seattle parks budget problems

[Millertime]

I’ve read that the Seattle Parks department is in the red, and services may be cut, and parks may be closed. All these tax dollars we have given, and my wife can’t even use the parking lot at Lincoln Park on furlough days. The following is from the Seattle Parks website, posted after we generously parted with more precious tax dollars.

“Thank you Seattle voters! Community groups and citizens helped pass the new 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy with the support of 59% of Seattle voters. This is an exciting time for Seattle Parks and Recreation. Parks has become an active participant in economic development and sustainability strategies that help position Seattle as a regional, state, and global leader in the 21st century.

Parks values the community’s commitment and support and we constantly seek new and innovative ways to engage and serve the public. Again, thank you and we look forward to the completion of these improvement projects over the next six years.

What is the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy?

It is a lifting of the lid on property taxes that was submitted to Seattle voters on November 4, 2008.

How much will it take in, and over how much time?

$146 million. It will last for six years, from 2009 through 2014.

How much will it cost the owner of a house assessed at a value of $450,000 in 2009?

It will cost $80.78 per year for the life of the levy, which is 2009 through 2014. (Source: Seattle Department of Finance.)

How did it come about?

The City Council created a Parks and Green Spaces Citizens’ Advisory Committee in April 2008, and asked the Committee to propose options for parks, open space, boulevard, trail, green infrastructure, and recreation projects and to identify strategic funding options for these potential improvements and acquisitions. The Council asked the committee to report back by June 30, 2008.The Committee submitted its report, and the City Council adopted Ordinance 112749, placing a levy on the November 2008 ballot, on July 21, 2008. 59% of Seattle voters supported the levy.

What kinds of projects will it fund?

Green spaces (open spaces and greenbelts, and other open areas); neighborhood parks (existing parks, new parks identified in neighborhood plans, new parks identified in the Seattle’s Parks and Recreation 2006 Development Plan, boulevards, and other properties purchased by the City for open-space and recreational purposes); and playfields (existing or new athletic fields, open play spaces, and similar areas, including spectator enhancements such as seating).

Is there citizen oversight?

Yes. A 16-member Citizen Oversight Committee reviews expenditures, advises on allocations for upcoming budget years, makes recommendations on Opportunity Fund expenditures, and performs other duties. Members have staggered terms, are appointed by the Mayor (eight members) and City Council (eight members) and represent the community at large geographically. More information is available at the Oversight Committee page.

What is the Opportunity Fund?

It is a fund that can be used for projects identified by neighborhood and community groups. Projects will be approved by ordinance, and could include acquisition and/or development of off-leash areas, community gardens, P-Patches, trails, and neighborhood parks. For more information, please visit the Opportunity Fund page.”

The Parks Department will ask for more money, and they will not be responsible with it, again. They will attempt to get more money from us by threatening to close parks and cut services. I will not be threatened, I will not give more money. They’ve proven they can’t manage it.

Share This

[metrognome]

Umm … I believe the parks are technically still open on furlough days (there is nothing in the official announcement about the actual parks being closed to users http://parkways.seattle.gov/2010/03/10/facilities-will-close-for-furlough/ ) — you could park on the street.

Also, the levy you are referring to was a CAPITAL levy, not an operating levy (and has only been in effect for one year.) You (and I) are paying for tons of improvements we will never use (i.e. new soccer or softball fields for me); the alternative is to charge people only for the services they use or plan to use in the future — and watch our parks go down the toilet. I also pay property taxes to support public schools that are useless to me as I have no children — should I be demanding to be allowed to eat lunch for free in the grade school cafeteria?

As was noted in this recent WSB article, https://westseattleblog.com/2010/03/the-parks-board-junction-plaza-park-has-a-construction-contract: “One big problem: No money to maintain the new parks facilities funded by the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, and barely enough to maintain what the department has now.” It is nearly impossible to get a maintenance levy passed until the parks have deteriorated to the point of being unusable, so maintenance is funded through less stable and less predictable sources.

