Friends of Athletic Fields: Issues

Home

Current Issues

Schedule

Speak Out

Action Items

Government Links

Sports Links

About Us

Membership

Seattle City Council Candidate Responses on Sportsfields Questionnaire

City Council candidates have provided responses to our questionnaire leading up to the general election on November 8, 2011. These unedited responses provide insights into candidate views on issues that are important to field users, athletes, and parents. Names of candidates that have responded are shown in bold.

City Council Position 1

Jean Godden, Bobby Forch

Jean Godden responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

My favorite recreational activities include walking, hiking, aerobic exercise, yoga, kayaking, and swimming. I attend an early-morning exercise class most weekday mornings and walk and on the Burke-Gilman Trail weekly. I own a sea kayak and get out on the water less frequently than I'd like, but often early on weekend mornings.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently an important part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green/open space?

I support the current recreation mission. Active recreation is an integral part of many Seattleites’ lives.

3. Given the increasing demand for use of athletic fields in the Seattle area due to an increasing and active population and emerging sports like ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse, parks are looking for viable ways to increase capacity using their existing infrastructure. What suggestions would you have for getting better use out of our existing playfields?
There are creative approaches to the demand – retrofitting fields seasonally, for one. Also there are a number of new spaces that will become available once Seattle Public Utilities finishes covering reservoirs. These can and should be available as possible new sites for athletic fields (with space for emerging sports).

4. Many districts are converting their athletic fields to synthetic turf surfaces that eliminate rainouts and provide for year-round play, especially at facilities that already have field lighting. Do you support funding for these types of playfield improvement?
Yes. Due to Seattle's climate, synthetic surfaces appear more practical for certain athletic fields. And it certainly makes sense to extend use at fields that are already lit.

5. Seattleites widely supported both the ProParks Levy (2000) and Parks and Green Spaces Levy (2008). What are your thoughts about using tax levies for providing additional revenue for parks? Should levies be restricted to funding capital projects (acquisition and development) or is funding of operations and maintenance activities acceptable?

Of course the Parks and Green Spaces Levy should provide additional revenue for parks. Levies generally are tightly restricted to capital projects; but, with the support of the advisory oversight committee, some levy money may be available for judicious shifting to help with maintenance.

As a councilmember, I voted to put the Parks and Green Spaces Levy on the ballot and, before that, I voted for and supported the ProParks Levy in 2000. Because the State limits Seattle’s ability to raise revenue, levies are an important funding mechanism for the services Seattleites value. As such, funding of operations and maintenance activities, with support from the Levy Oversight Committee, seems a proper use of levies.

6. Some have promoted creation of a “parks district” with independent and dedicated taxing authority as a solution for funding parks. What are your thoughts on this or other options for providing more reliable long-term funding for parks?

There are many parks enthusiasts who believe that a “parks district” is the answer. But there are also drawbacks that one must consider. For one, it would be governed differently -- perhaps by councilmembers, just as Seattle’s Transportation Benefits District is now governed, but without the same constraints as when they pass city laws. The metropolitan parks district, a separate government, would operate as an independent taxing authority. This approach, used in Tacoma, has not been universally acclaimed and is an issue I need to study further.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

This is one of the most difficult balancing acts of all. I understand the concerns those living near playfields. However, I strongly believe that people in urban areas need green space and recreational areas that are readily accessible. Working with a citizens advisory group with neighborhood representation is one way of balancing the needs of homeowners and the needs of sports field users.

8. With the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct there is currently a process under way to develop new public spaces along the Seattle waterfront. Would you support the incorporation of active recreation facilities into these new public spaces?

Absolutely. We have a wonderful opportunity to reclaim and reactivate our waterfront. This should include both green space and some active recreation facilities.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local parks improvements?

As the City continues to see reduced revenues from traditional sources, creative public/private partnership models (or sports league investments) need to be carefully considered. However, this is something that needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It may be possible to institute some general guidelines, but in the end each proposal will need to be vetted to determine if it is in the public interest.

10. What are your thoughts about the competing interests of raising field rental fees to increase Parks revenue vs. the need to maintain affordable rates so that all citizens have access to active recreation?

