02/07/2003 City Council RetreatEdmonds City Council
Retreat 2003
Sandy Chase
City Clerk �
3rd Floor —Brackett Room
Edmonds City Hall
1215th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
I
�,b-nuo' yi-
j?�j��J �F7u�
t -1
n
w
z
•
W V J V J cCD
r--F•
CD CD
_. C)- CD CD CD �
3
C. -a
--I
_ p C7
,.,.� <
0
Cl) CD CD
3
�
m
0 r--f cCD r-ml-
w
0
m
3
0
a
0
(C)
ED
3
0
000-%N
O
0T
O
N
O
O
CD
CD
r7
CD
cn
CD
CD
CD
0-
O
O
CD
I
n
c
CD
CD
llo-ftw%
CD
O
1
CD
I
a
CD
0
CD
X
f�
C3�
O
T
O
U)
U)
wi
N
O
O
CA)
CD
cn
v
CD
r--h
X
10000*4*1.
N
O
O
CD
cn
U)
IN
CD
O
Q
0
0
O
73
CD
X
n
CD
O
CD
•
;u
CD
CD
C
CD
cn
1
D
1
m
-
U)
CD
c-
cn
rD
— .
CD
CD
Q.
U)
—•
0L
-�
Cn
CD
CLCD
3
3
�
C
�-
CD
CD
3
:3
CD
w
Z3
�+
6
It
W
N
C)
CD
I
Z3
11
CD
w
CD
0.
CD
CD
r- l"
LA
r--1-
CD
CD
r^f
3
CD
cn
CD
C
n�
CD
CD
CD
0
0
cn
J
cn
CD
C_R
0
CD
CD
CD
cn
•
m
x
�o
CV
=3
Q.
e--t�
CD
U)
CD
Cl
^n
�.y
Q.
CD
r-t-
CD
3
3
O
0
CD
ryry�,
O
n
O
cn
i{
r91
spoi
co
O
O
O
in"
N
O
O
C�
•
CD
=3
CD
�l
OL)
•
I
I
C
0
I
I
0
—•
p
n
:3
n
r
- F
0
��
o
—
�--�
CD
i-n
CD
CD
CD
OL
CD
QL
cr
r/'�
.moo
cD-�-o
J
�o
•
Y)
CD
CD
CD
CD
3
C
o
�
!��
0
ca.CD
o
CD
w
0
0
CD
0
0-
CQ
CD
CD
CD
0
w
�
CD
o
o
CD
�.
v
r�
CD
CD
v
•
•
G)
O --h 3 cD
�. x w CD :3
CD 0 5 M 0
n C) r+ o CCD —
CD � � �] CD L CD CD
M CD � a <=3
3 u �n CD
C) 0`< —'
CD CD _ ■3 —
C37 3 3 CD
c:) CD
mo M C: C:) x 0
CD 0. 3 -o --I
CD CD— CD
�+ CD
< �.
Cn CD C, D
n CD "" �
w G) 0 pCD CD 0
CD 3 0
CD D CD
CD% <
CD a CD (n
CD cr
CD C: 0 � CD CD � 0
� � CDr+
o u�
cr V
YCl^J ■ ■
�
n
-n
CD
CD
n
0
3
o
O
CD
0
-n
CD
C
m
-0
Cn
CD
�■
O
--+.,
C]
�
o
C�
C
CD
C�
C
CD
3
0
--1
O
—0
CL
C:
nCD
•
m
x
70
CL
Mol
CD
U)
:�
1
CD
U)
CD
Cn
CL
O
CD
CL
O
CQ
N
C)
C)
k!
0
3
C
•
3
— 3
T CD
0
O
A
V)
=r ^
H
A
`► D
O ■
CD
m
•
m
X
7D
C.
T�
T
cn
I
n
o
CL CD
cr
�. CL
CD
0
4 �.
CD
CL
O
3
V
CD
I
O
a
O
69 —1
U)
C) c
cr
U.
C
n
O
3
V J
CD
CD
rF
O
(D
CD
0
cQ
0
3
O
r--f
O
CD
ZY
0
CD
V
r�
X
Li
;u
CD
CD
CD
(n
C/)
CD
CD
r+
• •
m , ;u
x -� r Cv
W O O CD O <
O p n CD < u) CD
CD CDC � CD CD(n :3CD ,� n O C
a)�- ^= CD —(D CD<^o
U
n n Cn n CD � n
-�, O cn w v
O�.
�O00—
< 0
V 77 �� •
a)� O
a) O CD
--" 0
O cn 3 3 <
CD CD O CD
CD �--� O
3
O CD (D
'-< CD N � �
q CD
--� <
0 CD
E COD
flJ CD
3
M
QL
CD
n�
CD
CL
0
e--f
CD
CD
w
e--f
CD
CD
CD
O
e--h
cn
0
l<
n
CD
0
n
CD
CD
O
CD
"i
n
0
CD
DO
CT
CD
.-j
11
cn
c
'CD
V,
•
OL) D
0-0
0-0
1-0
� V
V
C:
0.
C ■
CD
V
O N
0 O
Cn O
CD
W
Co
� [�� `]
NUNN
V
O '�
O O
j
�..."o,
■
m
x
7D
CD
Q.
CC
V
CD
CD
13
T�
V/•
V
O
V
O
0
CD
O
--L
CD
C
CD
•
CD
CD
CD
V
I
m
CL
N
O
O
Cyl
3
w
♦ V
s
CD
N
O
O
CIO
9
T
O
0'
CD
CD
n'
\7D
CD
0
V
3
CD
0
O
CD
CD
0-
■
m
x
CD
CL
� w
///4/// V
I
w
CD
0
F+
CD
QL
•
;u
CD
CD
C
CD
c
CO
0
0
CD
rr-
OL)
CD
•
zT
n
�.L)
rF•
0
l<
0
CD
V
V)
r-I-
MMI
CD
CD
r q-
0
C
CD
C13
W
0
n
CD
nriih
cr
CD
�f1
rF
CD
CD
�T
•
TC
CD
0
h
G)
CD
T�
CD
�1
CL
0
0
=3
U)
CD
MMI
CD
C.
.N)
•
R..
ry-
CD
ryry�
r-+L
CD
CD
CD
CD
TC
CD
T�
U)
0
0
CD
U)
0
W
410
0
rTF
CD
r- L
�■
•
PR
rrtT
V
V
0
U)
CD
✓r[ L
n
�0
V)
r•t
cn
r*
0
0
c
0.
Ca
Ep
•
CL V )
CD 3
CL p
CD =37
C7 CD
0 �..
r-rt-
C C
CL i
■ N)
LT3/
C r
(C:
U
CD
0
3
CD
CL)
MMI
CD
C
U)
CD
0
I
l<
*'0
i
3
0`
■ + ]
•
cn
3
0
ca.
C:
C7
0
D
0
0
w
n
0
CD
cr
CD
•
3
r+
CD
C
CD
f_
0
h
f
CD
0
CD
Fn
•
M
n
0
Q
Mountlake Terrace Police
Memorandum
Date: 02/7/2003
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Chief Scott Smith
RE: Casino Operation in Mountlake Terrace
This document is intended to provide factual information with regard to the
gambling casino located within the City of Mountlake Terrace. It is not
intended in any way to lend or take away support for casino's locating in any
given jurisdiction. It is a bullet -point informational document that is factual in
nature based on a variety of sources.
The Silver Dollar Casino opened in November of 2000. The casino is
located at 70th W. and 220th SW. Although the space used by the casino is
attached to and has interior access to Seattle Jr. Hockey Bingo, there is no
partnership in the gaming portion of either business. Jr. Hockey Bingo
leases the space to the Silver Dollar Casino and has a bank of pull -tabs
inside.
Points of Fact:
Zoning
B Located in a "general commercial" zoned area
Located in area where large bingo establishment has existed for over 20
years
O Adequate Parking
Adequate ingress and egress
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE POLICE
Gamine Operation
• Regulated by RCW 9.46 and WAC 230
• Limited to card tables and pull -tabs
• 15 Card Tables — Maximum allowed
o blackjack
o poker
• First 6 months of operation - $25 bet limit
• After 6 months of operation - $100 bet limit
o must pass a Phase II audit by the Gambling Commission
• State law requires full -service restaurant at all casinos
0 Each gaming employee must be licensed by the Gambling Commission
• Casino must have a class "H" liquor license issued by Liquor Board
• Gaming hours of operation are 10:00 am to 6:00 am (restaurant open 24hrs.)
Securi
• Over 60 different cameras throughout the casino interior and exterior
• Monitored during hours of operation by T.V. monitors and recorded by VHS
tape
is High quality technology and images
• Staff security is plentiful
• Very cooperative and helpful to police department
Police Calls for Service
• 2001 — 47 case reports written
o theft
o assault
o trespass
o domestic disturbance
• 2002 - 20 case reports written
o theft
2
- --- - - --- -- - - - - ----OF-
N r
0
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE POLICE
o assault
o trespass
Y Vast majority of calls are misdemeanor crimes
0 No visible or reported ancillary crime impacts to surrounding area
• DUI has been an issue specifically related to the casino
Have had a need to consistently monitor the casino for over -service problem
No major crime issues or volume
Y Officer presence is critical
Revenue
See Attached
3
$700, 000
$600, 000
$500, 000
$400, 000
$300, 000
$200, 000
$100, 000
$0
City of Mountlake Terrace
Gambling Tax Revenue from Silver Dollar Casino
2000 (6%)
2000 2001
2002
First Quarter
106,547
158,208
Second Quarter
91,617
160,275
Third Quarter
102,795
140,788
Fourth Quarter
51,295 116,794
161,390
Total 51,295 417,752 620,661
Tax Rate 6% 6% 8%
2000 (6%) 2001 6% 2002 (8%)
Total 51,295 417,752 620,661
2001 (6%) 2002 (8%)
-!I
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
February 7, 2003
Mayor and Council
Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief f
Public Safety Levy Lid Lift - A Suggested Approach for the
Purposes of Discussion
This memo is intended to identify a process to evaluate -placement of a public safety
levy lid lift measure on the ballot.
After a discussion at the Council Retreat, the Mayor and Council may wish to designate
the Public Safety Committee as the lead in developing levy lid lift proposals for Council
consideration during the month of June with an action decision by July 1, 2003 (Council
approved the 2002 EMS levy ordinances on July 16, 2002). An ad hoc committee would
begin work in February.
The initial ad hoc committee may include the Mayor (or his designee), Public Safety and
Finance Committee members, the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Administrative Services
Director and selected staff, or whomever the Council chooses to designate. The City
Attorney would serve in an advisory capacity as needed.
General Information.
• The EMS levy passed with 84 percent, 13 percent higher than the next highest
successful levy, with 9,714 Edmonds citizens voting in a primary with no federal
or state offices on the ballot. The EMS levy asked voters to make Edmonds levy
permanent and to restore it to the maximum rate of 50 cents per $1,000 of
assessed valuation.
