When we ran a story earlier this week describing the city’s decision to reduce the hours at the Wallingford Park wading pool to Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, noon – 7 pm (Mommy, I Need To Swim), a number of readers suggested that they’d be interested in spearheading a fundraising drive to restore the missing hours. But, they asked, how much would it cost, what would it take?
Ever the helpful neighbor, we sent an inquiry to the Dewey Potter at the Parks Department on your behalf:
Wallyhood: How much does it cost to operate the wading pools each summer?
Dewey Potter: The amount originally budgeted for the program in 2010 is $439,000.
W: Specifically the one in Wallingford Playground?
DP: Wallingford cost for one day is $304. One day per week for eight weeks costs $2,432.
W: How much money was saved by cutting back (again either citywide or especially at Wallingford?)
DP: For the whole program, the budget reduction is $204,851. About half of this is for water and sewer services, the other half for staffing, supplies, and chemicals For Wallingford, it is $13.983.
W: Some of readers are talking about taking up a collection to extend the Wallingford wading pool hours, would it be possible to work something out with the city if they came up with the funds?
DP: If communities across Seattle are able to come up with funding to supplement the program equally across the city – for example, to add one day per week throughout the season at every open wading pool – the City would welcome that support and add the day. It is important that any supplemental funding be allocated equally in all neighborhoods.
W: Do you have stats on wading pool usage, either citywide and/or at Wallingford Playground?
DP: Attendance information shows on the chart below. Please note that this does not take into consideration the number of days of operation in our regular season, since some operate 5, 6 or 7 days a week; some operate only 8 weeks and others 9 or 10. In 2009, we were working to bring drains into compliance with new federal Virginia Graeme Baker Act, so there was a rolling start for wading pools with some operating only 5 weeks, some 11 weeks and some did not operate at all. When selecting the pools for seven day operation this year, attendance was only one of the criteria; we also looked at providing geographic balance and other criteria.
| Pool | 2009 Attendance | Daily Average | 2008 Attendance | Daily Average | 2007 Attendance | Daily Average |
| Beacon Hill | Closed | 2083 | 61 | 1774 | 63 | |
| Bitter Lake | 3359 | 120 | 4148 | 81 | 3604 | 66 |
| Cal Anderson | 3262 | 62 | 2185 | 64 | 1548 | 55 |
| Dahl Playfield | 4939 | 107 | 4617 | 136 | 2201 | 79 |
| Delridge | 5820 | 127 | 4492 | 96 | 3764 | 68 |
| E.C. Hughes | 2412 | 80 | 4363 | 128 | 2321 | 83 |
| East Queen Anne | 9026 | 156 | 8895 | 174 | 8071 | 147 |
| Georgetown | Closed | 2679 | 79 | 2836 | 103 | |
| Gilman | Closed | 1532 | 45 | 1560 | 56 | |
| Green Lake | 20035 | 345 | 18157 | 343 | 16439 | 299 |
| Hiawatha | 6016 | 167 | 4466 | 88 | 6963 | 127 |
| Highland Park | Closed | 3345 | 98 | 1385 | 49 | |
| Lincoln Park | 7176 | 124 | 6014 | 113 | 7080 | 129 |
| North Acres | Closed | 1696 | 50 | 1418 | 51 | |
| Peppi’s | Closed | 2030 | 60 | 2030 | 73 | |
| Powell Barnett | Closed | 2084 | 61 | 4263 | 152 | |
| Ravenna | Closed | 1245 | 54 | Closed | ||
| Sandel | Closed | 1335 | 39 | 1558 | 56 | |
| Soundview | Closed | 3761 | 111 | 2830 | 101 | |
| South Park | 4681 | 85 | 1970 | 47 | 2259 | 41 |
| Van Asselt | 5932 | 102 | 5019 | 95 | 4310 | 154 |
| View Ridge | 1989 | 90 | 4874 | 96 | 5225 | 95 |
| Volunteer Park | 11061 | 194 | 9243 | 174 | 7767 | 141 |
| Wallingford | 6839 | 134 | 6149 | 121 | 8535 | 155 |
| Total | 92,547 | 106,382 | 99,741 |
The key response here, in case you missed it, is: no, they will not let Wallingford fund just the Wallingford wading pool. If there’s a fundraising drive to raise money for to keep the pools open extended hours, those funds will be distributed across all the parks above, regardless where the funds come from.
