Summary of King County Parks and Recreation Division Progress on Implementing Metropolitan Parks Tas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 57
About This Presentation
Title:

Summary of King County Parks and Recreation Division Progress on Implementing Metropolitan Parks Tas

Description:

Contract negotiations will commence with 6-8 proposers in the first quarter of 2003 ... resolution to elections office 45 days in advance for ballot. Time for ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:88
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 58
Provided by: ree98
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Summary of King County Parks and Recreation Division Progress on Implementing Metropolitan Parks Tas


1
Summary of King County Parks and Recreation
Division Progress on Implementing Metropolitan
Parks Task Force Recommendations
  • January 8, 2003

2
Key Task Force Recommendations
  • Focus on regional park system assets
  • Transfer or mothball local facilities inside
    cities
  • Increase user fees based on cost and demand
  • Pursue other sources of revenue, including
    entrepreneurial ventures and parks foundation
  • Pursue state legislation authorizing new revenue
  • Community outreach
  • Reduce Current Expense subsidy and total budget
  • Levy Lid Lift or new taxing district or sell
    assets in 2004.

3
Highlights
  • County Executive proposed and County Council
    adopted a 16.4M parks operating budget for 2003
  • 8 of 10 in-city pools transferred or under new
    operating agreements
  • 13 Parks transferred to cities 10-12 more
    pending
  • Omnibus Parks Ordinance passed changing
    procedures, granting new authorization
  • New user fees effective 1/2/03
  • RFP for public-private ventures issued
  • Public-private ventures under way
  • Outreach strategy developed
  • Parks Foundation created

4
Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
  • Pools Transferred
  • Mary Wayte Pool (Mercer Island)
  • Costie/Ruiz Pool/Northshore Pool
  • Federal Way Pool
  • South Central Pool (Tukwila)

5
Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
  • Pool Transfers Pending Elections
  • Enumclaw Pool
  • Si View Pool (North Bend)

6
Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
  • Pool Operating Agreements
  • Redmond Pool
  • Mt. Rainier Pool (Des Moines)

7
Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
  • Pools Currently Mothballed
  • Auburn Pool
  • Kent Pool

8
Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
  • Parks Transfers
  • 10 incity parks transferred
  • Three unincorporated urban area parks transferred
  • 2 community centers leased to Boys and Girls
    Clubs
  • Negotiations ongoing expect 10-12 additional
    parks to transfer in the first quarter of 2003

9
Omnibus Parks Ordinance
  • Recognizes and endorses new parks mission as
    envisioned by Task Force
  • Authorizes Division to directly set user fees
    after public process
  • Authorizes advertising, sponsorship and naming
    rights agreements
  • Provides broader authority for entering into
    leases and concession agreements
  • Provides more flexibility to Division to seek and
    accept donations

10
Key Recommendation Increase User Fees
  • New user fees took effect 1/2/03
  • Public notice process
  • Across-the-board increases
  • 30 cost recovery from fees at fields 50 cost
    recovery from fees at pools
  • 1 parking fee at Marymoor
  • Fee structure simplified
  • Scholarships provided
  • New accounting system in place to track costs and
    revenues

11
Key Recommendations Additional Revenue Sources
  • RFP for public-private ventures issued in October
  • 30 responses received
  • Contract negotiations will commence with 6-8
    proposers in the first quarter of 2003
  • New RFPs to be issued in 2003

12
Key Recommendations Additional Revenue Sources
  • Overview of RFP Responses
  • Pet-related concessions (e.g., self-service dog
    wash at Marymoor)
  • Cross-country running race series
  • Volunteer groups to take over maintenance
  • Food, clothing concessions
  • Billboards
  • Naming rights/sponsorship sales and support

13
Key Recommendations Additional Revenue Sources
  • Concert Series agreement completed
  • Marymoor driving range in negotiation
  • Marymoor athletic field complex in negotiation
  • Sponsorship deals proposed to Seattle-area and
    national companies
  • Employee revenue-generating team formed
  • 20 of 2003 capital budget targeted for revenue
    generating projects
  • Advertising brochure developed

14
Key Recommendations Nonprofit Parks Foundation
  • Friends of King County Parks, Created Fall 2002

15
Key Recommendations State Legislation
  • County adopted legislative agenda includes
    general language supporting new revenues for park
    and recreation facilities and services

16
Key Recommendations Community Outreach
  • Worked with Lee Springgate to develop
    comprehensive outreach strategy to better connect
    with parks users, cities, elected officials, and
    other stakeholders completed December 2002
  • Continue to attend user group meetings
  • Created parks feedback e-mail address to receive
    and respond easily to input on parks transition
    issues
  • Develop comment box on web page
  • Regularly e-mail transition updates to 400
    list-serve subscribers

17
Community Outreach Key Messages
  • King County faces a continuing budget crisis.
  • The County must focus on being a regional service
    provider, and a provider of local facilities only
    in rural areas.
  • The County must transition out of its local
    service role in cities and in other urban areas.
  • Entrepreneurial ventures are necessary to
    supplement user fee and tax revenue.
  • County is actively seeking to partner with the
    community to develop creative solutions to
    funding issues.