• Peggy Hetzler's November 26 Public Safety Levy Lid Lift presentation to Council
included an 18% increase in the levy which would raise the annual taxes on a
$250,000 home $102 from $569 to $671. The tax rate would increase from $2.27
per 1,000 AV to $2.42 per 1,000 AV, below the City maximum of $3.10.
• Levies are for a fixed term or permanent.
• A simple majority (50 percent plus one) is required to pass a lid lift (RCW
84.55.050).
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
-�--+ LL
O 1
U)
0
U
0
c
C.—O
>1
4-a
a) >
4" ^1
W
VJ c
U �7
.S�
O
C
■
O O O O O m O O
CO CO LO M M r- O O
r` r- O Cfl O O
w w w w
r- r- CO M r- O O O
N m m M N N LO O
09- T- N-
co
'coU)
a
O
CL
U)
co
cn
.E
.E
.0
0
c
O
.O
Q
L-
cn
O
�-
cn
C
c
0
cn
'cn
N
a)
a
cn
U- U- U- Q
U)
0
N
E
O
3
o �
O N
O d"
LO
.�
CL
C
a�
a) E
Ca �
O ❑
L
O
ML
LL
N .�..�
I �O
0
00
L—
O
Ll--
I
M O CO M M lf) CO � 0 0 0
N I` r- O Ln CO M QD f` O O
T- r- I` (fl d' O M M O O
M M 6 C 00 CO r- d' O O
M N 00 I` O
� IT-
EN
L
0
a)
0
E
U
O
cn
C
_0
�i
cu
L
V
N
0
CD
cn
O
N
cu
L
L
a)
rig
cn
O
L
O
U
O
U
O
Z
CO
-�
U)
O
+i
N
E
a)
C6
O
-0
El
O
E
U
❑.
0
C6
O
00
O
L
T-
o0
M
I-=
L
O
=z
O cn
W N
O
N
V O
E
W
M
0
O
N
i
ti
2
-
=
M
M
O
co
O
C
oV
rn-
C (n
ro
m
3:°o
� � N
Y W U
oL
r LL
J
�n 0
v00)q
�oL6LO
N J
T W
T � LL
.
Y
L
1 7
ILL_ 0;--- p
=
1
- r -
1 =
=r=
F
=
_r
-M
OL
i
1
1
-
r 1
1 r
■
7
_
C ■
■ �
1
1
7
1
c
W
cli
�
O
L
�
O4-0
�
O
cn
v
>'
c�
cn
t!
co
4—
O
E
O
L
O
-�-+
a)
4-0
Cu
�
.,
cn
->%
�
O
C�
>
L
E
-A
-�O
-0
'-
W
cn
.+.r
c
'c
=3
>
0
O
4-0
• �
U
4—
O
cu
c
L
'�
+�
o
LL
o
�,
C.�
(D
.�
Q
o
°
a�
•>
U
C/)
C/)
cu
II
L
L
cucu
j
cn
E
C
06
O
cn
ca
_
U
=3
-0
ca
.�
O
o
0
S
m
(6
O•
,E
m
cr
O
�
.Q
=
4-0
O
CM
N
Ca
�
O
>
U
'—
O
cn
.>
},
cu
c
cu
cn
COCU
a)
U
N
c
c
w
U
cu
.C:
CL
0
N
0
a)
L
U
C
.co
cn
U)
w
Q
a)
�+ rf
C6 0
0-
0 s_
L
0
O cu
cn CL
N -1 o 0
L- �% O
cn_O p
N O U_
N CL
N � '� c � 4-1 Cl)
j N
L- -i O Cli
•�_ 0 0 m � CL
�11 O
CL COOD M 0) 2 cn 0
C:c p
ca U V a)E 2 c •p N
�- Ocn CoCO�� L— 0— uj
II Q v � � O
.. U
= U = tW' Q co C� � � � � �
L1 U U� 1 0
>- LL Q- O Q M U C-
I I ♦' I I I '�""'
.. cM C!)
1
1
I
Li-
CD
419
4-1
= T
�7
th Ave
4th Ave
a
0.
T-
0
■
u1
q
Z�� I C-1 I f -4 .1 1
-j
I IT J rg
ht
co
z
8
ht
co
z
8
0
N
4)
d
LL
L.
4)
Q
�L
c.i
C
d
■
r
i
0
F
t
F
_
F
F
i
LL
V
O
X
LL
(D
(D
�
f—
-Y-
O
O
2i
a)
O
O
O
—
ca
M
O
{
{
+�
�
�
{f}
LO
r
0
r
0
r
N
■
a)
L
c
CO
U
a)II
II
cn
-L
cn
c
N
II
O
II
O
O
4-0�
4-0-1--&
°�
cn
O
a)-0
O
O
O
O
Cn
�
x
s
�
Q
:�
CL
Lp
Q.
:-
C.
},
O
O
O
O
�
v�
U
-0
70
-0
-0
CU
>
LL
D
o
o
0
0
0
a)
CD
CD
O
O
�
I
I
I
N
M
LO
0
.
0
0
0
v
LL
c�
LL
9
�.
C
c
c�
U)
M
d
U
U
U
�
E
E
E
06
+
~
Q
E
E
O
Q
Q
O-
_
c
O
O
N
1
N
p
p
N
cn
LO
N
W-
Eft
>
C
.-.
I
>
N
cn
E-0
Q
�
co
o
cn
N
cn
N
'�
cn
�
N
'�
U
to
(n
=3
m
II
cn
"-
U
i
a)—
U
E
CD
II
_O
p
.M
p
.M
p
J
II
O
:.�.+
U)
ca
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
l
I
I
H
i
El
cr
U)
C�4
M
I I
O
O
r
a)
U)
'0
0-
U)
U
Q
C
O
.E
Ln
r
6A�
cr
VJ
O
CM
O
E
W
r
f i
_
r
■
■
01
F _ �
r
NT
r
-i--j
U)
L
4--�O
4-0
C
cn
�
O
U
L
cn
O
Co
cn
a)
cn
CD
cn
Q
O
—
��
C:
CU
E
y--
E
.
N
N
O
U
0
LU
V--
}'
O
O
D
cn
A
T
�E
-0
E
O
=
_0
0
c D
c
W
I
U) 0-
I I
U)
I
5.1
-6 -0
ci)
CD
0)
c
�N
LL
O
O
4-+
O
cn
N
Al
u
0
ti
-
-
F
t -
tj�
1
L
O
E
co
cu
O
U
cn
O
A,
0
l
Pti
• 0 r
6
cn
L
O
cn
L
.O
E
W
06
W
4-0
U
nO
0-
c
.O
L
c
O
E
W
C6
N
cn
0
cu
m
C6
U
.C:
U
N
E
m
L
U—
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
CD
V
F
1
I
x
-
r
H
F
- -
■-
1
-jr
iEli
■
_
•
-
■
y ■
•
■
f
F
�
J
-
■1 —
F
—
.a
17�
U
N
�O
L.
LL
0
a
U)
U
L
Z3
O
U)
[+'
cn
O
0
-0
cn
U
0
U
I—
cn
A-0
N
E
-0
N
U
.E
O
0
L1U.1
� U
06
0
cu
U)
6
A--+
cn
O
CM
I
O
N
cn
cn
O
.cn
.0
O
N
O
A
m -
.� cn
U C:
O O
C Q
F—
cn cn
O ch
11
cn
O
E
CD
cn
Cu
O
L
O
4—
O
��
u
0
O
O
O
O
O
LO
to
IE
1
1 _I
- ■
1
■■ IJ
_
1
■
1 ■ F
F
1
i
■
L.
co
LO
4-0
i
M
0
C
1
C/)
co
0
CL
M(D
-
c
'0O
C/)
Cu
L
(�
^C
W
O
rl
/1
■
cn
cn
W
0
cn
U
�
I
0 0 0
L
c0
U
cu
>
o
cn
U
O
'c
-�
—
N
Q
C:
cu
a
a)
�
o-
N
Q
O
E
C
•:3
LL
a)
•L
w
m
N
cl
U
U
•�
0
�
i
0-
O
E
a)
C/J
L
�
W
'
O
��
v
a)
—
CL
p
+�=
o
�
c
o6
a)
a)ULC.)
o
o
L
cu
aCUi
2
C
4
U
U)
(U
•
—
•
Ic
_S
MEL
■ i
—
F
i
•�
_r
■F
_
F
•
—
_
'
or
1
■
1
_ —
_
-7
rr
r■
�s.
Q
C: cn
O a)
w
cu
-1> �W W
U) o � c
U — 'in
w
> _0 _0
4-a x 4-0
+-� � U
cu _0 O
C: o o -0C, -.�
70 .0) 0cu
'� c �
�] 0 ca cu
o � C/)CU(D cu 0 U
A--# cn 4-' — � � E
�
..� a) can -� O
O° U' o° E�
�._
WU)
.>_ C
.� C: � O U O.S
'-F oo -0�,
oC= � o0 0�
O
i
i
N
�
s
1-
ti
_ _
1
1
i
I -A
i
_
IL
,.
-
no—
-
F
�
■:
-I
-
.
_r
_-
co
�U
cn
. �.. M O
> C L
O U O
.� Q� o co
4-0
:3 C6' U
M
coo
O � _
CID
C/) co
co
� N W
A.-O
C� .� a)
cu
C� U U
U
W
O
O
.U)
U)
N
U
cu
O
cu
E
O
.C:
N
O
n
V
Ic
■
31
■
-
i
F
1
Y
�
-
F_
_
-
i
f
-
-
■
-
■
1 1
-IF-
i
t■
Ci_
+
i
F
r
■
-_
F
H
i
-
-_■
_
i
■i■
-
-
�
-■
Em-
F
�!
F
■
i
�
w
w^ !
cu cu
> -- O
m 06 �
4-0 E c •-
>
-� _.� a m
V
U] 0 4-00 O L.
U y— E
N •� E c :
C: O p Q. c:
4
m/w �O
V
v L
N 4— --0 '
cu O O U U>
`~j E
0 cm > 0.m CU �
Cu L- E O� O
E L i � .S
O t Cu p � CD
m U - C6 70
._ w � 4-0(D O
m cu
U I— W U W
4-0 O
4-0
cn co
U
U E
4-0 Q E
L U -�
4] 4-0
° a� o
4-0
ai a)'c: C:
L
O +� -0
a- E O 'CU CAS
o U 2 O O -�
C: W W .V E X
I I I 0
i
-- U
C/)
.O
L co cn
�— O _O �
a) � o
7
�� C)
CD C O
_ a) E
> -0
=� w
cn
4 u-- -0ui °'
=3 Cl)
70 O
� U � C/)
CL C/) •� U 70
C/) cu
CL C- O O
O
U
!E . _ _N r—
cu
O O
0- � (�
-0 cu
C: ..�
cu a.