On the one hand, it’s an egalitarian stand the city is taking, preventing rich communities from directing money to their own benefit, leaving the poorer communities behind, but it is also certainly a disincentive for any fundraising, as it raises the bar to an almost unreachable point. Dewey specified that it would take “about $27,000 to add one day per week to each of the 10 operating wading pools now scheduled for a three-day week. This would enable Parks to open all of them an extra day per week through the season.” Could it be done?
Thank you, Mr. ‘ Hood, for the great reporting. I would happily coordinate the Bronze Plaque Committee to get permission for, create and hand over one fabulous sponsor plaque to Parks and Rec to install at the YOUR NAME HERE Wading Pool (The Wading Pool that Saved Seattle back in 2010) for the person or company that graciously hands over an egalitarian $200,000. Some usual suspects come to mind . . .
I wonder if they would be willing to pick a few pools that funds could go to. Since they have already idenitified five pools to keep open daily, perhaps they could select three to five other highly-utilized pools (including Wallingford, of course) and we could fundraise for those. That way pools in each quadrant of the city could be funded but we wouldn’t be working hard to get the remote pools open an extra day. How do we talk to Dewey? Anyone know if folks in other neighborhoods are having similar conversations?
And thanks Jordan for investigating!
Oops, I should have specified: it was Helen that called up the City for this info, I just did this l’il write up.
As a minimum, write a letter to SPU, the Mayor’s Office and the Citizens Service Bureau:
Hello
Many communities in Seattle are being faced with significant closure of their neighborhood wading pools at their local parks. I understand that funding for this measure is supposed to come from Parks, but the decision appears to be pretty short-sighted as far as representing true cost savings to the City.
Parks states that by only operating 10 of the wading pools for 3 days per week (instead of 7) for the summer, it will save $204,851.
What Parks does not consider is that when to pools are closed, many hundreds of families will instead opt to fill their individual wading pools in their backyards. The true savings for the City will be significantly less as City water resources are challenged to meet the demand. Further, the social advantages realized by having the Park wading pools open is lost. Our City will be poorer for this loss.
Is there any possible opportunity for SPU to help provide funding for a program to restore operation of the wading pools at Seattle Parks for this summer? It seems an argument could be made that the funds are beneficial to encouraging water conservation for SPU and provide a social benefit for our residents. A win-win.
Send your letters to Sally Bagshaw http://www.seattle.gov/council/bagshaw/committees.htm, [email protected].
Sally chairs the City Council Parks Committee and is likely the only person in this bureaucracy who can actually be of assistance, so just CC the rest of the bureaucrats.
Then, thanks Helen for the investigation 🙂
It seems to be that if the community (granted, mostly businesses) can rally to raise a half-million dollars in one day to save Seattle’s fireworks show, that people could raise a smaller amount to keep wading pools open all summer long. I wonder if the Parks Dept would allow donated funds to be “earmarked” for a specific use, rather than Park general funds. I like the idea of having some regional equity, so that’s it not just (wealthier) Wallingford folks raising money for their local pool while others with fewer resources go without.
It just seems like it’s not totally fair to distribute the money that one of the neighborhood is raising to other parks across town. It just the same with schools, if parents care enough to buy and provide art supply to one school nobody is forcing them to give it away to other schools.
Why don’t they open it up to business sponsors related to children such as toy stores, kids clothing, consignment, retail, tutoring companies, etc. It could be as simple as a sign saying today’s swimming time sponsored by ” xx company”. I’m talking about a win win sponsorships, ads that are benign to children but makes parents aware of local business/services in their communities that they could benefit from.
And yes, keep it local. If people decide they want to donate money to open their local community pool they should be able to keep their money in the neighborhood. I wonder if the city council has contacted the numerous business groups in the city.
I was thinking that some really big businesses get approached. Most of the little ones I know of are h-u-r-t-i-n-g. Perhaps folks with kids that use the wading pool and worked or work at one of the large ones could lobby for a matching pledge deal. A few come to mind . . .
I’m a small business owner with a kid orientated business. $2400 to show support and be recognized in my community is not a lot of money. That is an extra day for 8 weeks as I understand it.
Personally too often people go to the big businesses and never offer these opportunities to the smaller community businesses unfortunately. The issue of course is that someone has to administer this is there is a cost to that.
Wallingford – Think… Molly Moon’s, Kids on 45th, Alphabet Books, Lil Klippers , the cupcake shop and that is just close in the hood.
I say, give small community businesses a chance to support their community.
p.s. I have sent Ms. Bagshaw a message to see if we can get something going.
Kids on 45th is a current sponsor of the Wallingford Seafair Kiddies Parade Wallingford . . . Molly Moon donated the poster design last year, they all get asked over and over (Garden Tour, Home Tour, Senior Center, Family Works . . .). Great that $2400 is reasonable for Wendy but I was hoping that everyone in Wallingford who goes to work in Redmond, for example, would take this on.