Seems to me that by furloughing staff, they are managing their money well — they are reducing expenses. Have you not had to make any changes in your own life due to the ‘economic downturn’?

Here is a good source of info on all the on-going efforts to keep our parks system running: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/projects/default.htm

And, to put the scope of the issue into perspection:

“About Seattle Parks and Recreation

Seattle’s park system comprises 6,200 acres, about 11% of the city’s land area. Parks maintains 430 parks, 185 athletic fields, 112 neighborhood play areas, 26 community centers and 10 pools. The system includes several major destination parks, Discovery Park, Green Lake Park, as well as neighborhood and special purpose parks. Parks maintains 22 miles of boulevards. Parks also has 151 outdoor tennis courts, four golf courses, and 11 off leash areas. Along the 24 miles of shoreline, Parks has nine swimming beaches, 18 fishing piers, and many moorages and boat launches.

Parks also operates and maintains the Washington Arboretum, the Seattle Aquarium, the Langston Hughes Performing Arts Center, and the Alki Art Studio, and many other facilities, and owns the Woodland Park Zoo property; the Woodland Park Zoo Society operates the zoo under an agreement with the City.

Some of the many programs and activities they offer include life-long recreation opportunities to for people fifty and better, a job readiness program for teenage youth, and a free supervised drop-in program for elementary and middle school aged children.”

http://www.seattle.gov/parks/Publications/ParksActionPlan.htm

Enjoy the natural beauty of our city — that the citizens have voted repeatedly to continue to invest in for the future. If you don’t want to vote for the next levy, don’t. But don’t be surprised to see parking meters in the lot if the levy fails.

Share This

[Millertime]

Does anyone realize that the parks department paid 420k for a lot on Jacobson Rd in West Seattle in 2009. They paid full price for it. I would rather they use 420k to improve local parks than buy up vacant property and tell taxpayers that all the money is gone. As far as furloughs go, better fiscal management may have prevented many city employees from losing money on their paychecks. Did I make changes in the economic downturn? No. We made good financial decisions during our strong economy. If our city and its departments had been fiscally responsible with the money collected from tax payers prior to the recession, budgets would not be so far in the red today. Can anyone honestly say that any city department has made good financial decisions over the past decade? Nobody planned for a rainy day. When our leaders show the ability to plan for a rainy day, I’ll vote to give them more money. Oh, as far as grade school cafeterias go, are those closing too, or are they just furloughing cooks certain days of the week?

Share This

[Genesee Hill]

I don’t mind Seattle buying vacant property for parks.

Also, I agree with a “rainy day” fund. However, I would imagine there are many taxpayers who would take exception to their tax dollars going into a savings account!

I believe Seattle has done an acceptable job in fiscal matters.

Share This

[JoB]

i don’t know if Seattle has done an acceptable job in fiscal matters..

but i do know that cutting purse strings never results in more service.

Share This

[whatruthinking]

I agree that our social funds are completely mismanaged. If any one of us ran our households the way our city runs parks or anything else we would all be living in boxes on the streets. It is time we take a stand and demand all levels of our government be responsible with our money. I am appauled our leaders think it is continuously ok to ask for money for the same causes. This levy is good til 2014 find a way to manage the funds coming in! Where is the accountibilty? For those of you that are excited about paying more money in taxes during this recession or any other time then maybe you should donate your own funds privately and keep the government out of my already tight personal funds.

Share This

[WSB]

FYI on the furlough/closed parking lot. As we followed up with Parks, that was a one-time mistake. If you have seen it happen beyond that one time at Lincoln Park, please let me know so I can ask Parks why it happened again when they said they had spoken to the people responsible so that it would NOT happen again. Thanks.

Share This

[mamatimes3]

Oh, Metrognome:

“I also pay property taxes to support public schools that are useless to me as I have no children — should I be demanding to be allowed to eat lunch for free in the grade school cafeteria?”

Do you really think the education of the youngest members of our free, democratic, ardently capitalist, and yes, inherently unfair society is useless to you? So, what–parks for you and let’s let the kids run amok? We were all young once. And don’t forget, we’ll all be old too.