I
■
0.
w
O V +—� cu L
> � o
V
w �O (n � O
_
w
� O L r Cl)
N a U = � cu
"-� 0- cu
�. cn -
0
**%MMOOOO o . 0- 0- .-' a o
�v U
ELL cu
U cu °4.5
;
�• E c U
Ocn
O U +� p 'X
a) � N .v L
cz
> •� O U
pcm 0
4-a �V O ccnn
-0 � 0 LL E
n , L
= cn 0-0 cn c6U N O
U O = _�
� U 0 � E =3 cu
cu E
N .�+ U p O
�� C/)4 i
n
—
F
-
�
—
m7m
`r
i
—
—
_
• — ,
—
—
Esp.-
�
—
1
R
_
y
■
J
�
_
L J
99
C/)
W
73
O
Wl
H
co
Z
O_
z
LU
2
w
E
cn
0
i--
cn
0
CL
Q
-
cu
E
E
o
Z
.�
(�
N
N
W
O
o
O
cv
w
a
Q
cnN>
cn
cn
0
J
C�
Z
W
_
Q
C
a�
L
Q
o
o
C
Lcu
N
_o
4 -1
U
O
F..
cn
W
C
Z
O
Z
w
Q
V
4
Q.
J
W
c
c
0
C:
U
C
W
cn
�
:
o
.v,
a�CL
0
C
0
Q
C
Y
U
cA
Q
M=
2
0
cn
(D
(�
Z
«r
o
W
J
06 rn
a
O
H-
E
t�
cn
o
C
c
cu
�,.,
c
rn
0)o
z
N
Y
a)c~n0
aM
co
a06co
c
-
i
■
4c
-
-
i
_
1
L
t;
■
- F
■
i
- -
r■
F
I
�
- i
-
i
f
1
-■
t
i
Ci
F -
� n
I
U
O
Q
X
O
cn
cn
o
:
�-
cu
U
w
0)
E
CU
0
cn
1
O
cu—
X
Q�
�
c
•E
Z
U
:3
=3
O
0
U)
°�cu
CU
_U
c
U
U
m
co
L
�O
�+
0-
w
I
I
I
I
N
Ll
Y C
J •-
O
zt:! :�>
cu C/)
U) CD
-a 0
c 06
oco
0-0-
w
o a)
c :3
O g
= a�
c �
Er
L i
O GL
�U
C/) co
cn E
a)
a) =
cu
-0O
c a)
'cn c
00
cn
0
0
a
cu
cu
E
L
a)
C/) Z
4- 4
cu O c
.0 O Co
fU) � �
Q > o
L n U
(D o
L •C/)
Q. co O
E J 'O
O O
U U
I I
U F ..j
U Q�
co
V!
0
cn
o �
U O
., E
}' w
i
CO
N
O
N
p
H
—
_
F
■_
oil,
ilmi
—
—ti
y
—i
_ _
t
i
_
—
—
—
1 F
F
_
i
_oil, -
_ ■
F
_—
F
_ :1
�
r
a
•
-
_
_
H
■
—j :
ar
r
x' A
Am
F
i
73
■
r
MEMORANDUM
111C.- i?,9V
To: Edmonds City Council
CC: Mayor Gary Haakenson
From: Arvilla Ohlde, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director k4
Date: Febuary 7 & 8, 2003
Re: Potential Revenue Streams / Funding Parks
As presented in the past during the Comprehensive Park Plan presentation and during
annual budget presentation, the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department continues
to provide fee -recovery programming to offset the burden to the General Fund.
As stated in the Comprehensive Plan and which is evident in the final 2003 budget
figures, the net cost of providing the parks and recreation services to each citizen in
Edmonds is $28.00 annually. In comparison to other northwest cities, this is
remarkably low, and is reflective of the tight and efficient operation in Edmonds.
This past year the Recreation Programming alone recovered 107% of costs. The
programs are designed to be "fee -recovery" programming. Patrons pay for the cost of
the services. The goal is to provide community recreation programs while costs offset
direct expenses.
The greater whole of the Department, however, includes the Park Maintenance
services. This, as you know, covers the daily maintenance of over 480 acres of
parkland, beautification area and waterfront shoreline. With eleven field maintenance
workers, each is, on an average, responsible for 44-acres of parkland each year. In
addition, they maintain 53 ballfield sites, three miles of community trails and the
mechanical operations at Yost Pool.
The topic today is looking at potential revenue sources for funding PARKS.
In 2003, just under 5% of the final 23.5 million spent went to Park Maintenance.
Under this allocation Edmonds runs a very efficient operation. Unlike other cities, the
department is responsible for the maintenance of public areas which clearly falls
outside of the typical roles of those municipal park systems. Nearly 20% of the duties
are non -park public spaces. Maintenance of public areas adds to the workload but is
essential to providing direct positive economic benefit and reflects in the care and
City of Edmonds cs Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
maintenance of the community street trees, flowers, beautification in public rights -of -
way and through assistance for community events.
Efficiency and a cost effective operation continues to be the practice. This past year we
have added community service workers assigned by the court to assist with basic park
maintenance projects. The use of community volunteers and service clubs was
increased, while meager overall operation was the standard.
The 12% reduction to the program, which is the loss of all part-time labor except for
two part time employees for the flower program for 2003, is frightful. To say the least
it will be very difficult to maintain all of the parks to the former level of service.
Without seasonal staff, labor will be dedicated to high impact and revenue generating
sites only. (waterfront parks, fishing pier, City Park, baseball and soccer fields.) This
means the undeveloped parks and the fire station properties will receive less attention
this season.
The question is how elected fund the Park maintenance and operations (M & O)
annually? The question, however, goes beyond the local government. The question is
so compelling that in 2001 professionals across the State asked the legislature for
support. Under Substitute House Bill 1836 the legislature formed the "Legislative
Task Force on Local Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Operations."
The Task Force was mandated by the Legislature to analyze the anticipated future M &
O needs of local parks and recreation agencies and to recommend sources of funding
to meet those needs. The Task Force was made up of 20 members (including Senators,
House Representatives, Association of Washington Realtors, private sports businesses
(REI), users and three park directors from across the state.) The meetings were held
across the State and the group received over 22-hours of testimony from concerned
citizens.
The conclusion is that local parks and recreation facilities are in a crisis —one that
cannot be solved with existing or authorized resources. As a result, parks, swimming
pools, and trails have been permanently closed. The Task Force strongly recommended
that the statewide interest in ensuring adequate parks and open spaces must be
matched by statewide sources of support, NOT JUST LOCAL SOURCES.
As the report states "There is a statewide community of interest in improving citizens'
health. Local parks can help provide the spaces for healthy activities, facilities,
support important tourism industries and open spaces to serve natural functions,
support water quality protection and aid to species recovery efforts."
The challenge facing statewide local governments reflects the same issues of the
Edmonds City Council as you work to maintain and operate the park facilities:
2
• Here in Edmonds, we see a skyrocketing demand for park facilities. Following the
9-11 attack, citizens have doubled and tripled their use as they attempt to stay
locally and have a need for a sense of "community".
• With the increased use then, result is more "wear and tear". Fortunately, the
Edmonds City Council is committed to preserving the Edmonds parks system
through the retention of the Real Estate Excise Tax funds dedicated to park capital
improvements. Without dedicated development funds, we would be dealing with a
system in crisis. Through the use of the funds for a local match to 6.5 million in
state grants, Edmonds has benefited by having maintained assets.
* With the rising costs of utilities, staff has pro -actively developed cost efficient
methods of operation. As an example, to diminish water consumption,
computerized weather stations were installed as an automatic irrigation system.
The sprinklers only go on when water is needed. This year the water application
will be lowered to diminish growth, thus reducing mowing.
Some primary goals, which locally would benefit Edmonds came out of the Legislative
Task Force which have a direct relationship to your needs and, if supported, can help
on the local level:
Goal: State and Local Governments Should Value Parks and Recreation as
Integral Components for our Quality of Life
The Edmonds citizens parallel the statewide fact that they value park, open space and
recreation facilities. If a declining percent of the budget is allocated to fund parks,
then the elected are sending a message that the government doesn't share this value.
In the 2002 Legislature a bill was introduced that requires that under the GMA
planning for parks and recreation is now a required element. It was stated, however,
that the State needs to give the local elected more and a variety of new tools for local
governments to select from to fund parks.
Here in Edmonds you need to be commended that you DO show that you value parks,
as you have reiterated the dedication of the 0 and 2"a Quarter of 1 % of REET to
parks —you've used the tool the State created for the benefit and initial purpose of the
legislation creation for parks and recreation.
Goal: The State Legislature Should Give Local Governments Greater Authority
and Flexibility to Meet Local Needs.
1. Amend the State Statue Governing Municipal Park Districts (MPD's) to make
it practical for cities and counties, or a combination of them to create MPD's
3
The 2002 Legislature DID amend Chapter 35.61 which provides elected representation
to be seated on the newly formed MPD's (a council member would be assigned to the
MPD.)
2. Grant to cities the option of increasing local sales tax for park M & O.
As an example in Edmonds, if .24 was added to the 2002 collection of sales tax of
$4,154,314, it would equal the million dollars needed to fund the park maintenance
operations. Currently a bill has been introduced to the 2003 Legislature. Local elected
need to show support of this funding option.
3. Amend the State statue to allow a portion of the Conservation Futures Tax to
be used for M&O.
Funds would be used for those sites originally acquired with Conservation Futures. In
Edmonds it would be the cost of maintenance on the 144 Tidelands and public
walkway, which is approximately $4,000 annually. These funds are controlled by the
County, and the M & O would be through County appropriation. Currently there is a
bill in the 2003 Legislature to create this funding change.
4. Amend State Statue to allow use of REET for M&O.
In Edmonds you could calculate a percent of the collected REET (i.e. 10% of I" & 2°a
Qtr. 2002=$149,000) and dedicate it toward M ' & O which would assist with
operations but diminish capital acquisition and development projects. REET also
fluctuates with the economy, thus predictable funding streams could jeopardize annual
M & O funding stability.
The Association of Washington Realtors does NOT support this REET option. It's
primary interest in the use of REET revenues are:
1. Build the billions of dollar of infrastructure that have been identified as
needed throughout Washington.
2. Keep down the cost of housing
3. Acquire open space and environmentally sensitive lands
4. Ensure that there is a relationship between the tax and what it pays for.
Goal: The State Should Support Existing Efforts To Change Policies Affecting the
Funding of Maintenance & Operations.
The Task Force recognizes and is supportive of existing efforts to strengthen the
funding of state and local parks and recreation maintenance and operations. In 2002
and again in 2003, six bills were introduced through the Legislature to create M & O
4
funding options. In 2002 two were successful: the GMA requirement and the MPD's
change to include local elected representation. The 2003 Bills address sales tax
increase options, and use of a percent of Conservation Futures and REET funds for M
& O.
