feasibility details on capital delivery and additional information requested by members prior to a future committee vote on whether to place the measure on the ballot.