METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT WOULD UNDERMINE ACCOUNTABILITY AND FUNDING FOR SEATTLE’S PARKS

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

To Seattle park advocates:

Thank you to those who are re-circulating my earlier analysis that raised questions about a possible Seattle Metropolitan Park District. But please discard and replace it with this retitled and rewritten version that I sent April 28 to the Seattle Parks Board. It includes many more citations to the Washington MPD statute, which can be found at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.61.

This revision also refutes claims that a state-chartered MPD’s overriding of Seattle’s Charter, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations that now protect our parks and open government could somehow be cured by the wording of a Seattle ballot measure or by the City Council’s re-enactment of these lost protections in its new guise as a state MPD board.

Neither the Parks Board nor the Seattle Parks Foundation have taken a position on whether an MPD would be good for Seattle. My hope is that they and other groups will urge the Mayor and City Council to better fund our parks without an MPD, and urge the City Attorney to release to the public a detailed legal memorandum analyzing the various issues raised below. Without major changes in state law, a Seattle MPD would be an historic mistake, and the proposals are letting the Mayor and City Council off the hook from funding our parks from the City treasury. Hard-won protections must not be sold for a sketchy increase in property taxes, which state law should allow to Seattle and other localities without their having to create a state-chartered MPD that endangers the very parks it supposedly is helping.

Chris Leman (206) 322-5463

WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS IN STATE LAW, A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT

WOULD UNDERMINE ACCOUNTABILITY AND FUNDING FOR SEATTLE’S PARKS

Seattle’s parks, community centers, nature centers, and other Park Department facilities are endangered by proposals for a state-chartered Metropolitan Park District. Like the ill-fated Monorail Authority, a Seattle Metropolitan Park District would operate under a state charter, evading any of the protections that have been painstakingly built into the City Charter, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations. As a state entity, a Seattle MPD would be governed only by state laws, which are weaker and which the legislature could further weaken at any time.

Background. Although unaccountable to Seattle voters (who would be denied even the ability to close it down by public initiative), a Metropolitan Park District would have vast powers of eminent domain, employment, taxation, and the issuance of bonds, and it could operate a wide range of businesses, including stadiums and performing venues, airports, port facilities, and anything else “it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes.”

It is disturbing that public officials and civic leaders who should be strong stewards of Seattle’s parks and of open government have been quietly rushing to establish a Seattle Metropolitan Park District without thorough analysis or public discussion of the serious accountability issues that would accompany an MPD under current state law. Seattle should be strongly opposed to an MPD until major improvements are made in the state legislation, as listed below.

Instead of seeking the needed improvements in state law, in 2002 Seattle successfully lobbied for a change that further reduced an MPD’s accountability--allowing a City Council or County Council to serve as the governing body of a Metropolitan Park District [RCW 35.61.050 (3)]. This change eliminated the independently elected park commissioners who would otherwise be in charge of the District, and who would be more accountable because their election would depend entirely on their stewardship of parks facilities.

Unlike almost any other Seattle program, the City’s parks and their funding needs are recognized in the City Charter. Unfortunately, mayors and city councils have had other priorities, giving parks an ever decreasing portion of City funds. The Mayor and City Council should correct this imbalance, not create a Metropolitan Park District that, under current state law, would make Parks Department funding even shakier and would destroy the park system’s protections and accountability.

Advocates for a Seattle Metropolitan Park District are attracted by the small additional property tax capacity that it would have without need for regular voter approval. But they forget that the tax capacity of Metropolitan Park Districts is junior to other taxing entities such as school districts, the Port of Seattle, the County, and the City itself. In years when property tax revenues are down, a Seattle MPD would suffer huge losses. The largest existing MPD, in Tacoma, has been chronically short of revenue, forcing it to ask voters for funding just as if it were part of the Tacoma City government. State law prohibits a City from contributing funds to an MPD unless the City declares an emergency.

Were a Seattle MPD to be established with its own limited claim on property taxes, advocates for reducing City spending or for spending more on fire, police, and social needs will have a case against the spending of City property taxes for parks, and these funds are likely to diminish further. Tacoma once had a well-regarded and well-funded Parks Department, but it withered once the Tacoma MPD was established.

If Seattle really wants the additional tax base that state law allows to a Metropolitan Park District, it should seek a change in state law, providing this additional tax base to a City that chooses not to create an MPD. Establishing an MPD, with all of the accountability problems that it would bring, is not a responsible way to increase park funding.