0
4,
THE REPORT
OF THE
LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE
�fv
LOCAL PARKS AND RECREATION
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
The Task Force's Recommendations
to the
Washington State Legislature
DECEMBER 2001
.J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR
TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP .................................................. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................. , ......, 1
THE TASK FORCE'S PURPOSE ................................................. S
A BRIEF HISTORY OF OTHER EFFORTS ..................................... S
CHALLENGES FACING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TODAY .................. 9
INTERESTS AND CRITERIA .................................................... 15
THE TASK FORCE's RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 17
OTHER OPTIONS THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CONSIDER ................ 25
AN OPTION CONSIDERED BUT NOT RECOMMENDED .....................
CONCLUSION.................................................................... 29
Legislative Task Force on
Local Parks and Recreation Operations and
Maintenance
December 3, 2001
FROM THE TASK FORCE CHAIR TO THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE
Dear Members of the Legislature,
The Legislative Task Force on Local Parks and Recreation Maintenance and
Operations is pleased to transmit this Report on its findings and recommendations.
Over the past three months we have learned much about the state of local parks
and recreation and have analyzed a broad range of potential remedies. We thank
the Legislature for the opportunity to undertake this important work, and
appreciate the participation of the Task Force's legislative members and their staff.
Parks and recreation are a critical part of the quality of life in Washington. The
Task Force heard from scores of local officials and citizens about the dynamic
roles that parks, open space and recreation play in our society, from protecting the
environment to preventing crime to contributing to a healthy lifestyle to serving
the needs of children and seniors. Clearly, the State's interests are served by
helping ensure that local park and recreation agencies continue providing such
vital contributions to our quality of life.
Listening to local citizens, park professionals and elected officials across the
State was educational and enjoyable. But it was also troubling. Troubling
because the dilemma of funding maintenance and operations has plagued local
governments for decades. Troubling because the same issues and solutions have
been identified, analyzed and recommended by previous statewide task forces.
Troubling because we continue to use a "cookie cutter," or "one size fits all"
approach, to address unique issues and interests of diverse communities.
Troubling because local governments have neither enough tools nor sufficient
authority to resolve the dilemma.
Even if these factors had been held constant during the past twenty years, the
maintenance and operations situation would have grown worse. But these
factors have not held constant; they have deteriorated to the point that today
local governments face a crisis.
Chair's Letter
Page 2
Further complicating the picture are such factors as:
• the skyrocketing costs of criminal justice, which have reallocated resources
from parks and recreation;
• tax initiatives that have exacerbated funding problems by further reducing
funding and/or making it even less stable and predictable; and
• the State's population growth, particularly in urban areas, has resulted in
greater demand for all kinds of services, including parks and recreation, which
are perceived as vital contributors to improving the quality of life.
As a result of this crisis, parks have been closed, programs eliminated,
.maintenance reduced and capital projects delayed.
The need for State action is more critical than ever. The public values parks and
recreation services so much that our parks are being "loved to death." Local
governments are employing a variety of innovative techniques to meet the
steadily increasing demands of a growing population. But they cannot resolve
the dilemma of funding maintenance and operations without the State's
partnership.
We are pleased to submit our findings. and recommendations to the Legislature.
They are intended to strengthen the partnership between the State and local
governments, in the short-term, to give local officials more authority and
flexibility. In the long-term, they are also intended to generate a new
partnership between the State and local officials, citizens and advocates that will
agree on new statewide funding sources to serve a statewide community of
interest.
We- look forward to working with you on these vital issues.
Respectfully,
CHRIS SMITH TOWNE
Task Force Chair
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
CHRIS SMITH TOWNE, CHAIR
Consultant
Tacoma/Seattle
Representing Individual Parks Users
LYNN BAHRYCH
Attorney -at -Law
Shaw Island
Representing Environmental Interests
KATHLEEN BEAMER
Vice President, Public Affairs, REI
Kent
Representing the Sporting Goods Industry
KEN BOUNDS
Superintendent,
Seattle Parks and Recreation Department
Representing Large Cities
MIKE COLBRESE
Executive Director,, WIAA
Renton
Representing Youth
KEN JACOBSEN
State Senator, 46`h District
Seattle
Representing the Senate Democratic Caucus
CRAIG LARSEN
Director, King County Parks and
Recreation Department
Representing Urban Counties
JOHN LOVICK
State Representative, 44"' District
Mill Creek
Representing the House Democratic Caucus
FRED MENDOZA
Attorney -at -Law
Kent
Representing Team Sports Users
VAL OGDEN
State Representative, 49`' District
Vancouver
Representing the House Democratic Caucus
BOB OKE
State Senator, 26`h District
Port Orchard
Representing the Senate Republican Caucus
KIRK PEARSON
State Representative, 39`h District
Snohomish
Representing the House Republican Caucus
JOHN PENNINGTON
State Representative, 18`h District
Carrolls
Representing the House Republican Caucus
WES PETERSON
Director, Aberdeen Parks and
Recreation Department
Representing Small Cities
DEBBIE REGALA
State Senator, 271h District
Tacoma
Representing the Senate Democratic Caucus
DAN SWECKER
State Senator, 20`h District
Rochester
Representing the Senate Republican Caucus
ANN-MARIE SWEETEN
Office of Financial Management
Olympia
Representing the Governor and OFM
DAVE VELEY
Director, Yakima County Parks and
Recreation Department
Representing Rural Counties
VERN VEYSEY
Association of Washington Realtors
Ridgefield
Representing Commercial Business
JACK WILSON
Director, Metropolitan Park District
of Tacoma
Representing Special Districts
Ll
•
11
•
•
1-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Legislative Task Force on Local Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Operations was
created by the passage of Substitute House Bill 1836 during the 2001 Regular Legislative
Session. The Task Force was mandated by the Legislature to analyze the anticipated future
maintenance and operations needs of local parks and recreation agencies and recommend
sources of funding to meet those needs.
The Task Force, consisting of twenty members, met six times between September 18th and
November 28`h in Issaquah, Spokane, Vancouver, Union Gap, Mount Vernon and Olympia.
Sixty-four citizens, city and county elected officials, Parks Commission members, parks and
recreation department directors, and interest group_ advocates testified at the Task Force's
meetings.
This is not the first time local park and recreation maintenance and operations have been
scrutinized by an Executive or Legislative Branch committee. Governors and Legislatures
have a long history of visiting these issues. However, because the recommendations of past
committees have not been implemented, at least once in each of the past few decades a group
has been convened to again gather information, take public testimony, assess and discuss the
findings and issues and make recommendations.
The findings and recommendations of the 2001 Legislative Task Force on Local Parks and
Recreation Maintenance and Operations parallel those of past committees, and thus will sound
familiar to State and local elected officials, parks and recreation representatives and advocates,
and the citizens of Washington.
But when those earlier advisory groups scrutinized the issues, local parks and recreation
facilities were in_"dire straits." Today the situation is no longer one of "dire straits." It is a
crisis -one that cannot be solved with existing or authorized resources. The acquisition and
development of new parks, open spaces, ball fields, trails and other recreation facilities have
accelerated. Our Task Force believes this trend is in the public's interest. But maintenance
and operations of parks and recreation facilities are being neglected, and falling farther and
farther behind. As a result, parks, swimming pools and trails have been permanently closed.
Seasonal closures are limiting the use of other parks. Recreation programs have been
suspended or greatly curtailed. We must act responsibly to ensure that as parks and recreation
facilities are acquired and developed, sufficient funding is available to maintain and operate
them as safe and healthy places for our citizens.
The Task Force also strongly recommends that the statewide interest in ensuring adequate
parks and open spaces must be matched by statewide sources of support, not just local sources.
Throughout the State, there are benefits to many "communities of interest" when local parks
and open space needs are addressed. There is a statewide "community of interest" in
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT I
improving citizens' health —and local parks can help provide the spaces for healthy activities
such as ball games or walks. There is a statewide "community of interest" in having
attractions and facilities that support our important tourism industry— and local facilities
provide many of the sites that make tourism expenditures possible. There is a statewide
"community of interest" in ensuring that open spaces are available to provide natural functions
such as water quality protection or to aid species recovery efforts. Local facilities and sites are
often important contributors to the larger statewide "community of interest " in these efforts.
For these reasons it is appropriate for statewide tools as well as local options to be developed to
address maintenance and operations.
The issues and challenges may sound familiar, but the magaitude of theroblem is gpwin&
the need for action is increasing, thepublic's Rati6nce is -waning and the time to act is
shrinking.
The challenges facing local governments as they work to maintain and operate their parks and
recreation facilities include:
■ the skyrocketing demand for parks and recreation programs and facilities, a product of the
State's population growth, society's greater interest in fitness and outdoor recreation, and
unprecedented popularity of organized athletics;
■ increasing use of facilities and open space, resulting in more significant "wear and tear,"
which increases maintenance and operations costs;
■ rising costs of utilities and employee medical benefits;
R declining resources, primarily due to reallocation to law and justice programs and services;
■ aging facilities, which are more expensive to maintain and operate;
• the expanding mission of parks and recreation departments to include environmental
stewardship and the provision of social services, which has diverted funds from
maintenance and operations;
■ dollars are available for acquisition and development but not for maintenance and
operations; and
■ resistance from citizens to user fees because they see parks and recreation as services that
should be provided for free.
After nearly twenty-two hours of testimony and discussion, the Task Force members reached
consensus on four goals and near unanimity on five strategies to achieve them. In addition,
we identified two other options that we recommend be further researched, developed and
analyzed for possible action by the State Legislature in 2003. The Task Force also offers
support for the on -going work of existing coalitions to advance two other options.
2 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
GOAL #1 :'
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD VALUE PARKS AND
RECREATION' AS INTEGRAL COMPONENTS OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
Our citizens value parks, open space and recreation facilities as integral components of our
quality of life. The decline of funding for parks and recreation as a percentage of local
governments' budgets sends a message that government does not share this value. The State's
failure to provide local governments with the authority and flexibility to fund needed
maintenance and operations reiterates that message. So, too, does the lack of statewide sources
of funding for maintenance and operations. . .
This Task Force strongly recommends that the State demonstrate its commitment to this value
by providing a greater number and variety of tools for local governments to select from to fund
maintenance and operations. These tools offer the opportunity to build an on -going partnership
between the State and local governments. That partnership is essential to achieving the
citizens' interest in improving the quality of life in our communities through safe, healthy,
accessible and affordable parks and recreation services, programs and facilities.
GOAL #2-.
THE STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD GIVE LOCAL. GOVERNMENTS
GREATER AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS
To achieve this goal, the Task Force recommends:
1. Amend the State statute (Chapter 35.61 RCW) that governs Metropolitan Park
Districts (MPDs) to make it practical for cities and counties, or a combination of
them, to create MPDs.
2. Grant to cities and counties the option of increasing the local sales tax for parks and
recreation maintenance and operations.
3. Amend the State statutes (RCW 84.04.230) to allow a portion of the Conservation
Futures Tax to be used for maintenance and operations.
