Title: Summary of King County Parks and Recreation Division Progress on Implementing Metropolitan Parks Tas
1Summary of King County Parks and Recreation
Division Progress on Implementing Metropolitan
Parks Task Force Recommendations
2Key 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.
3Highlights
- 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
4Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
- Pools Transferred
- Mary Wayte Pool (Mercer Island)
- Costie/Ruiz Pool/Northshore Pool
- Federal Way Pool
- South Central Pool (Tukwila)
5Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
- Pool Transfers Pending Elections
- Enumclaw Pool
- Si View Pool (North Bend)
6Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
- Pool Operating Agreements
- Redmond Pool
- Mt. Rainier Pool (Des Moines)
7Key Recommendations Transfer or Mothball
Facilities
- Pools Currently Mothballed
- Auburn Pool
- Kent Pool
8Key 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
9Omnibus 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
10Key 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
11Key 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
12Key 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
13Key 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
14Key Recommendations Nonprofit Parks Foundation
- Friends of King County Parks, Created Fall 2002
15Key Recommendations State Legislation
- County adopted legislative agenda includes
general language supporting new revenues for park
and recreation facilities and services
16Key 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
17Community 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.
18Key Recommendations Levy Lid Lift or New Taxing
District or Sell assets in 2004
- Evaluating needs and options details provided
later in presentation
19Summary 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.
20MPTF 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.
21MPTF 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.
22King County Budget Outlook 2004 and Beyond
- Year 2004 CX gap 25 Million
- Year 2005 CX gap 23 Million
- And on into the future
23Existing 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.
24Existing 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?
25CX 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
26Budget 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
27Budget 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
28CX Subsidy Levels Before and After Transfers (in
millions)
29Options 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
30King County Park System Components
31KC Parks and Trails - Regional
32KC Parks - Local Rural
33KC Parks - Local UGA
34City Parks
35No 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
36Create 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.
37Parks 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
38Levy 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?
39Fund 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?
40Fund 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?
41City/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
42Fund 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)
43Fund 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?
44Fund 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?
452 ballots
46Scan 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.
47Scan 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
48Summary
- 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?
49Next Steps
50Criteria for Successful Levies
51Affordable
- Poll results
- Ballot competition
- 30 rule
52Credible
- Track record
- Believable?
- Consistent?
53Focused
- Vision/Mission
- Public priorities
54Balanced
- Geographically
- Functionally
- Politically
- Phasing
55Supported
- Constituent support
- Minimal organized opposition
- Political consensus
56Achievable
- Reliable cost estimates
- Reasonable time lines
- Organizational competence
57Comprehensible
- Clear message
- Easy to communicate
- Minimal complexity