Affordability and access for all citizens is paramount. However, budget deficits may necessitate raising fees to more closely cover costs. If fees are raised, they should be kept as low and as closely in line as possible with actual expenses. The goal is to keep our fields as accessible as possible. When it comes to children’s sports, the city should be especially cautious about raising fees, keeping those fees as minimal as possible.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

Yes. I was a member of the Parks Committee for my first four years on the council and have served as an alternate for the past four years, attending whenever my schedule permitted.

end Godden//

City Council Position 3

Bruce Harrell, Brad Meacham

Bruce Harrell responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

Baseball, football, ultimate Frisbee, walking and jogging. I grew up in the Seattle park system and as an adult, have coached youth baseball and football and have played adult baseball myself. All of my three children, when growing up, were involved in recreation league baseball, football and basketball.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently an important part of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for green/open space?

I love recreational sports and believe a balanced approach to recreational activities and open space is what makes a park system great. I support the Seattle Parks and Recreation’s current mission statement which is: “Seattle Parks and Recreation will work with all citizens to be good stewards of our environment, and to provide safe and welcoming opportunities to play, learn, contemplate, and build community.” I will continue to support the inclusive vision of this mission. Balancing all elements of our parks is important.

3. Given the increasing demand for use of athletic fields in the Seattle area due to an increasing and active population and emerging sports like ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse, parks are looking for viable ways to increase capacity using their existing infrastructure. What suggestions would you have for getting better use out of our existing playfields?

I recognize that field time in our city has been a challenging issue over the years. However, with the emergence of synthetic turf, our fields are better utilized because of less frequent field closures caused by wet weather. I believe we are heading in the right direction. However, we can still get more use. One way to increase capacity would be to install lighting on some fields that do not have lights and the contiguous communities agree. During the fall and winter, it gets dark by 4:30 or 5:00 pm. This leaves several hours where some fields cannot be used. These changes would have to be subject to a public process that involves all stakeholders to ensure that installation of lights satisfies the needs and concerns of all involved. I would also like to see us increase our inventory of parks and indoor playfields. The City can partner with private developers to complete an inventory assessment throughout the city to determine what areas can be suitable for additional indoor sports and arenas.

Yes, as an elected leader I have supported funding for the types of playfield improvements described above. These improvements should be explored individually in order to serve the neighborhood in which the field resides along with the people and leagues who use them.

In July of 2008, as a member of the City Council, I voted in favor of placing the parks and green Spaces Levy on the ballot. As our city continues to face budget challenges that negatively impact the operations of some departments we should consider that future levies allow funds for operations and maintenance. A recent study by the Cedar River Group entitled: “Sustaining Seattle Parks: A Study of Alternative Strategies to Support Operations and Maintenance of a Great Urban Parks System” states that by a three-to-one margin, operations and maintenance funding was seen as a greater problem than capital funding throughout the country. Operations and maintenance is a growing need that I agree needs to be addressed.

6. Some have promoted creation of a “parks district” with independent and dedicated taxing authority as a solution for funding parks. What are your thoughts on this or other options for providing more reliable long-term funding for parks?

As stated above, operating and maintaining our parks will continue to be a problem during tough budget times. As our city continues to grow, it is imperative that our parks are able to accommodate all of those who wish to use them. I support exploring the implementation of a parks district or adding parks to existing business improvement areas to find additional means of funding and sustaining our parks.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

To protect neighborhoods, we must develop reasonable conditions and restrictions regarding park use that still allow good recreational use. In order to arrive at solutions that satisfy all stakeholders, I will continue to ensure open and transparent discussions on these issues. I support efforts to mitigate the concerns of residents who live near athletic fields. Having said that, our parks and athletic fields belong to all members of the public who wish to use them and our decisions need to illustrate that. My responsibility is to ensure that we find a balance between athletic field use and the residents who live around them based on the unique characteristics of each neighborhood.

Yes.

I believe public/private partnerships, if done right and with a City Council that protects the public interest, is a great tool to utilize when opportunities are presented. I support proposals that make sense for the city and residents. The recent partnership at Magnuson (Building 27) with Arena Sports is a great example of how a public/private partnership can be successful. On the other hand, the recent partnership at Building 11 demonstrates a partnership where community benefits needed to be improved.