Problems in accountability and state law. The City Council, in meeting as the Metropolitan Board of Park Commissioners, would not be covered by any City ordinances, resolutions, or regulations--not even by its own City Council rules. It would be acting as a state-chartered body, and thus be subject only to state laws and regulations. And unlike the elected Tacoma MPD commissioners, the City Councilmembers would not be elected specifically for their work on a Seattle MPD, greatly diminishing their accountability for what they would do on the MPD’s governing board.

Some argue that Seattle can get around the unaccountability of a City Council acting as the state-chartered MPD Board of Park Commissioners by writing into a Seattle MPD’s charter that it must obey the Seattle Charter, ordinances, resolutions, and regulations. But such a requirement could not stand up in court, as state agencies are not subordinate to local agencies, and no agency can be bound beforehand by charter provisions, laws, and regulations that may be passed in the future.

It would also be unworkable if, acting as a state-chartered MPD Board of Park Commissions, the City Council tried to re-enact as MPD policies the City Charter and the hundreds of thousands of pages of City ordinances, resolutions, and regulations, including the constant changes as they arise. Even worse: acting as an MPD Board, the City Council could repeal any of those commitments at any time, and unlike with its decisions under the City Charter, its decisions would be beyond any power of the public to challenge by initiative or referendum, which do not apply to an MPD. As a local government, Seattle now has home rule and more than a century of protections for parks and citizens rights. These it would all be giving up by creating a state-chartered a Metropolitan Park District.

Seattle should not even consider establishing a Metropolitan Park District without removal of the following invitations to abuse. Most of the solutions would require a change in state law. Under current state law (which could be worsened further, without any way for Seattle voters to prevent it), a Seattle MPD would have the following powers:

· Can acquire property, including by eminent domain (condemnation), and not only for parks, playgrounds, parkways, and boulevards, but also to “widen, alter, and extend streets” and to build and operate airports [RCW 35.61.130].

· Can acquire City property (including street rights of way) by transfer without the procedural safeguards and public notice required when the City transfers property to other entities [RCW 35.61.290, RCW 39.30.010].

· Can increase the property tax assessment on adjoining private properties that it claims have benefited from any street improvement it has done [RCW 35.61.220].

· Can establish local improvement districts (additional taxes in a limited area) [RCW 36.69.200].

· Can “sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of” property by declaring it surplus [RCW 35.61.132].

· Can issue revenue bonds and general obligation bonds, many without voter approval [RCW 35.61.100-115, RCW 39.46.110].

· Can use community revitalization financing, under which a portion of the taxes collected in an area near one of its facilities can be denied to citywide uses or schools and be kept for its own use [RCW 35.61.137, RCW 39.89.050].

· Can commission its own police officers with full police powers [RCW 35.61.370].

· Can conduct any business activities “as it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes” [RCW 35.61.130]. This includes merchandise and food sales, concerts and other entertainments, and the operation of airports and port facilities.

· Can fund a wide range of public improvements, including street construction and maintenance, water, sewer, and drainage construction, sidewalks and streetlights, parking, and terminal and dock facilities [RCW 839.89.020].

· Is not subject to any of the initiative and referendum powers that citizens have in the City Charter. Although initially established by voters, an MPD cannot be undone by voters. RCW 35.61.310 gives this sole power to the MPD board, and only if ten percent of the number of voters in the last election have petitioned them with this request.

· Is not subject to any of Seattle’s laws and regulations on competitive bidding, equal employment, human rights, ethics, civil service, whistleblower protection, percent for the arts, tree protection, and even the comprehensive plan.

· Escapes the jurisdiction of all of Seattle’s boards and commissions, even its Board of Parks Commissioners (Park Board), and also its Civil Service Commission, Public Safety Civil Service Commission, Ethics and Elections Commission, Design Commission, Planning Commission, Human Rights Commission, and Commission for People with Disabilities,

· Is not subject to the overwhelmingly passed Initiative 42, a law which protects Seattle parks from being misused, sold or given away.

· Can acquire and manage land outside the City limits [RCW 35.61.130].

· Can annex land outside the City limits [RCW 35.61.275].

Conclusion. The Seattle City Council in 1999 considered a proposal for establishment of a Metropolitan Park District, rejecting it because of many of the above concerns. At that time, parks and good government advocates urged the City to release to the public a thorough analysis of the legal and policy issues that they had raised. Now eleven years later, the City has still not done so.