@9 – I don’t think the issue is that some neighborhoods “care” more about their schools, I think it’s just that some can afford more than others. The city isn’t in the business of selling increased services to affluent neighborhoods.
I think it’s a wise policy. Call me a socialist, but I think governments should provide equal service to all citizens and neighborhoods.
I think we would have to set up a 501c3 to have corporations get involved (non profit and tax deductible) . Some sort of “Friends of the Seattle Wading Pools” …though a more appropriate acronym springs to mind for: “Friends Underwriting Citywide Key Elective Deficits”
It’s been suggested to me that we talk with the Seattle Parks Foundation for ideas. I think there’s also a Friends of Wallingford Park group (anyone know the contact?) who may have some ideas as well. I think if it’s possible to fundraise for new play equipment for a specific playground then we should be able to work something out for the wading pools as well.
My personal opinion (I have not spoken with other Friends of Wallingford Playfield folks) is that the Seattle Parks Foundation and Friends of… groups are useful for capital projects. DON grants may only be used for capital projects (and conceptual design processes leading to capital projects).
It seems that the best approach is to solicit city government to restore the funding or realize that perhaps the approach they have adopted may not create the result they are seeking. I received the following back from the CSB regarding the issue:
“Thank you for writing the Customer Service Bureau on June 18th to suggest Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) help fund wading pools to conserve overall water usage by residents this summer. I forwarded your comment to SPU and the Mayor’s Office for consideration. Thank you for your feedback.”
As Nancy has suggested, another approach is to seek funding angels to support the pools citywide. Funding just Wallingford’s pool is not a practical, or a just, option. This would require only getting someone on board to donate the funds and connecting them with Parks to work out the details. DON may also be able to assist with directing the funds to the appropriate location. As long as funding is restored in an equitable manner to all pools, there should not be any complications.
Greg Flood
Friends of Wallingford Playfield
Have adult sports programs and swimming pools received cuts as well? Seems to me that wading pools give about as much bang for the civic buck as just about anything.
Nancy M
Friend of Wallingford Playfield (the group that brought the wading pool to the park in the first place)
(“playfield” is a DPR term for this type of park, playfield, playground, park combined)
I’m also concerned about the conservation impacts of closing the wading pools. Our current snowpack is one of the lowest in 20 years, meaning that we are in a drought which is expected to continue through the summer. According to the city’s own wading pool page,
“We learned that filling home wading pools uses more water than a public community wading pool. For example, if 50 families used the East Queen Anne wading pool at 160 Howe St., rather than filling their home wading pools, the water saved would equal that needed to fill the public wading pool, which would serve a lot more than 50 kids!”
If we need to conserve water (which we always do, but especially this summer), is it worth the $204K to close the wading pools? I understand that the budget is a terrible mess, and I don’t advocate for reducing human services to fund wading pools, but surely it would be in our collective best interest to at least keep open the pools that are utilized by 100+ children each day. And that’s just from a water conservation perspective. We could also start talking about all the people who will drive to farther away wading pools, and their impact on carbon emissions, etc.
I doubt that the 124 children who use the Wallingford wading pool will all bike to Greenlake instead. They will either be driven another wading pool or they’ll fill up that backyard pool.
@Greg, what is a DON grant?
The Department of Neighborhoods (DON) has an excellent matching fund grant program to empower residents to invest time and labor in their community. We used these grants to enable the revitalization of Wallingford Playfield (WP) from 1999 to 2003. The City received donated labor and funds equivalent to over $250,000 from the Wallingford community for the WP project. It is a matching grant program where the city “pays” volunteers $10 per hour for their sweat equity and the match is used to pay for the materials needed for the project.
It has been a while and some of the figures have likely changed. Small and Simple (SAS) grants are up to $15,000 in matching funds, often used for small projects and design processes. Large Project grants (Large and Complex) can go up to $150,000. We had two $10,000 SAS grants and an $80,000 Large and Complex grant to fund the design for the entire park and construction of the picnic area and (now replaced) garden area by the school.
Applications deadlines for SAS grants used to be every two months and Large and Complex grants two times per year. The budget is down substantially from its heyday under Jim Diers in the 1990’s, so the competition for approval and funding of projects can be pretty fierce now.
Still a remarkable program.
I’ve started a Yahoo group for anyone (persons or businesses) who wants to continue the brainstorming and get some momentum going for fundraising and other solutions. Please feel free to invite others from all across the city.
[email protected]