10. What are your thoughts about the competing interests of raising field rental fees to increase Parks revenue vs. the need to maintain affordable rates so that all citizens have access to active recreation?

Our parks are public spaces meant to be accessed by everyone. We need to ensure the fees imposed for field use do not exclude anyone who wishes to participate. Many, if not all of our youth sports leagues offer scholarships for those who cannot afford registration fees. However, if financial assistance is no longer available, and leagues themselves are priced out of participation, then the fee structure would require reevaluation. The last thing I want to see is people to be priced out of participation.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

I have been a member of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee for the past two years and may very well serve on the committee again. If I do not, I will make sure I remain involved and vested in the issues with the Chair.

end Harrell//

Brad Meacham responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

As a busy parent of a 16-month-old, I primarily use parks for jogging, playgrounds and occasional picnicking. I previously used fields for ultimate Frisbee and courts for tennis. My son already seems eager to play soccer!

Yes, I support the recreation mission. Recreation means different things to different people and our parks should accommodate this.

We need a more sophisticated and efficient scheduling system that doesn't require gaming the phone system or long on-hold waiting times. Scheduling difficulties and fees are among the factors that discourage people from using recreation facilities and classes. We should implement an online scheduling mechanism that is easy to use and fair.

Yes, I support funding improvements that provide more flexibility, year-round play and access for more residents.

I tend to be reluctant to fund operations from special levies because that approach leads to ala carte government rather than support for our entire community. Setting priorities is the job of elected officials. However, I am open to considering operating and maintenance levies as well as other dedicated funding sources for parks.

Seattle faces a structural funding problem where expenses for services increasingly outstrip revenues. Elected officials must commit to finding long-term solutions, including working in Olympia to get more funding options. Additional strategies may include creation of a parks district, zoning changes to incentivize park space and creation of local park conservancies and tax districts to fund operations. These solutions must ensure high-quality parks across the city.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

I tend to prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number of people and the well being of the overall community. Sports fields are an amenity that makes life in Seattle better for everyone – not just the immediate neighbors. That said, we need reasonable guidelines for noise and light in order to protect the rights of property owners who may predate recent field improvements.

Yes, I support recreation facilities along Seattle’s central waterfront, which could become one of the great urban spaces of the world. It should be democratic – with plenty of civic space for people to linger and enjoy – and with lots of economic activity (e.g. offices, retail, housing). It should make the city stronger, both financially and civically. So far I am encouraged by the creativity of the Waterfront Seattle process and am eager to help facilitate implementation of great design.

Public/private partnerships are a fact of life given seriously constrained resources for parks and recreation facilities. There are many examples across the country of park partnerships that improve development and operations, however we must ensure that arrangements are always in the public interest and benefit the overall community. I want to expand access to our parks, not privatize them.

10. What are your thoughts about the competing interests of raising field rental fees to increase Parks revenue vs. the need to maintain affordable rates so that all citizens have access to active recreation?

Fees help ensure that users have a sense of ownership. However, steady increases already have priced many residents out of facilities. Fees should not be a primary source of revenue and should be benchmarked so that parks and recreation facilities are less expensive than alternatives. We must prioritize access for more residents by making scholarships for programs easier to access.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

Yes. My campaign is about making our city neighborhoods more successful with affordable housing, more businesses and services, improved public safety and access to great transit that provides realistic car alternatives for more people. Parks and recreation facilities are an essential component of strong neighborhoods and are key to ensuring that we can comfortably accommodate more people in our city.

end Meacham//

City Council Position 5

Tom Rasmussen, Dale Pusey

Tom Rasmussen responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

I enjoy walking, swimming and biking, and sometimes baseball, picnics and community events in our parks.

I support the recreation mission that is part of our Parks and Recreation Department. While green/open space is important for our city, we need to continue supporting developments that give people places to exercise and participate in different athletic activities.

