Kent city leaders want bigger piece of county Parks Levy

City leaders want more money/projects coming back to Kent in order to support a proposed six-year King County Parks Levy expected to be on the Aug. 7, 2025 primary ballot.

The Kent City Council sent a letter in March to the King County Council asking for changes to the proposal that would renew a six-year levy approved by voters in 2019, but at a much-higher total price of $1.5 billion compared to $810 million six years ago.

”Kent residents are projected to contribute over $48 million to this levy over the six-year period,” according to the March 18 letter unanimously approved by the city council. “Yet, based on current funding models, our city would receive an estimated $816,000 per year in guaranteed pass-through funding, totaling less than $5 million over the six-year period—a return on investment of under 11%. Even when factoring in potential grant funding, if successful, our residents may only see a maximum return of 15%, which is still significantly disproportionate compared to their contribution. The proposed levy represents a 25.6% increase over the previous annual rate, resulting in a noticeable jump in property taxes for residents, for minimal return.”

The county council could take action on the the proposed parks levy at its April 15 or April 22 meetings, according to a county spokesperson. The proposal must be approved before May to get on the August ballot.

The city council, according to the letter, urged the county council before approval to take the following actions:

• Reduce the amount of the proposed tax levy.

• Allocate funding for specific, direct investments in Kent, including long-needed trail improvements, regional park development, and connections to new community parks.

• Increase pass-through funding and revisit the formula to ensure communities with larger populations but lower AV (assessed value of property) are not continually shortchanged.

• Expand the Parks and Open Space Grant Program, which remains critically underfunded despite overwhelming need and demonstrated demand.

• Re-engage cities before finalizing the levy proposal, incorporating meaningful feedback and strategic coordination with local park systems.

”Without these changes, we believe it would be difficult—if not impossible—for the Kent City Council to support this levy as it is currently proposed,” according to the letter. “Our residents deserve a fair return on their investment, and a levy package that reflects real partnership and equity across the county.”

The county has more than 250 parks, 185 miles of regional trails, 215 miles of backcountry trails, and more than 32,000 acres of open space.

The county’s Budget and Fiscal Management Committee made several changes to the parks levy proposal, including requests by the city of Kent, at its March 26 meeting.

King County Councilmember De’Sean Quinn, whose District 5 includes part of Kent, serves on that committee and said in a March 28 email that he has been in regular contact with Kent Mayor Dana Ralph since the county executive’s levy proposal on Feb. 18. Quinn said he received a copy of the letter from the city council.

Quinn said the committee addressed each of Kent’s requests and others, including:

• Reduce the amount of the proposed tax levy. The Budget Committee reduced from 24.4 cents to 23.51 cents per $1,000 assessed value of property.

• Allocate funding for specific, direct investments in Kent, including long-needed trail improvements, regional park development, and connections to new community parks.

• The Budget Committee added $5 million for Kent projects connected to regional trails. The proposal also includes $7 million for Soos Creek Trail, $55 million for Lake to Sound Trail and $8 million for Interurban Trail south.

The Lake to Sound Trail – once completed – will connect the Eastrail Trail, the Cedar River Trail, the Interurban Trail, the Soos Creek Trail and the Green River Trail.

• Increase pass-through funding and revisit the formula to ensure communities with larger populations but lower AV (assessed value) are not continually shortchanged.

Per the striking amendment passed by the Budget Committee, Quinn said, all cities in District 5 including Kent will be receiving increases in pass-through funding due to the addition of an “equity bump” for cities addressing unmet needs as well as a new formula which is 60% population/40% property value instead of the current 50/50 allocation formula.

“We appreciate that the county has responded to some of the feedback already, including the consideration of a rate reduction from 24.4 to 23.51 cents per $1,000 of assessed value,” said City Parks Director Julie Parascondola in a March 31 email. “For a $500,000 homeowner, that would equate to about $117.55 per year or roughly $705 over six years. That said, the striker amendment containing that rate change is still being discussed, so it’s hard to say whether that figure will hold in the final version.”

Parascondola said with so many cities impacted by the levy there’s been a lot of discussion with county parks staff and the county council about the measure.

“In the current draft of the striker amendment proposed by King County Councilmember Rod Dembowski, there is an added $5 million direct appropriation for regional trail investments in Kent, which we greatly appreciate,” Parascondola said. “However, all direct appropriations and city-specific investments are still subject to change during this process, so we’re continuing to monitor what ultimately stays in the package and will be better able to respond when we know the final appropriations.”

Parascondola said the pass-through funding, which provides direct dollars from the levy to cities based on pre-established formula, is of key interest to Kent.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about modifying that formula, and several different strategies have been floated—one included in the striker proposal—but again, nothing has been finalized,” she said.

The Regional Policy Committee, which includes representatives from suburban cities, will consider the proposal April 3 and make its recommendation to the county council.

Whatever is finalized, Kent leaders hope it reflects better on the city than the initial proposal.

“It’s good to reach out to the county council when Kent is getting the short end of the stick,” City Councilmember Bill Boyce said at the March 18 city committee meeting when the council agreed to send the letter.