Now that the issue of a Seattle Metropolitan Park District is arising again, the public is no closer to receiving from the City even the semblance of a careful analysis of the legal and policy issues that are listed above. There is one hope, in that City Attorney Pete Holmes (if enough people urge him to do so) may issue a detailed public legal opinion on the subject.

Please act! The Mayor, City Attorney, and City Council need to hear from you on this issue. Contact the Mayor at mike.mcginn@seattle.gov, by voice mail at (206) 684-4000, by fax at (206) 284-5360, and by mail at P.O. Box 94729, Seattle 98124-4025. Contact City Attorney Pete Holmes at peter.holmes@seattle.gov, by voice mail at (206) 684-8200, by fax at (206) 684-8284, and by mail at PO Box 94769, Seattle 98124-4769. It’s always best to write each Councilmember separately, not address them all in one message. The City Council fax number is (206) 684-8587, and the U.S. mail address is P.O. Box 34025, Seattle, WA 98124-4025. Here are the e-mails and voice mails:

sally.clark@seattle.gov 684-8802
tim.burgess@seattle.gov 684-8806
tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov 684-8808
jean.godden@seattle.gov 684-8807
richard.conlin@seattle.gov 684-8805
mike.obrien@seattle.gov 684-8800
bruce.harrell@seattle.gov 684-8804
nick.licata@seattle.gov 684-8803
sally.bagshaw@seattle.gov 684-8801

The above alert is authored by Chris Leman, who can be reached at (206) 322-5463 and cleman@oo.net

Christofer Williams' letter to staff

From: Williams, Christopher
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:53 PM
To: PKS_all_staff
Subject: Checking in with employees

Dear Employee,

As many of you were already aware, back in 2001 I was diagnosed with cancer. I was recently informed by my physician that a more aggressive form of this cancer has returned. I must admit that I was not caught completely by surprise by this information. Being a cancer survivor, I have gotten used to looking over my shoulder.

I am currently working with my medical provider to determine the best course of treatment and consulting with my family regarding both short-term and long-term decisions. As soon as I have more information I promise to share it with you.

In the meantime, please carry on business as usual.

Christopher

Christopher Williams named Acting Parks Superintendent

News

For Immediate Release Contact: Mark Matassa

April 28, 2010 Tel: (206) 233-2655

Mobile: (206) 604-4072

Christopher Williams named Acting Parks Superintendent

Mayor McGinn appoints department veteran to lead through budget crisis

SEATTLE – Mayor Mike McGinn today named Christopher Williams as Acting Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation, following the resignation on Monday of Superintendent Timothy Gallagher.

Williams, a Parks and Recreation employee for nearly 20 years and the deputy superintendent under Gallagher, will take over management of the department immediately, Mayor McGinn said.

“Like the rest of City government, the Parks Department is facing serious budget challenges. Christopher Williams has been working with my office to address them over the past few weeks, and I’m pleased to have his experience, dedication and management expertise at the helm as we find ways to preserve our excellent parks services,” the mayor said.

Mayor McGinn and Williams both said they were interested in finding budget savings or exploring revenue options that would minimize reductions in Parks and Recreation programs or services.

The mayor and his budget office directed Williams to provide management plans for three potential scenarios, given the city’s budget:

A Parks system that maintains the current array of services and obligations

A Parks system that includes a mix of service reductions or program eliminations in order to operate within the City’s current funding constraints

A Parks system that meets current obligations, including maintenance and operations, and allows Seattle to realize the system’s full potential (use of existing facilities and those expected to come online with the Parks Levy).

Williams, who has worked for the Parks Department since 1992 “in almost every role from safety officer to interim superintendent,” said he was thrilled to receive the appointment after such a long tenure with the city.

“I’m a product of the Parks and Recreation system,” Williams said. “Growing up in Seattle, I played on the athletic fields, participated in the programs. My kid played in the youth basketball program. I’ve seen that Parks and Recreation is the first line of opportunity for vulnerable, disadvantaged people. It can help socialize at-risk youth. It shows the value of community, and the value of volunteerism.”

Williams, 46, was born in Seattle and graduated from Chief Sealth High School. He received an undergraduate business degree from Columbia University, and a master’s degree from Seattle University.