Furthermore, the majority of Task Force members recommend that the State Legislature:
4. Amend the State statutes (RCW 82.46.010 and 82.46.035) to allow the use of the local
Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET) for maintenance and operations.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 3
GOAL #3`
THE STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CREATE NEW,; DEDICATED
STATEWIRE SOURCES OF REVENUE AND PARTNERSHIPS TO
SUPPORT AND IMPLEMENT THEM
Task Force members -recognize that recommendations to increase existing taxes or raise
revenue from new sources will be enacted only with the support of a broad coalition of
interested and affected parties. But we also recognize the need for statewide, dedicated
revenue sources to help both the State and -local- governments fund maintenance and operations.
Thus, the Task Force recommends that the Legislature create new, dedicated sources of
revenue and the partnerships needed to support and implement them.
5. Amend the State statute (RCW 82.08) to increase the State sales tax by one -tenth of
one percent to fund maintenance and operations.
In addition, the Task Force briefly reviewed two other options for providing a statewide,
dedicated source of revenue, but did not have sufficient information or time to develop
recommendations. Therefore, Task Force members recommend that the State research, analyze
and refine these two options, with possible action by the Legislature during the 2003 Session.
A. Use a dedicated lottery for maintenance and operations.
B. The State should consider reviewing State -level licensing and access fees associated with
recreation facilities, equipment and vehicles with the goal of providing State and local
governments with more money and flexibility for spending it.
COAL #4:
THE STATE SHOULD SUPPORT VaSTINO EFFORTS TO CHANGE
POLICIES AFFECTING THE FUNDING OF
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
The Task Force recognizes and is supportive of existing efforts to .strengthen the funding of
State and local parks and recreation maintenance and operations such as:
A. Restore full funding to recreational facilities funded by the gas tax.
B. Provide authority and incentives for use of a portion of federal and state grants for local
maintenance and operations.
4 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
•
•
0
s
11
•
THE TASK FORCE'aS PURPOSE.
The Legislative Task Force on Local Parks and Recreation Maintenance and Operations was
created by the passage of Substitute House Bill 1836 during the 2001 Regular Legislative
Session.
The legislation prescribed the Task Force's membership and mandated that it meet in at least
four different parts of the State. It also stipulated that by December 1, 2001, the Task Force
analyze: a) current local parks and recreation uses and trends; b) current funding for local parks
and recreation maintenance and operations; c) the benefits that local parks provide to the state;
d) anticipated future needs of local parks and recreation agencies; and e) sources of funding to
meet operational needs of local parks and recreation agencies.
A. BRIEF HISTORY OF OTHER. ]EFFORTS
This is not the first time local park and recreation maintenance and operations have been
scrutinized by an Executive or Legislative Branch committee. Governors and Legislatures
have a long history of visiting these issues. However, since the recommendations of past
committees have not been implemented, at least once in each of the past few decades a group
has been convened to again gather information, take public testimony, assess and discuss the
findings and issues, and make recommendations. Ironically, recent committees have defined
the problems and challenges identically and made nearly the same recommendations. Two
notable recent efforts were:
THE GOVERNOR'S RECREATION RESOURCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,1984
"The citizens care —and now it is time for those elected to lead and take action to avert a
potential loss of our state's most valuable qualities. " .
So wrote David L. Towne, chairman of the Governor's Recreation Resource Advisory
Committee, when presenting his committee's findings and recommendations to Governor John
Spellman in February 1984.
The Governor's Recreation Resource Advisory Committee found that "recreation is an
important component in the economic vitality of the State and will be impacted by future
growth in participation and promotion." Thus, the Committee recommended that "the State
recognize and establish the importance of recreation as an essential service necessary to the
health and welfare of Washington residents."
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 5
The 1984 Committee also concluded that:
■ State resources are inadequate to meet the existing needs.
■ Federal resources are diminishing.
■ Outdoor recreational opportunities are becoming increasingly important in urban areas.
* Recreation budgets suffer as a result of mandated requirements.
■ Existing laws do not allow the needed flexibility and authority necessary for local
governments to meet the recreational needs of their constituencies.
■ There is a critical need for State financing of local capital programs and operations.
Based on these findings, the Recreation Resource Advisory Committee recommended thirty
strategies, ranging from increasing statewide revenues for parks and recreation to granting local
governments greater flexibility to raise revenue and more authority over how to spend it, from
building stronger partnerships between the State, local governments, school districts and the
private sector to mandating that parks and recreation services and facilities be elements of local
comprehensive plans.
STATE WILDLIFE AND RECREATION LANDS MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE, 1992
"The state's wildlife and recreation legacy is at risk. Failure to immediately and adequately
address the lands management funding crisis will result in closed recreational sites,
diminished fish and wildlife populations, and accelerated decay of the state's capital
investments. If the downward spiral is not halted, quality of life and environmental health
will erode, . tourists and businesses will find Washington less attractive, and future
generations will inherit far less than we have enjoyed."
This message was delivered by the sixteen members of the State Wildlife and Recreation Lands
Management Task Force in their report to the Governor and Legislature in December 1992.
While this committee focused only on State issues, the message is similar and applicable to the
work of this Task Forcc in 2001.
The Task Force wrote: "Critically needed levels of operation and maintenance are not funded.
Routine maintenance projects are deferred, only to become major rehabilitation problems
requiring significant capital expenditures." The Task Force also found that underfunding
maintenance and operations of State lands is costly to the state. "Recreation sites become more
crowded, environmentally damaged, littered and vandalized. hi many cases, public health and
safety are at risk. Capital reinvestments are prematurely required because of deferred
maintenance. Sensitive plant and animal species are not protected. Land managers are unable
to afford the care necessary to be good neighbors to adjacent private landowners."
As a result of its findings and conclusions, the State Wildlife and Recreation Lands
6 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIvE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
Management Task Force recommended that revenue for managing the State's wildlife and
recreation lands be found by considering these seven options:
1. Increase the motor vehicle excise tax.
2. Increase the annual off -road vehicle use permit fee.
3. Impose an automobile rental fee.
4. Impose a retail sales tax on motor vehicle fuel.
5. increase the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET).
6. Levy a new tax on retail sales of specific outdoor recreational equipment.
7. Impose a fee for the recreational use of State lands.
The findings and recommendations of the 2001 Legislative Task Force on Local Parks and
Recreation Maintenance and Operations parallel those of the 1994 and 1992 coinmittees, and
thus will sound familiar to State and local elected officials, parks and recreation representatives
and advocates, and the citizens of Washington. But when those earlier advisory groups
.scrutinized the issues, local parks and recreation facilities were in "dire straits." Today the
situation is no longer one of "dire straits." It is a crisis --one that cannot be met with existing
or authorized resources. The acquisition and development of new parks, open spaces, ball
fields, trails and other recreation facilities have accelerated. Our Task Force believes this trend
is in the public's interest. But maintenance and operations of parks and recreation facilities are
being neglected. As a result, parks, swimming pools and trails have been permanently closed.
Seasonal closures are limiting the use of other parks. Recreation programs have been
suspended or greatly curtailed.
The issues and challenges may sound familiar. But the magnitude of the problem is growing,
the need for action is increasing, the public's patience is waning and the time to act is
shrinking.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
CRAIJ FACING LOCAL RECREATION TODAY
"The inmates at the nearby State Prison have better recreational facilities and opportunities
than do the residents of my City." A local park director's testimony to the Task Force on
October loth
"No police force is so effective as afield in which a child can run and play." Mount Vernon
Mayor Skye Richendrfer, quoting Henry David Thoreau while testifying on November 10
"We are beyond `lean and mean!' We're cutting basic, necessary programs and services ... I
don't see it getting any better, although the demand will increase... Currently we're looking
at an additional 3% emergency cut." Longview -Kelso Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
member Alice 1blillward in testimony on October 25`h
"We've had to adopt an on call' philosophy about maintenance. We wait until a citizen
complains before we fix anything. " A local park and recreation director's testimony on
November 16"'.
"We're not building any more parks until we can maintain and operate the ones we have."
A local elected official in testimony on October loth.
The Task Force took testimony from sixty-four elected officials, parks and recreation
department representatives and citizens at its meetings in Issaquah, Spokane, Vancouver,
Union Crap and Mount Vernon. The Task Force also reviewed and discussed the findings of a
survey of city and county parks and recreation departments that was conducted in late summer
and early autumn 2001 by the Washington Parks and Recreation. Association. As a result of the
testimony, survey findings and Task Force members' discussions, the principal challenges of
maintaining and operating local parks and recreational facilities were identified. -
Here is a sample of the facts offered to the Task Force during the public testimony:
A business decided not to locate in Deer Park because the City does not have
sufficient recreational opportunities for the employees.
Inadequate funding for maintenance and operations has caused Yakima County to
close parks and remove other lands from public use.
• Budget cuts in King County's department of parks and recreation are forcing the
closure of 45 urban parks (25% of the County's parks) for four months. If new
revenue sources are not found, this situation could become "permanent;" i.e., each
year these parks will be closed for four months during winter.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 9
• In 2002, 40% of San Juan County's general fund contribution to the parks and
recreation budget is being eliminated.
• Granger has closed its pool because of the increasing costs of liability and utilities and
an inability to pay certified lifeguards.
• The #1 complaint from Walla Walla residents about the City's parks and recreation
facilities is the lack of maintenance.
It In 2000 Yakima County parks and recreation facilities served 634,000 people. In 2001,
it is expected to serve more than 804,000, an increase of more than 27% over last year.
■ Aberdeen, a city of 16,500 residents, serves over 35,000 people annually at its parks
and recreation facilities.
Deer Park, with just 3000 people, serves 30,000 annually at its parks and recreation
facilities because the county cannot meet the demands of its citizens.
Since 1990 the percent of Kennewick's parks and recreation budget devoted to
maintenance and operations has declined by 20%. But its system of parks and
recreational facilities has increased significantly.
■ Longview employs 15 staff to manage its 375 acres of parks. Twenty years ago the city
had 172 acres of parks and 25 employees to manage them.
• Grandview has added two large parks and a 25-acre fairground to its parks and
recreation system since 1989. During this time the number of full-time parks and
recreation employees has stayed the same, but "seasonal" positions have been
eliminated.
• The City of Aberdeen's staff has grown by one FTE in 31 years. During this time the
parks system has doubled in size, as has the number of programs the parks and
recreation department offers.
• In the past ten years, the City of Spokane's parks and recreation department has lost ten
full-time workers who were assigned to maintenance and operations.
■ In Pullman, competition with the private sector is hindering the City's efforts to attract
seasonal workers. Young people, who in the past have provided this workforce, can
make more working at McDonalds.
• Law and justice programs and services now capture more than 80% of Yakima
County's General Fund. That partly explains why the County offers only recreational
programs that are self -funding, and why it has no capital funds to maintain, repair or
replace its parks and recreation facilities.
