Updated April 2026
SPR total budget figures are drawn from published Seattle budget books. Since 2019, SPR's Maintaining Parks & Facilities line item (BSL BC-PR-50000) has funded both off-leash areas and P-Patch community gardens, and the city has not published the OLA-only share in its budget documents. Cycle 1 (2015–2020) OLA-only figures are from SPR's public statements. Cycle 2 OLA-only amounts for 2023 and 2024 are from Parkways coverage; 2025–2026 OLA-only splits are not publicly disclosed. A public records request for the missing OLA-only detail has been drafted (see PRR #3). Every figure below has its source linked; approximate or combined figures are flagged explicitly.

Seattle spends a lot on parks. It spends almost nothing on dog parks.

Seattle Parks & Recreation's total budget has doubled since 2018. The portion dedicated to off-leash areas has barely moved. Here is the money, year by year, with the percentages that make the comparison honest.

Sources: Seattle City Budget Office · Parkways (SPR blog) · Seattle Park District · TPL 2025 ParkScore · raw data at data/budget-detail.csv
SPR total budget, 2018
$168M
Seattle 2018 adopted budget
SPR total budget, 2026 proposed
$507M
All-funds including Park District + CIP
OLA-only line, 2018
$100K
0.06% of SPR total — Cycle 1 public statement
OLA-only line, 2024
$129K
0.04% of SPR total — last year with public OLA-only split

Chart 01SPR total budget vs. dedicated OLA budget

Same series; one vertical axis in millions of dollars on a log scale. That is the only way to see the OLA line at all next to the SPR total without misleading the reader about relative magnitudes.

SPR total budget vs. OLA-related budget line, 2016–2026
Navy bars = SPR total ($M). Solid orange diamonds = OLA-only amount for years SPR publicly disclosed it. Hollow orange squares, dashed line = combined OLA + P-Patch community-garden line — the OLA share of this is unknown and smaller. Red dashed = one-time Cycle 2 OLA capital, spread 2024–2025. All on one log scale.
What this shows: SPR's total budget roughly tripled from 2018 ($168M) to 2026 proposed ($507M all funds). Every OLA-related number on the same chart is 2–3 orders of magnitude smaller than the SPR bars above them. The dashed combined line rises because P-Patch community-garden funding has grown, not necessarily because OLAs have. The solid OLA-only markers — the only data points we can be confident about — sit at $0.100M in Cycle 1 and $0.126M/$0.129M in Cycle 2 year 1–2. In real terms, OLA operating funding has barely moved. The $3.46M one-time Cycle 2 capital is real and meaningful; the operating line is not.
Source: Seattle 2016–2026 proposed/adopted budget books · Parkways blog · Mayor Harrell's Park District Cycle 2 Fact Sheet · data in data/budget-detail.csv

Chart 02OLA budget as a percentage of SPR total

Expressed as a share, the OLA investment is so small it rounds to zero at any reasonable precision. Using only the publicly disclosed OLA-only figures, the highest share ever recorded was 0.064% in 2018. Since then — even accounting for the one-time Cycle 2 construction capital — the proportional OLA investment has trended down, not up.

OLA-only budget as a share of SPR total, 2016–2026
Bars plot share in basis points (1 bp = 0.01%). A proportional baseline of 25% (SPR's own 2016 survey finding for the share of Seattle residents using OLAs) is 2,500 basis points — not shown, because it would render the actual bars as invisible.
What this shows: the tallest bar on the chart is 6.4 basis points (0.064% of SPR spending) in 2018. If OLA spending were merely proportional to the share of Seattle residents who use OLAs — 25% according to SPR's own 2016 survey — the bars would be roughly 390× taller. The 2025–2026 Park District Cycle 2 boost, included as the one-time capital line, pushes the combined share to ~0.6% — still 40× below the population-proportional baseline.
Source: Seattle budget books (SPR total) · SPR People, Dogs and Parks Strategic Plan (2017) · raw calculation in data/budget-detail.csv

Chart 03OLA spending per dog

Another way to scale the investment: divide it by the users. Seattle has an estimated minimum of 150,000 dogs (Seattle Humane / Cascade PBS floor). SPR's 2023 Expansion Study cites estimates up to 400,000. Using the conservative floor, Seattle's public OLA spending works out to less than $1 per dog per year in most years.