Share This

[metrognome]

I love it when I have nearly completed a post and this system eats it…

mamatimes3: Frankly, you gave me no concrete reason why I have paid at least $20K – $30K over 20 years to educate other people’s children. However, I paid those (and other) taxes willingly as I do believe that there are benefits to the community and therefore indirectly to me when there is a good local public school system (and parks and roads and public transportation and Medic One and police and ….) My father was a public school teacher for 30 years and we have had many conversations about value of making an education available to everyone rather than only educating the children of people who can afford private school.

I also believe that public financing should only fund the basic system and that people who have children in the public school system should directly pay a portion of their child’s education, on a sliding scale based on income. There are many other examples of this kind of user fee/shared cost funding of public sevices where taxes fund the basics to create a better community and people who actually use those services pay a fee or tax for that use (gas tax, state parks day use fee, bus fares, entrance fee to the zoo, etc.) Why not public schools?

I brought up the prop tax/schools issue only in an effort to find a comparable situation to the original post.

And I am already old.

Share This

[mamatimes3]

Metrognome,

If all those conversations with your father failed to sway you, I certainly don’t expect to do so in this venue.

While I understand the appeal of a semi-Ayn Randian approach to public services (as you said, fund the basic system and then pay your way for the rest) do you really think we would be better off as a society with the fallout from this literally half-baked approach?

Adults who choose to have children and take on the outrageous costs of raising them are actually performing a public service of their own: underwriting the addition of productive adults into society so that our society can continue. Yes, we get that nifty child tax credit on our tax return, but we receive little else except a public school education in the way of a subsidy.

Public education is part of our social contract. While you say you paid the taxes willingly, you seem to not have paid them with a free heart. As long as you see them as “other people’s children” and not members of our community and our society, you’re paying those taxes with serious reservations.

Sorry to hijack the parks thread–I have just always been saddened by the thought that there are many who primarily see “other people’s children” and the adults who have them as a suck on public resources. That doesn’t necessarily mean you, Metrognome. You just brought it up.

Share This

[alki_2008]

I didn’t read MillerTime’s comment about “other people’s children” as a statement that people with kids are a “suck on public resources”…but then again, I share some of MillerTime’s opinions that people whose kids are in public school should pay a bit more than people who don’t have kids OR whose kids are aren’t in the public school system.

On the parks thread…I’d hope that those complaining about cuts in parks services aren’t the same folks that complained about the city removing garbage containers (to save money on collection). If people want to use the parks, then they should be willing to make some extra effort (ie, pack out their own garbage) in these rougher economic times.

Share This

[gunnerddog]

Mamatimes3, please re-read metrognomes comment and then think again if he is actually complaining that he pays for schools HE doesn’t use. If you take a deep breath, count to ten, then re-read it, I think you will see that he is pointing out that in our society, we all pay for things that, while we don’t personally use, we reap a societal benefit from. That is why we have parks that the greater community subsidizes, we have schools that we all pay for, and a Medic One system. I think he was making the point that it’s ridiculous for him to try to get a specific return (cafeteria lunch) on his investment (tax bill). He recognizes the benefit in having an educated populace…well…most of the populace anyway.

Share This

[MargL]

The 2008 levy dollars at work!

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/417541_park29.html

Personally, I would rather see the money reallocated to park maintenance of existing green spaces. I know there’s the theory of if we stop spending money on new spaces then they will never happen… but really, truly, what is the point of spending the money on a future park when our existing parks might be closed or severely unmaintained?

Put all the money in one big bucket and label it “Parks and Greenspaces” then allocate it yearly to cover maintenance -first- and new parks with what’s left over.

Share This

[Millertime]

As far as fewer garbage cans in the parks, again the reason for any cuts in services is because of mismanagement of tax dollars. As far as tax payers not wanting to see the city have a savings account filled with tax dollars, too bad. It is not the city’s job to make us happy- it is their job to provide services and do so in a fiscally responsible way.