10 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
E
■ "Per capita" allocations of federal and state grants hurt tourist areas such as Chelan and
San Juan County. The City of Chelan's population officially totals 3500, but the
number of recreational or "second homes" indicates that at any given time the
population is closer to 45-50,000. San Juan County's population officially totals
14,900, but the number of recreational homes and tourists can raise the population to
more than 30,000 at any given time.
THE CHALLENGES THAT THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS AGREE FACE
W.A.SHINGTOIN'S COMMUNITIES:
The rapid population growth of communities across the State of Washington is producing a
dramatic increase in the public's demand for, use of and expectations about parks and
recreation facilities.
2. With efforts to increase densities in urban areas, as required by the Growth Management
Act, urban amenities such as parks and recreation facilities are becoming increasingly
important because they are seen as essential to maintaining the quality of life. To keep up
with rapid population growth, local governments must invest in infrastructure. Thus,
concerns about maintaining funding for acquisition and development are legitimate. But
citizens also expect their parks and recreation facilities to be safe, healthy and useable, and
their parks and recreation agencies to offer affordable programs. Thus, population growth
is increasing the pressure on local governments to maintain and operate these facilities.
3. Heightened interest in physical fitness and outdoor recreation throughout our society are
also increasing demand and use. For example, sports leagues that once operated seasonally
now operate year `round. As recreational facilities and parks are used more frequently, they
suffer greater "wear and tear," which increases maintenance and operations costs, and must
be more frequently repaired, upgraded and/or. replaced.
4. Since the passage of Title IX in the early 1970s, thousands more women have become
active participants in organized sports leagues and recreational activities.
5. Participation in youth and adult organized sports has experienced unprecedented growth,
placing extreme demands on local parks and recreation facilities. Among the user groups
are;
■ youth and adult soccer leagues;
■ youth and adult softball leagues;
■ youth baseball leagues;
* ``active seniors," women and men from 55-70, who are pursuing more rigorous and
demanding athletic activity than their counterparts of earlier generations; and
a other organized sports teams such as lacrosse and rugby.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 11
6. The increasingly large population of Americans older than 70, whose fitness and recreation
interests may be more passive than those of "active seniors," are, nevertheless, using
facilities such as parks, trails and recreational and/or community centers in record numbers.
7. The increasing number of children of working parents, who are enrolled in "before," "after"
and summer school programs at parks and recreational facilities, many of which provide
meals.
8. There are also new types of recreation that must be accommodated. For example,
skateboarding is growing in popularity, resulting in the construction of —and the need to
maintain —"skateboard parks."
9. Parks and recreation facilities and programs have not made it on the list of "essential public
services," like police, fire and water, but remain on the "second tier" of government
services. This situation exists despite citizens' and employers' perceptions that parks and
recreation facilities are essential to the quality of fife. It also means that in competition for
limited public dollars, parks and recreation agencies continue to lose to those services
considered "essential." For example, as law and justice programs and facilities consume a
greater percentage of local governments' budgets, the percentage devoted to parks and
recreation is declining.
10. Since the 1970s our society's interest in environmental stewardship has steadily increased.
As a result, the mandate given local parks and recreation agencies has expanded to include
saving, protecting and enhancing critical lands within communities. Wetlands, urban
forests, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats are now much more the responsibility of
local parks and recreation departments than they were thirty years ago. This demonstrates
that parks and recreation are a "public good" that more than ever contributes to a
community's quality of life. It also illustrates that funding of parks and recreation,
including maintenance and operations, belongs in the "first tier" of local government
services and programs as a legitimate contender for taxpayer support.
11. Because funding of maintenance and operations is not keeping up with the increasing
demand for and subsequent expansion of local parks and recreation systems, cities and
counties are being forced to reduce services. Increasing costs are also contributing to
reductions in service. Of particular note are rapidly increasing costs of utilities and
employee medical benefits, and the costs of implementing new federal and state laws and
standards, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
12. In many jurisdictions, the number of county and city parks and recreation employees who
are working in maintenance and operations has declined over the past twenty years despite
the fact that the number of acres developed into parks and the number of recreational
facilities have increased dramatically.
12 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
13. The expansion of parks and recreation agency missions at the direction of city and county
councils to provide social services programs, particularly to serve children and seniors, has
been paid for by diverting funds that would have paid for maintenance and operations.
14. Many taxes and federal and state grant programs allow funds to be used for acquisition
and/or capital construction, but prohibit them from being spent on maintenance and
operations. An example: the Real Estate Excise Tax.
15. Local governments are foregoing opportunities to levy taxes and/or apply for federal and
state grants for acquisition and capital construction because they realize they do not have
funds to maintain and operate new facilities.
16. The public perceives parks and recreation as services that should be provided for free or
nearly free. Local agencies are continually trying to strike the right balance between "free
or fee." This is an important issue because many of the people who use public parks
systems are those who can least afford to pay.
17. It is also very difficult for local agencies to charge a fee for the use of "passive" parks and
recreational opportunities, such as walking along a trail, sitting in a park, watching birds in
a wetland.
18. Local governments are partnering with citizen volunteers to maintain and operate parks and
recreation facilities, a trend that has helped distribute the management and maintenance
responsibility to various segments of the community. But we must remember that
partnerships with volunteers do not come free, as there are costs involved in recruiting,
training, managing, motivating and maintaining volunteers.
19. Unless the maintenance and operations funding situation is resolved soon, many
jurisdictions will not be able to add new parks or services, despite growing populations and
increasing demand, use and expectations. Program curtailments and parks closures will
increase.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 13
. I
INTERESTS AND CRITERIA
The Task Force Members' Mutual Interests
At the Task Force's first meeting in Issaquah on September 18th, the members identified their
individual interests. From those individual interests emerged a list of their mutual interests.
The following are the Task Force members' mutual interests, which served as the foundation
for developing and agreeing on their recommendations.
Recognize and respect parks and recreation as essential features of the quality of life
in our State and its communities.
2. Provide consistent, stable, long-term funding for local parks and recreation
maintenance and operations.
3. Provide local governments with greater authority and flexibility in the tools available
to them to fund maintenance and operations.
4. Develop and implement a "systems" approach —a comprehensive strategy that
includes both the State and local governments —for providing citizens with parks and
recreation programs, services and facilities.
5. Stimulate and rely on intedurisdictional and public -private partnerships to help solve
the challenges facing local parks and recreation agencies.
6. Offer fair and equitable funding solutions.
7. Use an entrepreneurial approach to providing services and funding.
8. Do not supplant one source of funds with another or the contributions of one level of
government with those of another level.
9. Strengthen the public's understanding of the importance of maintenance and
operations and the challenges facing local governments in maintaining and operating
parks and recreational facilities.
The Criteria for Evaluating Proposed Solutions
Before discussing the alternatives to improve funding of the maintenance and operations of our
local parks and recreational facilities, the Task Force members agreed on the following criteria
for evaluating them.
■ Equity and Fairness
■ Adequate Funding
■ Acceptability
■ Sustainability.
■ Impact (Be Aware of Unintended Consequences)
■ Administrative Feasibility and Compliance Costs
■ More Flexibility and Tools for Local Governments
■ Addresses Supplanting
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE -FINAL REPORT 15
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
THE TAs.K FORCEIs RECOMMENDATION
GOAL #1:
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD VALUE
PARKS AND RECREATION
AS INTEGRAL COMPONENTS OF OUR QUALITY OF LIFE
From the testimony at Task Force meetings in cities and towns across Washington, it is clear
that our citizens value parks, open space and recreation facilities and programs more than ever
before. The burgeoning population of our State has placed a premium on amenities that
enhance the quality of life. The Growth Management Act's goal of preserving rural areas,
farmlands and natural resources such as wetlands, rivers, streams, steep slopes, forests and
wildlife habitats has led local governments to increase densities in urban centers. The
incentive for citizens to accept higher densities is more amenities in urban neighborhoods that
improve the quality of life. Chief among those amenities, according to the testimony we heard,
is parks and recreation facilities.
Yet the budgets of State and local governments do not reflect this value. On the contrary, they
send a message that parks and recreation are not integral components of the quality of life. For
example, during the past twenty years the percentage of local budgets devoted to public safety
has dramatically increased, while the percentage devoted to parks and recreation has.declined.
Maintenance and operations have been particularly hard hit. Today we have parks, trails and
swimming pools that are closed to the public because they cannot be maintained. We have
recreation programs and facilities that have been shut down because there is no money to run
them. We have facilities that are available only'to those who can afford to pay the fees that
maintain and operate them. Government policy does not appear to reflect the view of our
citizens that parks and recreation are vital tools to prevent society's ills and ensure healthy, safe
and livable communities.
This Task Force strongly recommends that State and local governments join their citizens in
valuing parks and recreation as integral components of our quality of life. To demonstrate a
commitment to this value, the Task Force urges that the State provide to local governments the
variety of tools for funding the maintenance and operations of parks and recreational facilities
that are presented in this report. These tools offer the opportunity to build an on -going
partnership between the State and local governments. That partnership is essential to achieving
the citizens' interest in improving the quality of life in our communities through safe, healthy,
accessible and affordable parks and recreation services, programs and facilities.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 17
GOAL #2
THE STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD GIVE LOCAL GovERNMENTS
GREATER AUTHORITY AND FLEXIBILITY TO MEET LOCAL NEEDS
The Task Force strongly recommends that local governments be empowered to meet their
communities' unique needs to acquire, develop, maintain and operate parks and recreation
facilities. The Task Force has learned that there are many differences among the local
jurisdictions of our State. They have different needs. They have different challenges. They
currently have different tools available to them. They have different political and economic
climates that dictate which tools are practical for them -to use. But two things they have in
common: 1) All of them 'are facing a crisis in handing maintenance and operations. Their need
to find solutions is urgent. 2) They cannot overcome this crisis without the State's help. That
help may be legislation that relaxes restrictions that inhibit local actions. That help may be
statewide sources of funding. Whatever it is, the State's help must give local governments
more tools to choose from... and it must come now.
Task Force members unanimously, recommend that the State Legislature give local
governments greater authority to decide whether or not to raise taxes and greater flexibility to
determine how to spend the revenues. With this goal in mind, the Task Force recommends:
I. Amend the State statute (Chapter 35.61. RCW) that `go eirns Metropolitan Park
` Oricts to make it practical for cities and counties, or a combination of them, to
create MPDs.
The Task Force recommends that the Legislature amend the State statute (Chapter 35.61 RCW)
that governs Metropolitan Park Districts (MPD) to make it practical for cities and counties, or a
combination of them, to create MPDs.
The Task Force's three principal goals in making this recommendation are: 1) raise the
visibility of parks and recreation facilities as integral components of the quality of life; 2)
provide communities with more choices for funding maintenance and operations; and 3)
provide additional, consistent funding for that purpose.
For some communities, creating an MPD with a five -member elected board will help achieve
these goals. In others, the goals may be achieved by making the City or County Council the
MPD's governing body. The Task Force is interested in ensuring that governance solutions are
tailored to the unique and specific circumstances, interests and needs of each community.