18
Key Recommendations Levy Lid Lift or New Taxing
District or Sell assets in 2004
  • Evaluating needs and options details provided
    later in presentation

19
Summary of 2002 Effort
  • Task Force Recommendations largely implemented.
  • 2003 Budget 16.4M, including 7.6M from
    revenue generation, 8.8M from CX.
  • 3-year Transition in process.

20
MPTF June Recommendations
  • ..despite aggressive transfers and changes in
    the way of doing business, the current park
    system cannot remain in operation without an
    influx of new tax revenue beginning in 2004 and
    continuing thereafter.
  • we conclude that a new dedicated property tax
    should be sought from the voters of King County
    in 2003 in order to preserve and stabilize the
    parks system, and provide ultimately for its
    continued growth.

21
MPTF June Recommendations
  • Countywide property tax levy lid lift of 3-5
    years.
  • Create a special purpose district and transfer
    parks responsibility to a new entity.
  • As a last resort, sell some park assets.

22
King County Budget Outlook 2004 and Beyond
  • Year 2004 CX gap 25 Million
  • Year 2005 CX gap 23 Million
  • And on into the future

23
Existing and Potential Funding Sources for Parks
  • Park System Revenues 7.6M in 2003 includes
    REET (capital program staff), Road Fund, SWM
    Fees, user fees, lease and concession agreements,
    advertising, sponsorships, etc
  • Other Revenue Sources being explored include
    affinity cards, foundation contributions, grants,
    etc.

24
Existing and Potential Funding Sources for Parks
- Continued
  • Current Expense - 8.8M in 2003, decreasing to
    3M or less in 2004, and beyond
  • New Property Tax Levy?
  • State Law Change REET/CFT for park operations?

25
CX Available for Parks?
  • 25 million CX gap means continued cuts across
    the board to all CX funded agencies in 2004 and
    beyond.
  • Preliminary estimate 0 to 3M available for
    Parks in 2004.
  • Parks funding gap (after applying estimated
    system revenues, and assuming 0 CX)
  • 2004 11.9M
  • 2005 12.4M
  • 2006 12.5M
  • Assumes no revenue from SWM/Road Fund,
    conservative revenue growth

26
Budget Reconciliation
  • MPTF projected 2003 subsidy 8.6M
  • Actual 2003 budget 8.8M CX subsidy
  • MPTF projected 2004 subsidy 6.8M
  • MPTF projected 2005 subsidy 5M

27
Budget Reconciliation
  • MPTF 2004 CX Subsidy 6.8M
  • Assumes
  • -- 1.6M in Road Fund and SWM Fund contributions
    that would continue
  • -- ongoing reduced central and Departmental
    overhead for Parks
  • -- extremely aggressive revenue growth and
    continued cost cutting
  • -- no inflation
  • Projected 2004 CX Subsidy 11.9M
  • Assumes
  • -- no contribution from either Road Fund or SWM
    Fund
  • -- restoration of the actual central and
    departmental overhead for Parks, adding 1M
  • -- assumes more conservative revenue growth and
    cost cutting
  • --inflation

28
CX Subsidy Levels Before and After Transfers (in
millions)
29
Options for Addressing Parks Funding Gap
  • Further major cuts in park system
  • Reallocate more CX funds away from other county
    functions (Human Services, Health, criminal
    Justice)
  • Levy of some sort
  • New taxing district(s) for parks
  • Sale of assets

30
King County Park System Components
31
KC Parks and Trails - Regional
32
KC Parks - Local Rural
33
KC Parks - Local UGA
34
City Parks
35
No New Funding
  • Scenario B Minimal Transfer of Existing Revenue
  • SWM Fund supports ecological and resource lands
  • Unincorporated Road Fund supports uninc. trails
  • Self-supporting parks stay open
  • Close remainder of system, incl. All local parks,
    most active recreation facilities closed
  • Scenario A Maximum Transfer of Existing Revenues
    to Parks
  • SWM Fund supports ecological and resource lands
  • Unincorporated Road Fund supports all trails
  • Unincorporated Road Fund also supports local
    parks un unincorporated area (4M) w/corresp.
    cuts to road projects
  • CX supports remaining regional assets to extent
    possible w/corresp. cuts to HS, Health, CJ.
  • Additional parks closures

36
Create a new taxing district Metropolitan
Park District, Park and Recreation Service Area,
or Park and Recreation Service District
  • All require consent from each city to be
    included.
  • MPD has springing 75 cent levy authority w/o
    further vote. 501 to create.
  • PRSA, PRSD levies limited to 6 years, must be
    voted. 60 cent maximum. 60 to create, levy.