OLA-only spending per dog, using 150,000 dog floor
Orange bars: publicly-disclosed OLA-only operating spend divided by 150,000. Dashed bars: combined OLA + P-Patch line (post-2019), same denominator — this overstates OLA-specific per-dog spending.
What this shows: OLA-only operating spend per Seattle dog peaked in the Cycle 1 years at around $0.67/dog/year. If we include the one-time Cycle 2 capital ($3.46M for two new OLAs) divided across 150K dogs, the capital contribution is roughly $23 per dog once — spread over the 6-year Cycle 2 window, that's about $3.84 per dog per year. A child playground in a Seattle park averaged 157 ÷ 115,000 kids ≈ 1 playground per 733 kids; the equivalent OLA per-capita ratio at the 150K floor is 14 ÷ 150,000 ≈ 1 OLA per 10,714 dogs (14.6× worse).
Source: data/budget-detail.csv · 150,000 dog population floor from Seattle Humane and Cascade PBS coverage · playground count from TPL 2025 ParkScore Seattle

Chart 04Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2 OLA investment, cumulative

The Seattle Park District runs in six-year cycles. Cycle 1 ran 2015–2020 with publicly-stated $100,000/year OLA-only operating spend (~$600K total over six years). Cycle 2 (2023–2028) includes a one-time $3.46 million capital appropriation for West Seattle Stadium + Othello construction and Ravenna design, plus roughly $129K/year in OLA-only operating (the 2024 publicly-disclosed figure, assumed flat for illustration).

OLA spending, Cycle 1 vs Cycle 2 (6-year totals)
Stacked bars show operating spend (bottom) and one-time capital (top). Cycle 1 had no new OLA construction; Cycle 2 includes $3.46M for two new OLAs + design funds for a third.
What this shows: Cycle 2 is a genuine, meaningful increase over Cycle 1 when the capital is included — roughly 7× the total. Without the one-time capital, the operating line has grown only modestly in nominal terms and may be below Cycle 1 in real terms. SPR has publicly noted that future OLA construction beyond Cycle 2's two sites will require additional funding requests; Ravenna Park has design funds only with construction unfunded.
Source: Parkways blog · Seattle Park District Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 financial plans · raw data in data/budget-detail.csv

Chart 05Peer-city budget transparency

Here is the attempt to do an apples-to-apples comparison of dog-park-specific budget spending across peer cities. The comparison is intentionally difficult. Almost no major U.S. city publishes a dedicated dog-park budget line. That fact, rather than the numbers, is the finding.

City Parks dept. total Dog-park-specific line published? Where dog-park spending lives
Seattle, WA $339M (2025) Partially — Cycle 1 (2016–2022) published $100K/yr OLA-only; Cycle 2 published $126K (2023) and $129K (2024), then stopped disclosing the split Seattle Park District "Maintaining Parks & Facilities" BSL BC-PR-50000 (OLA + P-Patch combined) + Cycle 2 capital appropriations for new OLAs
Portland, OR ~$120M (2023-24) No DOLA operating subsumed within broader maintenance and natural-areas divisions; only line-item reference found is for bark-chip purchasing shared with playgrounds
San Francisco, CA $240M+ No 31 official Dog Play Areas managed within property-operations budget; no DPA-specific line item in published budget
Vancouver, BC ~$150M CAD No 36 OLAs managed through broader park-operations budget; no OLA-specific breakout
Austin, TX ~$160M No No dog-park-specific line published
Washington, DC ~$85M No No dog-park-specific line published
Minneapolis, MN ~$120M No Separate park taxing district; no dog-park-specific line published
What this table shows: Seattle is actually more transparent than peer cities about OLA-specific spending — at least for Cycle 1 and the first two years of Cycle 2. This is genuinely a small amount of credit to SPR for disclosing the $100K/$126K/$129K figures at all. It is also why this analysis is possible only for Seattle. To make a true per-capita dog-park-spending peer comparison would require public records requests to each city's parks department — none of which have a publicly discoverable answer as of April 2026.
Source: searches of each city's published budget documents (April 2026) · raw data in data/peer-cities-budget.csv · gap documentation in METHODOLOGY.md

Chart 06The $3.46M capital line, in context

The Park District Cycle 2 one-time capital of $3.46M is presented by SPR as a significant commitment to expanding off-leash access. In absolute terms, it is more than Cycle 1's total OLA operating spend combined. In peer-city context, it is small. In infrastructure-cost context, it covers two new OLAs and only the design phase of a third.

Reference pointAmountSource
Cycle 2 OLA capital (W. Seattle Stadium + Othello construction + Ravenna design)$3.46MSPR project page
Implied cost per new OLA (2 sites, construction only)~$1.5MDerived from above
Seattle single-family median home price, early 2026~$900K+Broker data (approximate)
SPR's 2026 CIP budget for restroom improvements alone$2M2026-2031 CIP
SPR's 2026 CIP for Gas Works Park priority project$1.8M2026-2031 CIP
SPR's 2026 CIP for Green Lake Community Center + Evans Pool planning/design$2.7M2026-2031 CIP
Combined SPR 2026 CIP (all capital projects)$87.7M2026-2031 CIP
What this shows: the landmark Cycle 2 OLA capital is comparable in size to a single restroom or non-OLA facility-specific CIP line item. Seattle's 2026 CIP allocates 25× more capital to non-OLA park projects than to OLAs. This is not an argument that CIP projects don't matter — Gas Works and Green Lake need the investment. It is an argument that the OLA capital, presented as a breakthrough, remains a rounding error in SPR's CIP.
Source: Seattle 2026-2031 Proposed Capital Improvement Program · SPR West Seattle Stadium project page

Chart 07The disparity, one axis — so you can see it

Charts 01 and 03 put SPR's total budget and the OLA line on separate axes because the numbers are 1,000× apart. That's the most readable chart. This is the less-readable one — same numbers, one axis — because the readability problem is the point.

