32 West Seattle ideas start 2nd round of park-levy Opportunity Fund

The Parks and Green Spaces Levy passed by Seattle voters three and a half years ago included an Opportunity Fund for community-generated projects and acquisitions – and the second round of projects is now starting to make its way through the pipeline. The levy’s Oversight Committee is chaired by West Seattle’s Pete Spalding, who says that last night’s committee meeting yielded some numbers: 112 letters submitted for potential projects, 87 of which would be “development” – new Parks facilities – and 25 “acquisition,” new Parks property. West Seattle and vicinity had the largest number of letters of interest turned in – 32; second most was from the northwest section of the city, 22. The next step is the formal application process, with a September 17th deadline, after technical-assistance workshops to be scheduled during the summer; the full timeline is here.

Woodsman June 26, 2012 (8:19 pm)

Who says we need more park acquisitions!!!! We cannot even maintain the current parks. One perfect example is Kilborne park! Right next to the Fauntleroy school house. The clematis is taking over the big beautiful maple trees. The east side of Fauntleroy park has the same problem with the clematis. The more you have the more you have to maintain! When was the last time you saw a park employee pulling out invasive! Plenty of grass to mow and garbage’s to empty. Fed up in Seattle!

miws June 26, 2012 (9:54 pm)

Maybe one solution would be for neighbors in the area to form a “friends of” group that would regularly organize clean-up efforts, as has been done at Lincoln, and elsewhere….

Mike

G June 26, 2012 (10:04 pm)

As much as I like green spaces, I have to say the city is practically a park itself – do we need a park on every street corner? Maybe the money is already allocated, but jeez you wonder if could have been better spent.

visitor June 26, 2012 (10:56 pm)

Voters are so generous to Seattle parks, and the levies since 1999 created more park properties than can be sustained in the current economy. That’s why some community centers have reduced or no (Southwest) hours, and why the city council is eagerly eying private contracts, naming rights, and other ideas that should NEVER be applied to public properties. Now is the time to protect what we have, not to expand. Opportunity funds should be dedicated to maintenance rather than development or acquisitions at this time.

Rick June 27, 2012 (8:57 am)

Maybe the recipients of Seattle’s generosity could donate a couple of hours of their time.

Pete June 27, 2012 (9:17 am)

This Opportunity Fund was spelled out in the current levy and there are certain restictions as to how these funds can be spent. If you will go back and look you will see that the Oversight committee took almost 10 million dollars of levy funds to perform some much needed work on projects that were high on the Parks list of major maintenance needs. Also, if you will review the criteria for this round of the Opportunity Fund the Oversight committee was very cognizant of not wanting to add more maintenance expenses in place.

quiz June 27, 2012 (9:37 am)

I’m assuming, by looking at the timeline, that it’s too late to submit a new proposal?

Pete June 27, 2012 (10:51 am)

That is correct the deadline was June 11th to submit a project for this round.

visitor June 27, 2012 (1:18 pm)

It’s a moot point now, but 10 million dollars is a drop in the bucket for the backlog of parks maintenance. There has been a structural error in the architecture of parks financing – hopefully that is in the process of being fixed ? – (and not just in the levy opportunity fund, which is a small percentage of the overall budget). Parks projects in the future need to be self sustaining, and/or long-term maint. costs must be included in the capital budget – which, BTW, since the first modern levy, has not been done, specifically on request of the city council and in one case, of the then-mayor. It’s an error of governance, and the public is paying for it. The levy oversight committee needs to guard against a repeat.

Mike June 27, 2012 (5:57 pm)

The idea that parks can be self-sustaining is fantasy. We’d have to fence ’em all and charge admission, but to who?

Been There June 28, 2012 (7:03 am)

@Visitor – Right on!

visitor June 28, 2012 (2:46 pm)

Mike – Before the tax base was eroded, no – eviscerated – parks did not, and have not, needed private financing. If maintenance was built into the levy funds, parks could be self-sustaining. There are many other ways parks can be self-sustaining, even when the levies expire. Here are just a few ideas: http://www.8-80cities.org/Articles/Seattle%27s_Parks_ManagementAlternatives.pdf

Sorry, comment time is over.