37
Parks Levy
  • Lid-lift
  • Raise regular property tax levy by specific
    amount or not-to-exceed rate, for specific
    purpose (or not), for term of years (or
    permanent).
  • Single subject -- can mix city and county
    projects
  • Lid-lift revenues can be used for maintenance or
    for capital or both
  • Lid-lift requires 50 1 voter approval

38
Levy Lid Lift
  • Fund only Regional Park Assets
  • Fund Entire System (regional and local parks)
  • Fund only Local Park Assets (uninc. area tax)
  • Add funding for
  • System Growth increment?
  • Cities park funding?
  • Non-County owned regional assets?
  • Partnership funding?

39
Fund only County Regional/Rural Parks
  • 9M (net of generated revenues) to maintain and
    operate current County Regional and Rural Parks
    in 2004.
  • 0.04 cent levy (forecasted)
  • Issues
  • How to fund local urban County parks?
  • How to fund partnerships/system growth/other?
  • Voter support?

40
Fund Entire County System
  • 12M (net of generated revenues) in 2004
    anticipated subsidy for entire system (regional,
    rural and urban local)
  • 0.05 cent levy (forecasted)
  • Issues
  • How to fund growth/partnerships?
  • Voter support?
  • Equity for in-city voters?

41
City/Unincorporated Area Equity
  • County local parks (in UGA) will cost 3M (net of
    generated revenues) to maintain in 2004
  • Multiply by about 6 or 7 to identify equity for
    cities in a regional levy ( 15 - 18M/year)
    (based on comparing population/A.V. of
    unincorporated urban area to incorporated areas
    (Cities))
  • Levy annual amount rises from 12M to 27-30M
    from 5 cents to 12 cents

42
Fund Entire County System with match for
incorporated areas
  • 0.12 cent levy Total providing
  • .04 for County Regional parks
  • .01 for County local urban unincorporated
    parks
  • .07 for city parks (40 cities)

43
Fund Entire County System with match for
incorporated areas
  • Issues
  • City Regional Parks?
  • Voter Support?
  • City Support?
  • Allocation of City dollars?
  • School districts? Non-profits?
  • Dollar-in-dollar out? Sub-regional pots?
  • Timing?                                           
                                            

44
Fund only Unincorporated Area Local Parks
  • An unincorporated area levy of 3M (net of
    generated revenues) in 2004 would support
    existing urban unincorporated area local parks.
  • Rate in unincorporated area would be 12 cents
  • To fund all local unincorporated area parks
    (rural and urban) 4M/16 cents
  • Issues
  • How to fund regional and rural parks?
  • Voter support?
  • Incentives for annexation/transfer?

45
2 ballots
  • Regional Ballot
  • Local Uninc. Area Ballot

46
Scan of Levy Options When?2004 Election Dates
  • February 4
  • March 11
  • April 22
  • May 20
  • September 16
  • November 4
  • Council resolution to elections office 45 days in
    advance for ballot.
  • Time for campaign?
  • Parks budget to Exec in July
  • If no funding, lay-off notices in August
  • Budget to Council in September/Oct.

47
Scan of Levy Options How Long?
  • MPTF June Report recommended 3-5 year levy.
  • Permanent levies not permanent in effect given
    budget uncertainty and I-747 limits.
  • Cost/effort of campaign/election
  • Value to park system of funding certainty
  • EMS, AFIS levies 6 years

48
Summary
  • On track in implementing transition.
  • General Fund Revenue picture for County continues
    to deteriorate.
  • June Recommendation parks levy or parks district
    or sell parks to fund system after 2003
  • Levy or New Taxing District or neither?
  • What? When? How Long?

49
Next Steps
50
Criteria for Successful Levies
  • 7 important factors

51
Affordable
  • Poll results
  • Ballot competition
  • 30 rule

52
Credible
  • Track record
  • Believable?
  • Consistent?

53
Focused
  • Vision/Mission
  • Public priorities

54
Balanced
  • Geographically
  • Functionally
  • Politically
  • Phasing

55
Supported
  • Constituent support
  • Minimal organized opposition
  • Political consensus

56
Achievable
  • Reliable cost estimates
  • Reasonable time lines
  • Organizational competence

57
Comprehensible
  • Clear message
  • Easy to communicate
  • Minimal complexity
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com