Tim Gallagher, Superintendent Parks & Recreation - Letter of Resignation

April 26, 2010

To: Mayor Mike McGinn

Council President Richard Conlin and Seattle City Council

From: Tim Gallagher, Superintendent Parks & Recreation

Subject: Letter of Resignation

Effective May 10, 2010 I will resign my position as Superintendent of Parks and Recreation for the City of Seattle.

When I decided to return to work in 2007 my decision was based not only on the opportunity to manage one of the great park systems within the United States but my continued concerns with the issues of environmental sustainability and obesity, especially with the long-term health effects towards children. During my time with Seattle I have made those issues a primary effort and one that was recognized by the Seattle public as important.

Further, I worked to develop an organization with a culture of learning and one that placed a value on the systems greatest resource, its employees. I worked to develop and encourage a learning environment within the organization, bringing in new ideas and concepts and tracking the trends and developments in the field, not only in the United States but world-wide. Further, I made an effort to reach out to the public as was evident by my 200 plus after hour public meetings each year.

As with many professions, continuing education is important to not only the sustainability of the profession but the requirement to be up to date. Recently the department sent nearly three dozen employees to the annual Washington Parks and Recreation Society’s annual conference. This is but one example of the many learning experiences and continuing education opportunities that the employees have been provided to attend during my term with the City. The investment in the employees has many positive outcomes, including, but not limited to the development of staff and delivery of services to the public.

I will stand by my efforts to develop this learning environment within the department not just as it relates to the employees but more importantly as it relates to the long-term sustainability of the department. Clearly, the subject of long-term sustainability is one that must be addressed in the next year. Voter approval of several recent levys shows the tremendous public support for parks and recreation, unfortunately operation and maintenance resources have not been provided to the department to match the public’s request. The result is a park and recreation system that is now unsustainable and in jeopardy of collapse.

Unfortunately, the press has decided to focus on other matters and not the real story, the upcoming collapse of a truly great park system. With the reality of the direction of the focus, I believe it is best for me to step aside to allow the press to concentrate on the real issue at hand, the sustainability of the park and recreation system for the City of Seattle.

Over the past several months we have suggested several avenues to develop a level of sustainability, from elimination of lines of business, to asking the voters to decide on new revenue to support the current system. My hope is that all elected officials step forward and fully evaluate the opportunities at hand.

Sincerely,

Tim Gallagher

Federation meets Thursday, April 22, 2010, 7:00 p.m.

SEATTLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL FEDERATION

http://seattlefederation.blogspot.com/

Regular Meeting

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), Pacific Marine Center on Lake Union

1801 Fairview Avenue East

Thursday, April 22, 2010

AGENDA

Moving Forward or in Reverse?

A Dialogue with SDOT Director Peter Hahn

Part of Director Hahn’s vision for Seattle’s transportation department includes building neighborhoods. How can this happen with diminishing funds for the Neighborhood Street Fund and the increasing limited role for the involvement of neighborhoods? How can SDOT work to reduce the maintenance backlog to avoid higher costs in the future? These are just a few issues confronting Seattle’s new SDOT Director. Bring your questions for Director Hahn.

The April meeting will also include our monthly Round Robin of issues in your neighborhood. It is your opportunity to brief our citywide membership about what you are working on and to share perceptions on what is going right and what isn’t with our city government.

If you have informational materials you would like distributed at the meeting, please email electronic copies or links to Jeannie Hale at jeannieh@serv.net.

7:00 Call to Order and Introductions

Administration

1. Changes to the agenda

2. President’s report

7:15 Moving Forward or in Reverse? A Dialogue with SDOT Director Peter Hahn

8:15 Round Robin

1. Proposed Aggressive Solicitation Ordinance—Update

2. Is the time right for a Metropolitan Park District in Seattle—first in a series of conversations about the implications

3. Budget priorities—Please bring priorities from your community group

4. Agenda planning for future Federation meetings

5. Other issues/projects

9:00 Adjourn

NOAA is a federal facility on high security alert, so attendees must enter by the security gate and may need to present photo ID. If you haven't attended a recent Federation meeting, please send your name, contact information, and address to rickbarrett@gmail.com to be added to the entry list. No e-mail? Call 206-365-1267. The building is ADA compliant, with ample parking in front.

