How to fund a park (in Washington)
I know it, you know it: parks can transform the way we experience living in and visiting urban areas. The data is on our side, with an abundance of studies touting the benefits to having access to parks: people exercise more, enjoy better mental health, and visiting parks regularly makes people more productive (cha-ching). Access to parks increases social cohesion, improves the air quality, and helps mitigate the effects of, you guessed it, climate change (NRPA). But if having friends, clean air, and a habitable planet doesn’t do it for you, rest assured that parks are also economically beneficial–from reducing flood risk to generating revenue through events, the NRPA reported that in 2021, local park and recreation agencies contributed an estimated $201.4 billion to the US economy (NRPA).
As cities in Washington gear up for a denser future, the way they invest in parks will play a role in how livable our new urban landscapes will be. Will we prioritize open plazas that provide relief between taller buildings? Will we create corridors that allow us to move through the city without cars? Will we set up programs that allow youth, the elderly, and everyone in between to find movement, enrichment, and community?
We fully support a future of robust parks, trails, and open space systems that not only provide respite from urban areas but are woven into its fabric. But dreamers as we may be, we know that this vision requires resources in order to implement. As crucial as they are, parks compete for city budget with other needs like housing, education, and transportation, and funding them may not always be a city’s top priority.
In our work with Washington cities on their comprehensive plans, arts plans, downtown plans, and parks, recreation, and open space plans, we are always thinking about how cities can access new funding sources while making the best use of the resources they currently have. Today we want to focus on parks, and the funding mechanisms available to Washington cities for building, maintaining, and programming them. The sources they choose can impact which projects get built and who benefits from the money, so today we’re breaking them down and using our office locale of Seattle as an example for talking through how these sources can be leveraged.
Volunteer Park, Seattle
A bespoke stage designed by ORA Architects brings people out to picnic and enjoy summer concerts in Capitol Hill’s Volunteer Park.
How much does Seattle spend on its parks?
Seattle’s 2024 budget allocates $226.03 million of the City’s operating budget for parks and recreation. This goes towards maintaining and operating the parks, as well as “golf course programs,” “zoo and aquarium programs,” and several other categories, which are listed on the 2024 budget website. Within the Capital Budget, there is a proposed $102.51 million going to parks, with about half of that going to Fix it First, the program that allows residents to alert the City of needs for repair, removal, cleaning, etc. This is more than the City has spent in previous years, with an operating budget of $163.35 million in 2019. It’s also higher than what the National Recreation and Park Association reports as the median operating budget of $28.88 million for cities over 250,000 in size.
Seattle values its parks. Its investments over the years have yielded parks that act as destinations for tourists and residents, grant access to stunning natural features, and serve as neighborhood hubs for recreation, gathering, and events. The budget described above consists of multiple sources, with the majority of the operations budget coming from the General Fund, meaning that Seattle is using taxes, parking fines, and other fees to fund the maintenance of its parks and facilities. Below, we describe other ways that Washington cities can fund their parks.
Bonds and Levies
Local governments can issue bonds or levy property taxes to fund parks and recreation, calling on local property owners and other residents to pay into these systems. These options typically require voter approval, meaning that the public has to believe that parks are valuable and that it is the constituents’ responsibility to help fund them. It also means that cities with wealthier residents and higher property values will accrue more funds to put towards creating and maintaining parks and recreation facilities than less affluent communities.
In 2008, community groups and citizens in Seattle helped pass the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, which awarded $146 million over six years to fund green spaces, neighborhood parks, and playfields. Under this levy, property owners paid $0.20 per $1,000 assessed value, so the owner of a home valued at $500,000 would have paid $100 annually. As a homeowner, the benefits of having parks in your neighborhood are significant, both because of the benefits of being able to access the parks yourself, and from the associated boost to your home value. It’s fitting, then, that property owners would contribute to the maintenance and expansion of their local parks.
While the Seattle Parks and Green Spaces levy has ended, the King Country Parks Levy was renewed in 2019, which costs homeowners about $7.60 per month if their property value is assessed at $500,000 (King County Parks Levy). Because this levy is countywide, it means that homeowners are paying into a fund that benefits people in all corners of King County, allowing residents in less wealthy areas to benefit from the resources of the most affluent. In a county growing increasingly interconnected, it makes sense to share the responsibility of funding parks across municipal lines.
Cal Anderson Park, Seattle
Cal Anderson hosts dozens of unique uses from spike ball competitions, skateboarding, and mobile vendors.
Park Districts
Washington allows for the formation of Park and Recreation Districts, Park and Recreation Service Areas, and Metropolitan Park Districts, which act as municipal corporations or quasi-municipal corporations that can levy property taxes, issue bonds, and generate other revenues for park purposes. Between the three types, there are differences in how they function, how they are initiated and governed, and how they can implement levies (MSRC), but your attention span is too precious to waste on those details at this moment.
The first Metropolitan Park District was formed by Tacoma in 1907, which still exists today. In 2014, Seattle voters passed Proposition 1, which created the Seattle Parks District, which has the same boundaries as Seattle and is governed by Seattle City Council under the advisory of the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners (City of Seattle). Seattle Parks District collects property taxes to fund park maintenance, operation, and development, and is the top contributor to the 2024 Capital Budget for parks funding (49.7%) and the second greatest source of operating funds (29.09%) for the operating budget (Seattle Open Budget).
Impact Fees
What can cities do if their constituents vote against property taxes and levies to fund parks? In Washington State, cities and towns planning under the Growth Management Act can use impact fees charged to developers to fund some park expenses. These one-time fees are designed to address the need to expand public facilities as a population grows. Essentially: “You are bringing more people to the city because you built them a place to live, and made money off of it, so you need to share the burden of providing those people with infrastructure.” Developers are charged fees based on the size of the unit(s) they are building, the funds from which can be used to fund roadway projects (including bike lanes and sidewalks), parks, schools, or fire protection facilities. By law, park impact fees can only fund system improvements listed in the Capital Facilities Element of an adopted Comprehensive Plan (MSRC), meaning the money goes to projects that have been researched and vetted within the comprehensive planning process.