To efficiently use our existing fields, we should consider dividing up the spaces in multiple ways (such as two activities playing horizontally across both sides of a soccer field area) in order to maximize the use. Additionally, we need to continue prioritizing a scheduling system that allows the fields to be used for the maximum amount of time while still leaving some open time for casual participants to enjoy the facilities. Given how often I see soccer and other sports taking place late at night, I believe we are doing our best to maximize the use of our athletic fields. The next step will be continuing to invest in new fields, but we must have the necessary funds to do so. Better playing surfaces can also help.

Yes, I do support this type of playfield improvement. While I enjoy seeing natural grass in our parks, synthetic turf surfaces for our sports fields allow them to be used year-round and reduce maintenance. I am thrilled by all of the activities that I see taking place on our current turf fields.

As the chair of the city Council's Parks Committee I took the lead on putting the 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy on the ballot. I made sure that the voices of the Friends of Athletic Fields were heard and that funding benefitted the fields and related facilities. I am thrilled by the developments that the funding has supported. I would support tax levies in the future to fund our parks and green spaces, which all of our residents can enjoy. I would also support levies for operations and maintenance in the future (an obvious need that our parks have

right now), but we need to find the right time to bring such a measure to the voters.

As chair of the transportation committee, I have just created this type of district for our transportation needs. If this would be a more effective tool for promoting parks funding than general citywide levies, I would be open to exploring the possibility. I have spoken to officials from other cities in Washington State who have created such districts and they are happy with the results. Another option is an ongoing maintenance and operations levy approved by the voters.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

I understand concerns that some homeowners have – especially those near fields with lights – and I will make sure that the placement of the lights and their use minimizes the problems that neighborhoods find objectionable. However, I believe our city must encourage the use of these fields and I will work with both sides to find common ground.

I do support the use of some of the space for recreational activities that are appropriate for the waterfront and are consistent with the overall plan for the area.

I do so cautiously. I would want to ensure that the public is not being excluded from the parks and facilities.

While I am actively looking for ways to increase our Parks revenue and would consider higher rates, my top priority is keeping our fields and parks open to all citizens and limiting any financial requirements for using those facilities. I believe it is important to involve the users such as the Friends of Athletic Fields in such decisions.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

I served as the chair of this committee previously during my time on the Council and enjoyed it immensely. I am currently still serving on the Parks Committee as the vice-chair, and I would like to continue serving on the committee.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Friends of Athletic Fields. Thank you very much for all you do for our community.

end Rasmussen//

Dale Pusey responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

My favorite recreational activities at Seattle parks are the trails. Places like Seward, Lincoln, Schmidt, and Carkeek offer a way for me to “get away” from the city, while remaining in the city. Not having been raised here, I get more of an appreciation of the Seattle area, and get out there with my dog to enjoy them anytime I can. Just walking along the creeks while under a thick canopy of trees has increased my appreciation of our natural beauty of not just our city, but our region at large.

I feel the recreational activities enhance our residents’ enjoyment of our parks. They provide a way for everyone to get some exercise and strengthen our neighborhoods. We should also remember that many people come to parks just to “get away” for a while. If we can find ways to maintain a balance between the two, the popularity of our parks by all members of the community will be enhanced.

Since getting funding to expand park areas is not likely, I support the idea of converting some of the fields to synthetic surfaces. This would increase the availability of the area to more and various sports for longer periods throughout the year.

I support the conversion of fields in order to make them usable year-round. However, this should be done when the economy recovers and more funding can be provided for this goal. Right now, using money that can be better utilized to help programs among all of our parks to fund individual projects is not a good way to gain public support for additional levies and fees that may become necessary.

In this economic environment, I do not think asking the public for increased park funding is a good idea. Our goal at present should be maintaining the staff and facilities at acceptable levels. Once the economy recovers, I would work to ensure that enough funding to maintain the current facilities and programs is provided, regardless of the economic situation. Levies, however, should be used to purchase and build new facilities. If we use levies to fund our basic maintenance needs, we will not be able to continue to do so should the public vote down a renewal.