Seattle Panhandling Ordinance: The Final Score

Seattle Panhandling Ordinance: The Final Score

Tuesday, April 12, 2010

By Timothy Harris, Executive Director, RealChangeNews.org

Next Monday, if all goes as expected, Councilmember Burgess’ dishonest panhandling ordinance will slam through the City Council on a veto-proof 8-1 vote.

The third set of Burgess amendments — offered in last week’s Public Safety committee — were quickly passed. Is the Burgess “fix” a solution to widely held public concerns? Who knows? The discussion is closed.

Two amendments from Councilmember Licata were shamefully rejected without so much as a second at the same meeting. These asked that Peter not be robbed to pay Paul for new foot patrols, and that the services needed to make the measure “non-punitive,” — street outreach, treatment, housing, and mental health resources — be found to exist before the punishment begins. No dice.

The measure, it is often said, has the support of the human services community. Then comes the list: Plymouth Housing Group, Downtown Emergency Center, Union Gospel Mission, YWCA, and the Compass Center. Each has large city contracts. Most of the ED’s are on the boards of prominent downtown business interests.

These things happen, and their support is unrepresentative of even their own base. The Seattle-King County Coalition on Homelessness is a more honest barometer, as is the Church Council of Greater Seattle, El Centro de la Raza, the Lutheran Public Policy Office, the Minority Executive Director’s Coalition, the ACLU of Washington, Seattle King County NAACP, the Statewide Poverty Action Network, and Real Change.

All share the concern that the Seattle Human Rights Commission, established in 1963 “to advise the City of Seattle on human rights issues and … prevent and eliminate discrimination city-wide,” voted 9-1 to reject. The SHRC report, available at their website, describes grave “due process and disparate impact” concerns, and found the data to justify the law “insufficient to support the substance of the proposed ordinance.”

The Council hasn’t blinked. The 8-1 count, apparently, is in.

An unlikely but still possible better outcome is for a flawed but improved measure to pass 9-0. For this to occur, four council-members would need to support Licata’s perfectly reasonable set of Hail Mary amendments.

Can this Council be that honest? Can Harrell? Rasmussen? O’Brien? The Sallies? On the morning of Monday the 19th, we’ll have their answer.

PUBLIC INTEREST LEADER DORIS BAXTER BURNS, 1926-2010

PUBLIC INTEREST LEADER DORIS BAXTER BURNS, 1926-2010

The Seattle Community Council Federation regrets to announce the death on April 3 of Doris Baxter Burns, who served for many years as its President and most recently as its Treasurer. Burns was 83 years old, and leaves behind a sister, daughter, two grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. Her history as a talented and colorful community leader is a panorama of public interest issues in Seattle of the past half century.

In Seattle and statewide, Burns was for decades a powerful advocate for better and more open government, and for protection and improvement of neighborhoods. Generous in donating to grassroots and progressive candidates and causes, she was active in the Democratic Party in the 43rd district, where her late husband Bill Burns was elected to the state House of Representatives.

For many years, Doris Baxter Burns chaired the City University Community Advisory Committee, a unique body established by the City of Seattle and the University of Washington to guide the university’s development. Although she had a UW degree in social work and was extremely generous to the university with donations, she also formidably insisted that UW listen to the neighborhoods and that it avoid unreasonable expansion.

In years as President and board member of the Montlake Community Club, Burns brought many improvements to Montlake Elementary School, Montlake Community Center, Montlake Playfield and other parts of the neighborhood. With equal skill and verve, she protected Montlake, the Arboretum, and all of northeast Seattle from proposed expansions of State Route 520. She also co-founded a forerunner of the Northeast District Council, years before thirteen district councils were recognized as official Seattle advisory committees.

Burns was always willing to put her name on the line in civic causes. Utility customers will forever benefit from the 2007 case of Burns vs. Seattle, in which the Washington Supreme Court ruled that utility rates were being illegally tapped for non-utility purposes, and forced millions of dollars in rebates, giving the public more control over spending and taxing decisions.

A remembrance event will be held but is not yet scheduled. In memory of Doris Baxter Burns, a civic action fund has been established by the Seattle Community Council Federation, one of the nation’s oldest alliances of neighborhood organizations. Donations are tax-deductible, with checks made out to SCCF/Burns Memorial Fund and sent to SCCF, PMB #373, 4616 25th Avenue NE, Seattle, WA 98105. For questions, contact SCCF Treasurer Chris Leman, (206) 322-5463, cleman@oo.net.