Almost every community the Task Force visited or heard about needs additional hmding for
maintenance and operations. In recommending amendments to the MPD statute, we have
anticipated that creating an MPD could become an excuse to divert to other uses general fund
revenues that currently fund parks and recreation. That practice would undermine the citizens'
18 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
and Task Force's interest in ensuring additional revenues to correct the deteriorating condition
of parks and recreation facilities.
There may be other provisions of the current law that need to be amended, such as the percent
of citizens whose signatures are needed for a citizen -initiated petition to create an MPD, and
the Task Force recommends reassessing them. But two provisions that the Task Force
focused on and recommends be changed are:
a. Eligibility and Boundaries: The current law, which was adopted in 1907, does not allow
cities with less than 5,000 people or counties to form an MPD. The Task Force
recommends that the law be changed to allow counties and cities of any size to create one,
and to enable combinations of counties or cities or counties and cities to form an MPD.
b. Governance: Current law requires that an MPD be governed by a five -member board of
directors elected by the citizens of the district. The Task Force recommends that the
Legislature change the law to allow the district to be governed by one of three ways: a five -
member board (as current law allows) or the legislative body of the city or county or by a
federated group if the new MPD includes more than one jurisdiction.
Late in its deliberations the Task Force briefly discussed the concept of creating a statewide
i
MPD to achieve the goals listed above for both local parks and recreation maintenance and
operations and the State's park and recreation lands and facilities. We did not have sufficient
time or information to reach agreement on this tool, but it may worthy of further review.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ISSUE:
The State Legislature passed the enabling legislation to allow the creation of Metropolitan
Park Districts on March 11, 1907. Two days later the Tacoma City Council passed an
ordinance placing the issue before the voters. In April 1907 Tacoma voters approved the
creation of the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma.with a 69% "yes " vote. While this
district remains the only MPD in Washington, special districts dedicated to parks and
recreation are common throughout the United States.
MPDs can be initiated by cities of S, 000 or more citizens or by a citizen -initiated petition
signed by at least fifteen percent of the registered voters in the last general election. By either
method, the MPD is not created until approved by a majority vote of the voters.
MPDs should not be confused with Park and Recreation Districts (PRD) or Park and
Recreation Service Areas (PRSA). MPDs are `junior" taxing districts, or "second priority, "
while PRDs and PRSAs are rated much lower —sixth priority. This means the statutory
aggregate property tax limit may be reached before PRDs and PRSAs are able to collect their
property tax revenue. For MPDs the first fifty cents of taxing authority is outside this
aggregate limit. In addition, the property t'ax levies of PRDs and PRSAs are for only five or six
years. MPD general property tax levies do not have to be renewed.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 19
2. Grant to cities and counties the option of'increasing the° local sales tax'for parks and
recreation maintenance and operations:
The Task Force recommends that the State grant to all cities and counties the option of
collecting additional sales tax revenue of .10% for parks maintenance and operations if
approved by the voters.
In 1999 the State provided this ability to Pierce County and the Metropolitan Park District of
Tacoma. Pierce County voters approved this tax in September 2000. In its first year, the tax is
expected to raise $8 million.
The Task Force recommends that the State give all local governments the same authority it
gave to Pierce County and the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma. Task Force members
believe this recommendation offers four benefits: a) greater power to local voters to tax
themselves if they so desire; b) greater visibility and vitality to parks and recreation as essential
to a.community's quality of life; c) significant additional funding for maintenance and
operations; and d) stronger partnerships among local officials and the public and private
sectors. The Task Force also believes this recommendation must not result in diverting to other
purposes general funds now going to parks and recreation.
BACKGROUND INFORMA TION A B 0 UT THIS ISSUE:
In 1999 the State Legislature approved ESB 1547 authorizing counties with 500,000 to 1.5
million residents to impose a local sales tax to be used for zoos and aquariums provided. that
the tax is approved by the voters. In 2000 the law was amended with the passage of ESB 3105.
The revised law states that when a Metropolitan Park District, a city with over 150, 000
residents and the legislative authority of a county with a national park and a population
between 500, 000 and 1.5 million citizens jointly request it, the county must submit to the voters
a ballot proposition authorizing no more than a one -tenth of one percent local sales and use
tax. In addition, language was included stating that the county cannot use any parks revenues
to replace or supplant existing per capita funding. Based on this revision, Pierce County
residents passed a sales tax increase of. 10% on September 19, 2000 to fund parks
maintenance and operations.
3. Amend the State statutes (RCW 84-04.230) to allow a portion of the Conservation
Futures Tax (CFT) to be used for maintenance and operations.
The Task Force recommends that the Sate amend the current statute governing the
Conservation Futures Tax to allow local governments to use a portion of the revenue for
maintenance and operations. The Task Force recommends this be achieved through one or
both of the following methods:
20 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
■ increase the property tax assessment for the Conservation Futures Tax from 6.25
cents per $1000 of assessed value to eight to eleven cents per $1000 of assessed
value, and allow the use of up to 25% of the assessment for the maintenance and
operations of properties acquired with CFT funds after the revised law goes into
effect.
■ change the existing law to allow local governments to divert up to 25% of the 6.25
cents per $1000 of assessed value for the maintenance and operations of lands
hereafter acquired with CFT funding.
Within the Task Force, concern was expressed that the CFT is intended to acquire open space,
and that allowing some of it to be used for maintenance and operations moves away from the
law's original intent.
But Task Force members offer this recommendation because it can achieve two of their
interests: 1) provide local governments with greater flexibility in the use of locally -collected
taxes and a wider array of tools to ensure the adequate funding of local parks and open space
maintenance and operations; and 2) establish a closer link between acquisition and
development and maintenance and operations.
BACKGROUND INFORMATIONABOUT THIS ISSUE:
The Conservation Futures Tax is collected as a .0625% property tax assessment (6.25 cents
per $1,000 of assessed value) on all taxable property in counties that levy this tax. The CFT
was first made available to counties as an option in the 1970s. Today, twelve counties in
Washington collect this tax, including most that are heavily populated.
4. Amend` the: State statutes (RCW 82.46.010 and 82.46.035) to allow the use of the local
Real Estate. Excise Tax (BEET) for maintenance and operations of parks and
recreation facilities.
The majority of Task Force members recm omend that the. Legislature amend the State laws
governing the local Real Estate Excise -Tax to allow a portion of this revenue to be used for
maintenance and operations. The Task Force members who favor this proposal recommend
this be achieved through the following methods:
■ In cases where local jurisdictions are assessing both BEET land REET 2, which totals a
.50% tax on the. sale of real estate, they should be given the option of assessing up to an
additional .125% for the maintenance and operations of parks and recreational facilities
acquired or developed with REET on a prospective basis. Thus, the State would grant
to local governments the ability to tax up to .625% on the sale of real estate.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 21
■ In cases where the local government is assessing just REET 1 or both REET 1 and
REET 2, the State should grant local jurisdictions the ability to divert up to 25% of that
collection for the purpose of maintaining and operating parks and recreational facilities
acquired or developed with REET on a prospective basis.
During Task Force discussions, concern was expressed that the REET is intended to acquire
parks and open spaces, and that allowing some of it to be used for maintenance and operations
moves away from the law's original intent. But a majority of Task Force members are
interested in creating a stronger link between acquisition and development and maintenance
and operations, and thus support this recommendation as a way to achieve that interest. The
acquisition and development of new parks, open spaces, ball fields, trails and other recreation
facilities has accelerated. We believe this trend serves the public's best interests. But
maintenance and operations of parks and recreation facilities are being neglected, and falling
farther and farther behind. As a result, parks, swimming pools and trails have permanently
closed. Other parks close during winter months., Recreation programs have been suspended or
greatly curtailed. We must act responsibly to ensure that as parks and recreation facilities are
acquired and developed, there is adequate funding to maintain and operate them as safe and
healthy places for our citizens.
The Association of Washington Realtors does not support this REET option. Its primary
interests in the use of REET revenues are: 1) build the billions of dollars of infrastructure that
have been identified as needed throughout Washington State; 2) keep down the cost of
housing; 3) acquire open space and environmentally sensitive lands; and 4) ensure that there is
a relationship between a tax and what it pays for. It is the Association's position that these
interests cannot be achieved by increasing the REET or diverting some of it for maintenance
and operations.
The majority of Task Force members believe the option leaves the decisions about raising taxes
and appropriating revenues to local officials. It thus achieves the Task Force's interest in
creating more choices and tools for local governments. They also believe that the option will
help ensure that as REET is used to enable parks systems grow, there is a dedicated source of
revenue to help maintain and operate new parks.
BACKGROUND INFORMA TION A B 0 UT THE ISSUE:
The local Real Estate Excise Tax is collected as a .25% tax on the sale of real estate and is
paid by the seller. There are two .25% collections available to local jurisdictions. REST 1
was first made available to local jurisdictions in 1982. Most cities and counties collect the tax.
REET 2 was first made available as a local option in 1990. Approximately one hundred
jurisdictions collect it.
There is a third local option —a one percent tax paid by the buyer (REST 3). This revenue can
be used for maintenance. This option is available only to counties and is collected in both
incorporated and unincorporated areas. Only one county in the State, San Juan County,
currently collects this tax. The State also levies REST. The State's collection rate is 1.28%
and goes to the general fund to be used for K-12 education and public works projects.
22 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
GOAL #3 a
THE STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD CREATE NEW,, DEDICATED
STATEWIDE SOURCES OF REVENUE AND PARTNERSHIPS TO
SUPPORT AND IMPLEMENT THEM
The Task Force worked hard to gain a statewide perspective on the issue of maintenance and
operations. At its meetings in Spokane, Vancouver, Union Gap and Mount Vernon, the Task
Force heard testimony from local elected and appointed officials and by parks and recreation
advocates. Based on these comments and its research, the Task Force is unanimous in finding
that the State needs to create new revenue sources to fund parks and recreation maintenance
and operations, both for local and State-owned facilities. Demand for parks, open space, trails
and recreational facilities and programs is skyrocketing, but communities across Washington
State cannot afford —for political or economic reasons, or both —to raise the revenue required
to keep pace with demand for new facilities and to maintain existing ones.
The local option approaches recommended in the previous section will be key tools for many
communities. However, the Task Force recognizes that not all communities will be able to
fully benefit from them. For example, it is not likely that communities along the Oregon
border, such as Vancouver, can take advantage of greater local authority to raise the sales tax —
because Oregon does not have a sales tax. Also, some communities are disproportionately
economically distressed. In some cities of Yakima County, for example, forty percent of the
citizens live "below the poverty line." Thus, some communities have chosen not to impose or
raise user fees because of political pressure from citizens who expect that parks and
recreational facilities and programs should be free and accessible to everyone.
While recognizing these concerns, the Task Force also strongly recommends that the statewide
interest in ensuring adequate parks and open spaces must be matched by statewide sources of
support, not just local sources.