I cannot support giving any new government power or agency the ability to levy taxes at this time. At present, many of our residents are already struggling at current levels of taxation. We should look into finding a more dependable and reliable funding of parks from existing revenue streams, while keeping park and program maintenance costs at a level that can be sustained regardless of the economic situation. We should also look into private-public partnerships that can also help our parks. Parks are an important way to combat obesity and other health problems, which makes our workforce healthier and more dependable. A healthier workforce is a more productive work force, and keeps our region more competitive for future job and economic growth.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

It is important that our parks (which I believe should be part of the neighborhood) remain good neighbors. Park activities should be conducted in a manner that fits in with and does not inconvenience neighborhood residents. Activities that tend to be loud or require lighting should be scheduled at earlier times to reduce potential neighborhood tensions.

I personally believe the Viaduct should be maintained as a two-level park. My plan would turn the top level into a linear park, with areas that can support walkers, cyclists, and joggers. And if weather conditions make that undesirable, the bottom level will also be available. I believe this would be a great way for people who already live downtown to get out and enjoy the natural beauty of the city and the waterfront.

I support private/public partnerships for park development funds. Our private companies have a definite interest in helping Seattle maintain a healthy, active population. Active citizens are more productive, and have been proven to lower health care costs for employers. However, any policy that we pursue must keep in mind that the parks remain the property of the people, and any programs that come from this partnership should be available to everyone who wishes to participate.

The entire point of the park system is so that is accessible to all citizens, and not just those who can afford it. The best way to ensure this is to maintain the current level of City support for our parks, and endeavor to keep its costs at a sustainable and affordable rate.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

Yes.

end Pusey//

City Council Position 7

Tim Burgess, David Schraer

Tim Burgess responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

I enjoy walking with my wife, Joleen, in our parks.

2. Do you support the recreation mission that is currently an important part of the Seattle Department of Parks

and Recreation? Or should the Seattle Parks Department be devoted more strictly to providing for

green/open space?

I fully support both aspects of our Seattle Parks Department as both provide people the opportunity

to participate in activities that lead to better health. I have voted to fund artificial turf conversions.

3. Given the increasing demand for use of athletic fields in the Seattle area due to an increasing and active

population and emerging sports like ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse, parks are looking for viable ways to

increase capacity using their existing infrastructure. What suggestions would you have for getting better use

out of our existing playfields?

There are two things we can do to maximize our field space: 1) Parks can work with organizations to

make sure that they are utilizing their allotted field time to its fullest potential, such as putting more

teams on the same field at one time; and 2) Parks can continue to explore the possibility of an online

field reservation system that allows field-users to both look to see which fields are available, and to be

able to cancel their field time. This way fields would not sit empty and frustrate teams that were not

able to reserve field time.

4. Many districts are converting their athletic fields to synthetic turf surfaces that eliminate rainouts and

provide for year-round play, especially at facilities that already have field lighting. Do you support funding

for these types of playfield improvement?

Yes, I support these efforts. Because of the climate we have here, converting fields from grass to turf

is critical to being able to serve the increasing demand for field time.

5. Seattleites widely supported both the ProParks Levy (2000) and Parks and Green Spaces Levy (2008).

What are your thoughts about using tax levies for providing additional revenue for parks? Should levies be

restricted to funding capital projects (acquisition and development) or is funding of operations and

maintenance activities acceptable?

I support our parks levies and think that any future parks levies should include operations and

maintenance funds. I worked closely with Councilmember Rasmussen to place the 2008 measure on

the ballot.

6. Some have promoted creation of a “parks district” with independent and dedicated taxing authority as a

solution for funding parks. What are your thoughts on this or other options for providing more reliable

long-term funding for parks?

At some point, we will need to consider sustainable funding sources. We would need to do research

to determine if a “parks district” would meet our needs. I don’t have a specific position on

alternative funding at this time. However, in the meantime, we need to examine how we operate our

parks and community centers and find efficiencies to maximize the resources we have.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise,

lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

Much like we do with our City’s noise ordinance, we can set the hours that lights can be used on our

fields. We can also make sure that when we develop fields we use the latest in lighting technology, so

light does not spill out beyond the field, and we ensure that the fields have sufficient off-street

parking whenever possible. I voted earlier this year to exempt the new Jefferson Park fields from

current city light pole standards so higher poles with more efficient lights could be installed.