Share This

[JoB]

Millertime…

you seem to have a steady income stream.. the city doesn’t…. It’s so much easier to manage a budget when you have a consistent income stream.

Share This

[metrognome]

gunnerddog — thanks for your summary; you were correct as to my point.

MargL — that’s a good thought, but capital and O&M $$ are in separate pots and generally can’t be mixed. I agree that it is kind of silly to be building new facilities when there is no dedicated source of $$ for maintenance, but most people do the same thing (i.e. buy a new house and not set aside money on an on-going basis for replacing the roof, etc. This is why condos are required by law to have a reserve fund; this way, current owners pay something toward future repairs and new owners aren’t stuck with the entire tab.)

mamatimes3 — I don’t recall signing a ‘social contract’; can you provide me with a copy? Also, you stated, “Adults who choose to have children and take on the outrageous costs of raising them …” Sounds to me as if you are pretty resentful of having to be fiscally responsible for bringing children into the world.

BTW, I have never read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ or any of Ayn Rand’s other books. I am mostly familiar with her because she is frequently an answer in crossword puzzles.

I am not half-baked, I am half-fast.

millertime — “It is not the city’s job to make us happy- it is their job to provide services and do so in a fiscally responsible way.” Any elected official who performs in such an outrageously responsible way is immediately targeted for defeat in the next election. I think you and I have polar opposite views of why we are in the current dilemma. In my opinion, IF the government is ‘broken’ it is because the citizenry is ‘broken’ as well. Why? Because our culture is dominated by addiction to immediate gratification; as Americans, we demand that what we want be delivered exactly when we want it, preferrably without prior notice and at no additional cost. Our current style of government reflects that addiction; blaming ‘the government’ is just another way of shifting reponsibility of ourselves (notice I said ‘ourselves’ as I am including myself). WE THE PEOPLE did this to ourselves.

Share This

[acemotel]

good point about not mixing capital and operating funds, particularly on the levy. When the voters approve an increase in their taxes, the city better NOT use the money for anything other than what they voted for. The last parks levy was a capital levy. It would be illegal to use it for anything else. The 2000 parks levy had some maintenance funds included; that levy of course is finished now. And BTW, one of the big movers of the last parks levy, at least as he advertised himself during the campaign, was our new mayor. Why doesn’t someone ask HIM why they didn’t include ops and maint funds?

Share This

[JoB]

metrognome..

i think our governments need to take some responsibility for “bad” citizens.

in their all consuming campaign to gain political creds… they often neglect to point out painful truths…

yes.. i now that is the path to political backwaters.. ask Jimmy Carter how citizens feel about being held accountable:)…

but it is still difficult to hold the citizenry accountable for information they are never given.

wouldn’t matter anyway… someone would always be blaming the government anyway… and there is nothing the irresponsible like so much as a good scapegoat.

Share This

[Millertime]

JoB- The only thing steady about my income is that I spend less than I bring in, and when extra money comes my way, I make good decisions with it. Also, while it is true that the city’s income stream has been hurt by the current recession, we cannot blame the recession for cuts in services. Prior to the recession, financial decisions were made that did not take into account a possible reduction in revenue. It is the job of our city leaders to plan for the future, and that includes making decisions that keep us financially strong in any economy.

metrognome- I don’t believe in immediate gratification. Do you? I spend less than I make. I think you underestimate the number of people out there that would like to see a budget surplus vs. a budget deficit. I am willing to pay my fair share of taxes, (if used properly) and I believe in government services. We agree about where the blame should be. I don’t blame the government for our situation. We, the voters, have continued to elect fiscally irresponsible politicians into office. If I don’t like the way my city is being run, I will do my part to get someone else into office that will run it properly. Our city’s budget is fifty million dollars in the red right now. Conservative financial decisions prior to the recession would have benefited the city budget. I also didn’t realize that “fiscally responsible” has the same meaning as “outrageously responsible.” Thanks for the dialogue.

Share This

[Author]

Posts