Staff brief council on $1.5 billion proposed King County parks levy; members raise equity and timeline concerns

King County Council staff on March 12 briefed the Regional Policy Committee on a proposed six-year parks levy that would generate approximately $1.5 billion over the levy period if placed before voters. Staff described the levy as a multi-year temporary levy lid lift with an initial rate of 24.43¢ per $1,000 of assessed valuation and an annual limit factor equal to the prior year’s consumer price index change plus estimated population growth.

The briefing summarized funding categories and specific “off-the-top” allocations the executive proposes and flagged policy choices the council must consider before transmitting or modifying the ballot measure. Staff also outlined a timeline for committee action, including a special RPC meeting on April 3 at 9:00 a.m. for potential committee action and an August 5, 2025 ballot date if the council approves placement.

Why it matters

The proposed levy would roughly double available parks levy revenue compared with the current levy (current levy forecasted to generate about $851 million over six years). The renewal would affect operations and maintenance, capital projects, grants to local jurisdictions, and off-the-top payments to civic venues; it would also alter household property tax obligations for county homeowners.

Key numbers and structure

- Total (proposed): staff estimate about $1,500,000,000 over six years if the levy is approved by voters. - Initial levy rate: 24.43¢ per $1,000 of assessed value; limit factor = CPI change + estimated population growth. - Comparison: current levy had an initial rate of 18.32¢ and is forecast to generate about $851,000,000 over six years; a status-quo roll-forward would have produced an effective rate near 19.52¢ next year, staff said. - Household impact (median King County single-family home): staff used a median assessed value of $844,000 and estimated the initial proposed levy would cost about $206 annually; the effective current levy rate is about $166 annually, a difference of roughly $40 per year (~$3.30/month).

Off-the-top allocations called out in the proposed ordinance

- Woodland Park Zoo: up to $42,000,000 over the levy period. - Seattle Aquarium: up to $15,000,000. - Friends of Waterfront Park: up to $9,000,000 (new allocation). - Memorial Stadium (capital replacement partnership): up to $2,500,000. - Aquatic Facilities Grant Program: up to $46,000,000.

General allocation framework

After off-the-top distributions for the civic venues and grant programs, the ordinance would allocate the remaining proceeds roughly as follows (per staff’s transmitted allocation plan): 43% to operations and maintenance, 48% to acquisition, conservation, stewardship, capital improvements and grants, and 9% as pass-throughs to cities, towns, and park districts. Staff noted the transmitted allocation plan is attached to a companion motion rather than written in the ordinance itself; the committee may choose whether to adopt that plan by ordinance amendment, by motion, or to modify the plan.

Operations and new program details (staff’s allocation plan)

- Total intended operations and maintenance investment in the allocation plan: about $550,600,000 (an ~84% increase versus current forecasts for the category). Staff attributed roughly $33,000,000 of the increase to inflationary pressures. - Noted new/expanded items: two additional King County Sheriff’s Office deputies assigned full time to Parks (in addition to two existing deputies), a park safety program ($3,200,000), asset management expansion including four additional FTEs ($4,100,000), land stewardship/enforcement program ($10,400,000), Youth Conservation Corps continuation ($4,800,000), a $5,000,000 parks portion of a jobs-and-housing jobs program, and $1,800,000 for a Tribal/Indigenous and historic interpretive program.

Capital and project examples

- Weyerhaeuser King County Aquatic Center: $22,000,000 for deferred maintenance and end-of-life repairs. - Acquisition & conservation: roughly $96,000,000 for land acquisition and $20,000,000 for stewardship of newly acquired lands; acquisition guidelines are included in an attachment to the proposed ordinance. - Trails and new parks: the transmitted allocation plan lists $179,000,000 for regional and other public trails and $51,000,000 for new park development and improvements (examples include Lakeland Park North, Skyway Park planning and community center, dog parks at identified feasible sites, new backcountry trails, field conversions, and accessibility work). - Active-recreation repairs: roughly $177,000,000 proposed for major maintenance, ADA/accessibility rehabilitation, trail rehabilitation, and specific park renovations (Marymoor, Sunset Park, etc.). Attachment 3 in the packet lists projects the executive currently expects to fund.

Grants and pass-throughs

- Four grant programs would continue, with modifications to three: Parks Capital and Open Space Grants (off-the-top $30,000,000), Aquatic Facilities Grants (off-the-top up to $46,000,000), Healthy Communities and Parks grants (proposed $30,000,000, formerly Targeted Equity grants), and Parks Community Partnerships and Grants (CPG) (executive intends $11,000,000 in the allocation plan). - Staff noted the Open Space River Corridors program from the prior levy is not proposed to continue because of low applicant uptake. - Cities and towns: pass-through allocation would increase from 8% to 9% of levy proceeds and raise the annual minimum distribution to cities from $25,000 to $100,000; the proposal also adds three named park districts to the pass-through list. The allocation methodology would change to a 60/40 split (60% population, 40% assessed value) for the cities/towns portion.

Oversight and exemptions

- The proposed levy would recreate an oversight board of nine members (one per council district), appointed by the executive and confirmed by council; the board would expire Dec. 31, 2032. - The levy allows the same property tax exemption eligibility under state law for seniors, disabled veterans, and persons with disabilities; staff said exemptions are already accounted for in the county’s revenue model. The transcript records a cited income threshold for exemption eligibility of $84,000 combined disposable income, as described by staff.

Policy issues and staff notes

Staff flagged several policy choices for the council, including whether to change the initial levy rate, whether to adopt or amend the transmitted allocation plan (the companion motion introduced by Councilor Madhubowsky would adopt such a funding plan), whether to modify the city/town pass-throughs, how to set grant program rules and advisory committee requirements, and whether to change off-the-top venue allocations. The packet also includes staff responses to questions from the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee and a detailed project list (attachment 3) for committee review.

Council and mayoral comments

Several council members and mayors urged more time, data, and specificity. Mayor Birney asked staff to provide ZIP-code-level information on current levy allocations and to explore technical assistance the county could offer so smaller jurisdictions without shovel-ready projects could compete for funding. Mayor Ralph (representing Kent) similarly asked for more detail on shovel-readiness and argued South County has been underfunded by prior levies. Council Member Dembowski, chair of the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee, said he expected to propose reductions from the executive’s total—he described the jump from roughly $851 million to $1.5 billion as a 76% increase and signaled he would offer “a little bit of shaving.” Mayor McFadden and others echoed concerns about the size and compressed timeline and urged careful review.

Next steps and timeline

Staff identified a schedule of committee actions: strike direction by March 28, striker distribution March 31, line amendment direction April 1, and a special RPC meeting April 3 for possible committee action. If the council approves placement, staff said the measure could be on the August 5, 2025 ballot.

Ending

Staff emphasized that the transmitted allocation plan is attached to a companion motion rather than embedded in the ordinance; council members can adopt, amend, or replace that plan before final action. Committee members requested additional analyses, greater geographic detail, and participation by Parks division leadership in future briefings before any final committee recommendation to place the measure on the ballot.