8. With the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct there is currently a process under way to develop new public

spaces along the Seattle waterfront. Would you support the incorporation of active recreation facilities into

these new public spaces?

I think we need to consider all possibilities along our waterfront. The ultimate goal is that the space

is activated at all times of the day, by people of all ages. However, I don’t have a specific position at

the present time since we are so early in the design process.

9. Are you supportive of public/private partnerships for parks development and/or operations, such as

independent commercial endeavors, or more simply for sports leagues investing their own funds in local

parks improvements?

Yes, I support public/private partnerships in our parks.

10. What are your thoughts about the competing interests of raising field rental fees to increase Parks revenue

vs. the need to maintain affordable rates so that all citizens have access to active recreation?

Even with the increases, our field fees are still highly subsidized and do not even begin to cover the

costs of maintaining and operating our fields. As budget cuts occur, we have to decide if it is more

important to keep fields open and available or if we want to keep field fees low. That said, I think the

city can do a better job of planning any future fee increases to give field user sufficient time to adjust

their own club rates.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center

Committee?

I appreciate the good work that is done on the Park & Seattle Center Committee, but I am interested

in serving on other committees in the next four years.

end Burgess//

David Schraer responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

My Ridgeback-Red Bone doggy and I go to the Genesee dog park or walk along Lake Washington in the Mt. Baker neighborhood daily. At Genesee Park, it is great to have all the activity on the adjacent sportsfields, not to mention the donated balls and spillover light at night.

I favor accessible, active, program-filled parks. I also favor greater transit access to parks and waterfronts.

Seattle needs to create more active parks near areas where we have or are planning greater density. Many people cannot walk to a full range of park activity today. More and better parks require new tax revenue. This involves another whole discussion on the current economy – but the fact is that politicians need to lead. Successful parks will be well-supported politically. The incredible impact of Cal Anderson Park is a replicable demonstration of how new and/or improved parks helping transform a community. Size is important –some existing parks can benefit from expansion. Other parks must be created from scratch.

Long term, I have proposed that we reclaim our waterfronts for active and passive use. We can reclaim most residential waterfronts for parks, beneficial habitat, and storm water retention if we take a long view. My proposal is to trade 50 to 100-year leases and tax abatements for ownership of waterfront lands. Leaseholders can continue to do anything they did as landowners for the duration of their lease. But once waterfront lands are in public ownership, we can work to accelerate complete acquisition as the leases decline in value over time. Similar strategies were used in the acquisition of some National Parks. No other initiative would so transform our city than to reclaim the waterfront for recreation while reducing destructive activity in our most critical habitat.

This is mixed question. We definitely need year-round fields. We also need to acquire more park land for new parks. So, I think we need a balance of improving playfields that are intensely used and creating new playfields in neighborhoods that do not currently have sufficient access. The idea of the city managing school real estate is an attractive idea and a bonus could be increases access to school playfields for non-school uses.

I have no absolute objection to levies for operations and maintenance – but think it is better to support operations and maintenance from funds that are not subject to a public vote. We need to reform our tax systems at all levels of government. The current uncertainty about revenue should be used to accomplish reform with a goal of more consistent and flexible revenues at the city level.

I have no objection to a parks district. I also support private fundraising for parks such as seen in New York’s Central Park – with the caveat that we do not want to see private fundraising result in even greater park quality and access disparities.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

Carefully! Generally I do not think NIMIBY interests should rule on issues at any level. I live within shouting distance of Stan Sayres pits and Genesee Park playfields. There are annoyances – but the benefits of an active neighborhood are far greater. Light spread is generally preventable. New noise abatement technologies may help in the near future.

Absolutely! As shown with Cal Anderson Park, even a single playfield can have a dramatic impact.

Yes, with the caveat that we do not want to see private actions to result in even greater park quality and access disparities. It is absolutely crazy that I can’t get a cup of coffee or a meal at the Stan Sayers Pit/Mt. Baker Rowing Facility.

