SURVEY: How should Seattle Parks’ supplemental funding be spent?

If you have some time this weekend – here’s a three-part survey that requires a little reading first. Here’s how Seattle Parks explains it:

Seattle Parks and Recreation has launched a survey to gather community feedback on priorities for the next Park District six-year budget.

The Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners (BPRC) is charged with holding public meetings and making recommendations to the Superintendent of SPR for each six-year cycle of the Park District.

Starting in late March 2022, the BPRC is launching a public process to consider potential investments for Park District Cycle 2 (2023-2028), both at full board meetings and through more in-depth subcommittee discussions.

In 2014, Seattle voters approved the Seattle Park District providing SPR with funds to increase investment in maintenance, recreation affordability, park development, and supporting community programs.

The first six-year cycle of the Seattle Park District spanned 2015-2020. More information about accomplishments and lessons learned throughout Cycle 1 is available in the Cycle-End Report and associated Appendices.

In 2020, planning for Cycle 2 of the Seattle Park District was delayed twice due to uncertainties associated with the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic and related economic impacts. The City Council acting as the Park District Board passed annual budgets for the Park District in 2021 and 2022.

The survey, which runs through May 12th, asks a few questions about each of three areas on which the budget would focus – you can open each to at least skim over the indexes to see if that’s an area you’re interested in (for example, the first one, “Enhancing Access and Services,” includes off-leash areas among other things). Park District funding comes from property taxes approved by voters in 2014.

15 Replies to "SURVEY: How should Seattle Parks' supplemental funding be spent?"

  • Kyle April 2, 2022 (2:59 pm)

    The surveys are a joke and only have three questions. Question 1 asks if you agree with what they want to spend the money on. Question 2 asks if you agree that what they want to spend the money on will promote social justice. Question 3 asks if you are excited about what they want to spend the money on. No room for public comment. Poorly designed surveys designed to reaffirm what they want to spend it on anyways.

    • WSB April 2, 2022 (3:37 pm)

      The linked page includes email for further comment.

  • trees please April 2, 2022 (4:27 pm)

    Would like to see more efforts to take care of trees, to help keep them standing and healthy. I wonder when I see erosion of hillsides with trees barely hanging on, for example. It seems like this deterioration of land takes years, are there more interventions to be taken along the way to shore up these areas and help prevent erosion? More ground cover, more trees, supports? Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but I’d like to see money spent to keep trees standing, especially old growth.

    • AMD April 2, 2022 (5:28 pm)

      One of the plans discussed in the surveys includes planting a lot more trees.  It doesn’t take long to read the plans, and the surveys are very short once you do.

    • Trees Too April 2, 2022 (5:34 pm)

      I think the answer you may be looking for is under “Investing for the Future”.  “Restoring and Increasing Urban Canopy” page 6.  Looking at it, leaves me with questions.  They plan on hiring 2 FTE – full time employees to plant 100 trees annually.  The best time to plant trees is fall and winter, so what’s the 2 employees going to do for the rest of the year, besides watering.  I think they should hire more people and have a bigger goal than the 100 trees.  Especially when Seattle Parks is 6441 acres and over 489 parks (from their website).  That would be only 4 trees per park.  You could easily fit 100 trees in Lincoln Park, Magnuson or Seward Park alone.  I wonder what our friends at thinks about this proposal. 

  • CarDriver April 2, 2022 (6:42 pm)

    NO MORE ANYTHING. Until the city can PROVE they can and will take PROPER care of what’s already planted. 

    • AMD April 2, 2022 (8:53 pm)

      The proposals include adding resources to take care of what’s already planted.  Unless your suggestion is that they learn to take care of everything without any support, I think what you’re looking for is actually covered.  You should read the plans.

  • Meeeee April 2, 2022 (8:37 pm)

    Those aren’t surveys, they’re self-perpetuating pats on the back.If they wanted true feedback and responses to a survey they’d put together actual surveys, not whatever those were.And yes, I can email if I want.  But don’t call something a survey for feedback when that isn’t what’s available.

  • El jefe' April 2, 2022 (10:01 pm)

    Whatever it takes to simply get clean bathrooms. 

  • CarDriver April 3, 2022 (7:01 am)

    AMD. My (valid) point is that the existing parks we have are NOT in the condition they could and should be. Could be a combination of budget or employee training/supervision but to me it doesn’t make sense to do more (or give more money for expansion) until they’ve demonstrated they’re maintaining healthy existing parks, trees, plants, foliage.

  • Oakley34 April 3, 2022 (11:19 am)

    I just wish they’d replace garbage bins removed from various parks and actually empty the ones that still exist.

    • litter bugger April 3, 2022 (12:56 pm)

      What if people were responsible for packing their own garbage in and out of public places? Fine folks caught littering, and employ more people dedicated to litter pick up, to keep the environment healthier? Just wondering, is there a better way?

      The current systems of public trash doesn’t seem to be working super well; and many of our conveniences come at a real cost to the environment.

  • zark00 April 3, 2022 (12:58 pm)

    Enhancing Access and Services is the one where they increase off leash dog enforcement by 75% to reopen our park to everyone – right now Parks estimates that . They’ve been taken over by off leash dog owners, and this is the proposal that would correct that.  The Parks Dept knows how bad the off leash dog problem is, and they are pretty transparent that while they know the problem is literally destroying Seattle parks, they don’t have the resources to address it. 

  • Sue T. April 3, 2022 (3:00 pm)

    Replace Seattle’s needlessly hostile park entrance signs that post “Park Closed” hours instead of “Park Open” hours, and can easily be mistaken, especially by disappointed childen, as warnings to stay away.

  • Ryan R. April 4, 2022 (11:25 am)

    I agree with Sue! It’s a relatively minor thing, but the “park closed” heading on our signs still trip me up at first glance from time to time.

Sorry, comment time is over.