Cities determine a rate to charge developers that is based on the scale of what’s being built. For example, the City of Mercer Island charges $6,316 per single-family unit being built, and $3,933 per multi-family unit. Some cities have more specific rates, for example the City of Redmond differentiates based on building use (“retirement community,” “day care”) and neighborhood, which may allow them to discourage or encourage certain types of development–for example, to build a car wash downtown you will pay nearly $20,000 per stall in impact fees (The Urbanist). The City of Everett calculates rates based on the number of bedrooms in the unit to better reflect how many people the new building will add to the population. Some cities also charge impact fees for commercial and industrial construction, with the idea that people who come to a city to work also benefit from access to parks.
While this strategy addresses the increased infrastructure needs that inevitably coincide with population growth, it puts this burden on the developers, impacting the feasibility of building new and needed housing. While developers don’t make the most sympathetic protagonists, they are the ones up to bat to produce much needed housing stock, and are only going to build it where and when the numbers make sense for them. Some housing advocates argue against impact fees for this reason.
The issue of whether to enact impact fees in Seattle arose this past year–in 2023, City Councilmembers Alex Pedersen and Lisa Herbold proposed amending Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan to include details on how a transportation impact fee would be implemented, but the initiative was appealed and council has not moved forward on it (The Urbanist). While there is a question of how to maintain transportation funding in the wake of the nine-year transportation levy called Move Seattle, many argue that it is irresponsible to discouage new development at a time when the area is experiencing a housing crisis. Park impact fees were not part of this discussion and are not used in Seattle.
RCO and Other Grants
The Recreation and Conservation Office is the state agency that manages grant programs to distribute funds for park, trail, recreation, and habitat restoration projects. They are a small agency (53 employees) with a sizable budget (4th largest capital budget of any state agency), and since 1964, they have awarded more than $2 billion in grants to cities, tribes, districts, and other organizations throughout Washington (RCO).
To be eligible for many of these grants, organizations need to have a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan), which outlines existing conditions, future needs, and goals for their park system. Within these plans, they also delineate a Capital Projects list, which outlines what projects they plan to invest in, what the priority level is, and how much it may cost. Once a plan is approved, that organization is eligible to apply for grants for six years. These plans can be costly to produce, though some cities receive grants to fund the initial planning effort.
These grant opportunities allow motivated park department staff and others to secure funding for the projects their constituents and they want to see completed. There are several types of funds available for acquisition, maintenance, or development of parks, trails, or athletic facilities. They are, however, highly competitive. Some are also restricted to areas that lack recreational opportunities, have underserved populations, and possess limited financial capacity. For a small town with few or no full time employees dedicated to the parks, pursuit of these grants can be time-exhaustive and may not pay off.
In 2022, Seattle was awarded RCO grants that funded projects at Rainier Beach Playfield Skatepark, Little Brook Park, Soundview Playfield, Colman Pool, and others.
Elliot Bay Trail, Seattle
Trail Users enjoy a clear view of the water on the Elliot Bay Trail, which passes through Olympic Sculpture Park, Myrtle Edwards Park, Centennial Park, and Elliot Bay Park.
“Friends of” Groups
While the National Recreation and Park Association reports that most park agencies draw the majority of their funding from taxpayer support and park facility revenue (i.e., registration fees, concessions), 73% of park and recreation leaders place a high degree of importance on fundraising support they receive from park foundations (NRPA). Often named as “Friends of” the park, these groups can form to support an entire park system (as in the Seattle Parks Foundation) or be focused on a certain park or area (like the Volunteer Park Trust or the Freeway Park Association). These nonprofit park partners can offer support in many ways, but their ability to fundraise given their 501c3 status, and therefore to generate funds outside of grant or budget cycles, is seen as their most vital function.
While park leaders report that their relationships with these organizations are most successful when they align on goals and communicate regularly , “Friends of” groups are not beholden to parks departments or governing bodies to dictate what parks projects they raise funds for. Their support may thus not be reflective of the goals of the park department or what is laid out in the parks plan. Further, it may be easier to raise funds for projects in wealthy neighborhoods, therefore perpetuating cycles of inequity (NRPA).
How Should Parks be Funded?
At the end of the day (or fiscal year as the suits say), the park funding sources most suitable for a city depends on the values and resources of its constituents, the city’s desire for growth, and the capacity of the parks department. Impact fees only account for growth, thus cannot be relied upon as a funding mechanism. Grants are competitive and may not apply to your organization’s demographic or specific project. Nonprofit partners can be useful, but require close collaboration with parks departments and may not accomplish park department goals in an equitable manner. The only reliable way to fund a parks system is for the city and its constituents to consistently devote resources to it through taxes, levies, bonds, and other such measures.
The benefits of parks within urban environments are vast, and increasingly important as Washington’s city’s gear up for a denser future. The mitigation of the Urban Heat Island Effect provided by trees and planted areas, the health benefits enjoyed thanks to access to nature and recreation options, and the impact to culture that gathering spaces afford are tantamount for growing cities. And thanks to a myriad of academics, we can also confidently say that these health, climate, and cultural benefits also make cities money (NRPA). The decision to invest in parks is thus precisely that–an investment. Whether cities go all in on a waterfront park, focus on improving access to neighborhood parks, or use their resources to maintain robust indoor facilities, we hope that cities and their constituents will recognize their parks as vital infrastructure and fund them accordingly.
Written by Hope Freije @Framework