Fees should be minimal. This gets back to our inadequate tax structure. Even in not-for-profit organizations I would like to see much lower use fees. I lived for a while in St. Louis, a place with much poverty and many problems. But, the famous St. Louis Zoo and St. Louis Art Museum are free except for special events.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

Yes, but I am equally interested in other committees and the Committee on the Built Environment would is my first choice.

end Schraer//

City Council Position 9

Sally Clark, Dian Ferguson

Sally Clark responses:

1. What are your favorite recreational activities that you engage in at Seattle parks?

A. Rowing – At Mount Baker Rowing and Sailing Center.

B. Dog walking, jogging – Usually involving Seward Park, Martha Washington Park, Myrtle Edwards Parks or Alki.

C. Tennis – At Amy Yee Tennis Center, Genesee courts or other outdoor courts.

I don’t agree that DPR has to do one and not the other. I do support the recreation mission. It’s critical for a healthy, active community to have outdoor and indoor spaces for recreation, competition and learning. Our parks are both beautiful spaces and they are places for us to build a sense of community. That sense of community can come through the enjoyment of historic (Volunteer Park, for instance) or newly crafted open spaces (Jefferson Park, for instance). It can come walking the loop trail in Dead Horse Canyon or chasing a fly ball at Lower Woodland.

The emergence of “hot” games like ultimate, bike polo and kick ball means we have to find points of commonality where we can use one facility for multiple purposes. As a tennis player, I don’t want to see full-scale conversion of courts, but I think the compromise at Bobby Morris Playfield worked well. I appreciate the willingness of adult users to recognize citywide needs when they advocate for their particular user group.

Conversion to synthetic turf has been great at Georgetown, Genesee, Lower Woodland and other location. It’s meant longer use and more access. While synthetic turf isn’t the right fit for all parks, I support conversion where user groups, staff and other advocates see we can capitalize. I think we’ve made great strides in neighborhood-friendly lighting. Through my committee we’ve approved land use departures to allow the taller poles that allow for more precise directional light that prevents “washing” or blinding the surrounding neighborhood.

While it's attractive in the short-term, I'm hesitant to have city operations become reliant on special levies. The concept of a parks taxing district is a more attractive option because it creates a consistent funding stream.

As we're forced to cut budgets year after year, we have to take a creative look at all options, including a parks district. With funding drying up at the State and Federal levels, we haven't seen the last of budget cuts in Seattle. I'd be interested in reviewing proposals for special districts around parks or libraries to ensure a more dedicated funding stream.

7. How would you balance the needs of sports field users against the concerns (such as parking, noise, lighting, and/or traffic) of homeowners that chose to live near parks with playfields?

I’ve worked for this balance in several circumstances. We have 185 athletic fields in the city. Chances are that as development grows denser over time more of us will live closer to an active park and/or playfield. And why not? Seattle’s parks and playfields are big attractions locally and regionally. As noted in a previous question, I think we’ve made he strides in lighting fields in a way that protects close neighbors. With regard to noise, I do think it’s fair to cut off playing time earlier (10 p.m.) at playfields surrounded closely by housing.

I co-chair the Council’s Committee on Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement and Waterfront Planning committee, and my vision for the Central Waterfront starts with a well-guided and democratic process for design. I am looking forward to hearing all ideas for how best to create a truly remarkable space. Very little of the Waterfront property liberated by removal of the Viaduct is wide enough for playfields, but it should be considered. I am very excited to discuss the future of the WOSCA properties at the south end of the Waterfront planning areas. Personally, I would love to see active playfields in this location.

Yes, provided the partnership is in the public’s best interest and that public access is maintained.

While I understand that in this tough economy rising fees can be a challenge, without a rise in rental fees we would be forced to make even more cuts from a department that has already been hit hard by the recession. Seattle’s fees for youth teams are still heavily subsidized by adult users. I hope to drill down further into the City’s field maintenance costs in order to stem or roll back fees in the future.

11. If elected (or re-elected) to the Council would you be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee?

If re-elected I would definitely be interested in serving on the Parks & Seattle Center Committee. One of my priorities for the next four years will be keeping our neighborhoods sought after, and great parks play a huge role in creating vibrant communities.

end Clark//