Seattle SPR and related spending lines, 2026 proposed — on one dollar scale
Horizontal bars, all in millions of dollars. Log scale (base 10) is used because otherwise the OLA-only bar is literally invisible at any reasonable chart width. Annotations point out which bars represent individual capital projects versus annual operating lines versus the OLA.
What this shows: the smallest bar on the chart ($129K, OLA-only operating 2024) is 3,929× smaller than the largest ($507M, SPR 2026 total proposed). In linear terms they cannot fit on the same chart. In log terms you can finally see them together — and what you see is that the "dog-park budget," as actually reported by SPR, is comparable in scale to the purchase of supplies and equipment for a few dozen city employees, not to any recognizable line of the parks budget.

AppendixThe raw budget table

The full year-by-year data is in data/budget-detail.csv, with a source column on every row. The SPR totals reflect all-funds figures where available; the OLA-only column is populated where SPR publicly disclosed a split and left blank (visibly) where they didn't. Where we have only the combined OLA + P-Patch line, that value is shown in its own column.

Year Cycle SPR total ($M) OLA + P-Patch combined ($K) OLA-only ($K) One-time capital ($K) OLA as % of SPR
2016Cycle 1$156$100$1000.064%
2017Cycle 1$163$100$1000.061%
2018Cycle 1$168$100$1000.060%
2019Cycle 1$247.7$160.8not disclosed
2020Cycle 1$261.9$338.0not disclosed
2021Cycle 1$228.1$346.7not disclosed
2023Cycle 2$328.2$475.1$1260.038%
2024Cycle 2$320.7$614.3$129$1,7300.040% + capital
2025Cycle 2$339.4$1,829.7not disclosed$1,730
2026Cycle 2$506.9$1,845.7not disclosed

Notes & methodology

SPR total. "All funds" figures where available (2019 onward); 2016–2018 are general-fund + operating only, which is why the jump between 2018 and 2019 looks large — about half of it is methodology, not real growth. 2026 is the proposed budget; 2025 is the adopted + CIP. Primary source: Seattle City Budget Office — archives.

OLA-only line. Cycle 1 $100K/year OLA-only is from SPR's own 2016 public statement, repeated in Parkways and community reporting. Cycle 2 $126K (2023) and $129K (2024) are from Parkways coverage of the Expansion Study and budget. Post-2024 OLA-only splits are not publicly disclosed; the Maintaining Parks & Facilities BSL (BC-PR-50000) is reported as a combined OLA + P-Patch number. PRR #3 requests the split.

Combined OLA + P-Patch. The post-2019 line values ($160.8K through $1,845.7K) include both OLA maintenance and P-Patch community-garden maintenance. SPR has not published the internal allocation methodology. The line value overstates OLA-specific spending; the 2023 and 2024 disclosed OLA-only portions ($126K, $129K) are roughly 21–26% of the combined BSL, suggesting P-Patch is the larger share.

One-time capital. Cycle 2 includes $3.46M across 2024–2026 for construction at West Seattle Stadium OLA, Othello Playground OLA, and design only at Ravenna Park. Split across years as roughly $1.73M in 2024 and $1.73M in 2025 for chart purposes; the actual expenditure schedule depends on construction cadence.

Peer cities. Dog-park-specific budget lines were not found in published budget documents for Portland, San Francisco, Vancouver BC, Austin, DC, or Minneapolis as of April 2026 search. This does not mean the spending doesn't exist — it means it is not separately reportable without a public records request. See data/peer-cities-budget.csv.

Percentage calculation. "OLA as % of SPR" divides the OLA-only dollar figure by the SPR total (both in dollars), shown as a percentage. Basis-point conversion: 1 basis point = 0.01%. The chart in Chart 02 uses basis points for visual clarity because the raw percentages are too small to render at ordinary chart scales.

Per-dog calculation. Uses the 150,000 Seattle dog-population floor from Seattle Humane / Cascade PBS coverage (the lower bound; SPR's 2023 Expansion Study cites higher figures up to 400K). Applying the higher dog population would make the per-dog spending proportionally smaller.

Corrections and contributions. If you have better primary sources, corrections to the figures, or access to peer-city dog-park budget data — please get in touch at [email protected] or file an issue on the repo. Every correction with a citable source will be applied.