Throughout the State, there are benefits to many "communities of interests" when local park
and open space needs are addressed. There is a statewide "community of interest" in
improving citizens' health —and local parks can help provide the spaces for healthy activities
such as ball games or walks. There.is a statewide "community of interest" in having
attractions and facilities that support our important tourism industry —and local facilities
provide many of the sites that make tourism expenditures possible. There is a statewide
"community of interest" in ensuring that open spaces are available to provide natural functions
such as water quality protection or to aid species recovery efforts. Local facilities and sites are
often important contributors to the larger statewide "community of interest" in these efforts.
For these reasons it is appropriate for statewide tools as well as local option tools to be
developed to address maintenance and operations needs.
To address the statewide "community of interest, " the Task Force recommends that the State
Legislature:
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 23
5: Amend the State statute (RCW 82.08)to -increase the State: sales tax by one -tenth of
one percent to fund maintenance and operations.
Task Force members recommend raising the State sales tax by. 10% from 6.5% to 6.6% and
using this revenue to fund the maintenance and operations of local parks and recreation
facilities and the State's parks and recreation lands and facilities. The revenue could be split in
half; 50% for local parks and recreational facilities, 50% to the State's parks and recreation
lands and facilities. The local portion would be distributed to counties and cities on a per
capita basis.
Besides assisting economically distressed communities, this recommendation will provide
revenue to counties. Because of annexations and incorporations in many of Washington
State's unincorporated urban areas during the past decade, under the GMA, counties do not
benefit as much from local sales tax increases as cities. Increasing the State sales tax will
benefit them by providing a new source of revenue to offset the loss or reduction of local sales
tax revelries.
BACKGROUND INFORMATIONABOUT THIS ISSUE:
The State's retail sales tax is currently 6.5%. Including local sales taxes, the combined sales
tax rate now ranges from 7.0-8.8% across the State. The State sales tax was adopted in 1935
as part of The Revenue Act, which established many of the current State taxes. Initially, the
rate was 2.0%. Since 1935 many changes have been made to the list of items that are taxable
and to the tax rate. The latest change to the rate was made in 1983 when it was increased
from 5.4% to 6.5%. There is no constitutional limit on the sales tax rate.
The sales tax is by far the largest revenue source for the State, accounting for about half the
State's revenues that support the general fund. One tenth. of one percent of the State sales tax
generates approximately $80 million. The sales tax rate in Washington is exceeded only by the
7.0% levied by Mississippi and Rhode Island.
In 2000Initiative 241, which did not have sufficient signatures to be placed on the ballot,
proposed something similar to the Task Force's recommendation. The major difference is that
I-241 proposed to redirect one tenth of one percent of the existing State sales tax to local parks
and recreation agencies for maintenance and operations.
24 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
GOAL #4 q-
THE STATE SHOULD SUPPORT ExISTING EFFORTS TO CHANGE
POLICIES AFFECTING THE FUNDING OF
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
As a result of its discussions and deliberations, the Task Force is aware of on -going efforts to
change policies to strengthen funding of maintenance and operations. The Task Force
recommends that the State support these two efforts:
■ Restore full funding to recreational facilities funded by the gas tax.
The Task Force recognizes that a broad coalition of groups is currently working to remove the
"cap" that was imposed in 1990 limiting the amount of fuel tax revenues paid by non -highway,
recreational users to dedicated recreational purposes. Removing the "cap" will increase the
annual revenue available for recreational facilities, including boat ramps, parking and other
support facilities, ORV facilities and non -motorized trails.
The Task Force is supportive of this coalition's efforts and encourages the State Legislature to
restore full funding for recreational facilities funded by the gas tax.
Provide authority and incentives for the use of a portion of federal and state
grants for local maintenance and operations.
The Task Force believes that Washington State's Interagency Committee for Outdoor
Recreation (IAC) is moving in the right direction by encouraging good design and greater
emphasis on maintenance and operations. The Task Force recommends continuing —and
increasing —these efforts. The Task Force supports awarding State grants to those local
entities that have developed strategies for maintaining and operating the additional park and
open space lands and the new recreational facilities that State grants will help fund.
OTHER OPTIONS THE LEGISLATURE
SHOULD CONSIDER
The Task Force examined two other options that may help achieve Goal #3: The State
Legislature Should Create New, Dedicated Statewide Sources of Revenue and Partnerships
to Support and Implement Them. There was neither sufficient information nor time to fully
develop these options into recommendations and then work to reach consensus on them.
Therefore, the Task Force is forwarding these two options to the Legislature and recommends
that the State further research, analyze and discuss them, with possible action by the State
Legislature in 2003.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 25
A. Use a dedicated lottery for maintenance and operations.
The Task Force suggests that the State consider these two options for funding local parks and
recreation maintenance and operations through the lottery:
■ Develop a new "scratch" game and devote the net proceeds to the maintenance and
operations of school playgrounds and recreational facilities.
■ Take one percent of the winnings (before taxes) from scratch games and use the
revenue to help operate and maintain school playgrounds and related facilities.
The Task Force recognizes that the public perceives lottery games as intended to help fund
education. Thus, these options are intended to help school districts maintain and operate their
open spaces and recreational facilities in a matter that supports the community as well. Under
either option, the Task Force favors requiring that. school districts and local governments
develop interlocal agreements before they can be eligible for this revenue. This requirement is
intended to achieve two goals: a) stimulate the use of the schoolyards and recreational
facilities for the general public during hours when the schools are not in session; and b)
produce partnerships between local governments and school districts to plan for, maintain and
operate comprehensive, community -wide parks, open space and recreation systems.
As these options are further researched and developed, the Task Force recommends that these
three questions be answered: a) Can revenues generated by a lottery game be targeted to
maintaining and operating school grounds, and specifically, the recreational facilities at
schools? b) Will the "scratch" game generate additional revenues or divert revenues from
other games, thus competing with education? c) Will it raise enough money to be worthwhile,
and can the costs of administering the game be controlled to ensure that net revenues are
sufficient to make it worthwhile?
B. The State should consider reviewing State -level licensing and access fees associated
with recreation facilities, equipment and vehicles with the goal of providing the State
and local governments with more money and flexibility for spending it:
The Task Force suggests that a statewide source of dedicated funding for the maintenance and
operations of both the State's parks and recreation lands and facilities and local parks and
recreation facilities could be identified through a review of State -level licensing and access fees
associated with recreation facilities, equipment and vehicles, including boats, snowmobiles,
other off -road vehicles and other titled goods. The review should include: 1) the relationship,
if any, of the fees to the uses or areas generating such fees; 2) fee collection and coordination
methods among access providers; and 3) the balance between affordability, access and the
levels of maintenance and operations supported by such fees or licenses.
26 2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT
AN OPTION CONSIDERED BUT NOT REcoMMENDED
The Task Force considered the following option but is not recommending it. The members
prefer that the State amend the statute (Chapter 82.02 RCW) to increase the State sales tax by
one tenth of one percent for maintenance and operations.
Create a new sporting/recreation goods tax or other new fee related to park use.
This option would create a new tax on sporting and recreational goods and distribute the
revenue to local parks and recreation agencies for maintenance and operations. The tax could
be collected either at the wholesale/manufacturing level or at the retail sales level and then
distributed to local jurisdictions on either a per -capita basis or according to a formula that takes
into account a number of other factors. Past recommendations have suggested a two percent
surcharge. Alternatively, Texas estimates the amount of general fund revenue generated by the
sales of sporting goods from the State sales tax and dedicates a portion of the funding to State
parks.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 27
CONCLUSION
During the fall'of 2001, the Legislative Task Force on Local Parks and Recreation'Maintenance
and Operations was privileged to hear from scores of local elected and appointed officials,
parks and recreation advocates and citizens of communities from Spokane to Vancouver to
Mount Vernon. Their unified and resounding message was this: The maintenance and
operations of local parks and recreation facilities is in a state of crisis. The failure to act over
the past two decades is particularly unconscionable given the presence of credible information
and creative solutions. Today that failure is forcing local governments to close parks, trails and
swimming pools, and to eliminate or reduce services and programs at recreation facilities.
While the Task Force applauds the acquisition and development of additional parks, open
spaces, ball fields, trails and recreation facilities, the public's interest cannot be served,
ultimately, when they are not maintained and operated as healthy, safe and affordable.
At both the local and State levels, agencies have demonstrated great creativity in maintaining
and operating these resources. Intergovernmental and public -private partnerships and the use
of citizen volunteers are some of the strategies being widely used to share limited resources,
reallocate multiple responsibilities, increase understanding and education, and even build
affection for parks and recreation. But creativity and entrepreneurship can take us only so far.
Without a greater number and diversity of tools to choose from, and the ability to use those
tools that serve their unique and particular circumstances, interests and needs, local
governments will continue to fail to adequately fund maintenance and operations. The State's
help is needed ... now.
This partnership between the State arid, local governments will provide the kind of authority
and flexibility needed to address each community's unique issues. This partnership will
produce new statewide, dedicated sources of revenue that serve both the State's and localities'
long-term interests and needs. And .this partnership will ensure that parks and recreation
facilities continue to contribute to the high quality of life in Washington.
2001 LOCAL PARKS LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE - FINAL REPORT 29
MEMORANDUM
`nc. IV)"
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Arvilla Ohlde, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Cc: Mayor Haakenson
Re: Edmonds Fishing Pier Parking Lot Revenue
The Edmonds Fishing Pier Parking Lot is jointly owned by the City of Edmonds and the
Port of Edmonds. It was acquired and developed through a Federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant written by the Washington Department of Fish &
Wildlife and administered by the IAC (Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation.)
The site, as defined in the grant agreement, is to be used for recreationalists who enjoy the
use of the Edmonds' Fishing Pier and the Edmonds' public waterfront. It cannot be used
for exclusive use by adjoining retail and restaurant facilities. Currently, the parking lot is
free for recreational users and is managed under City Ordinance with a three-hour parking
time limit.
The ability to receive revenue is limited to the conditions of the IAC agreement. As
stated, "The City may charge reasonable fees for use of the parking area provided that any
schedule of fees imposed shall not discriminate between users based on residence." In
telephone conversations with the project management staff at the IAC, the City and the
Port are allowed to collect fees. The revenue collected is to be used for the operation and
maintenance costs for the parking lot, the Edmonds Fishing Pier/restroom/ranger station,
entrance plaza and waterfront areas provided for recreationlists. The funds must be kept
in a separate park capital fund account to allow for state tracking and review of the
records of collected and expended revenue funds. In 1993 staff presented the idea of
collection of revenue at the Fishing Pier Parking Lot. The concept was having numbered,
paid parking stalls with a three hour parking limit.
A simple parking fee scenario could be:
84 stalls with painted numbers, one master pay box, and $1.50 per 3 hour parking
limit. Port of Edmonds' part-time employees manage parking patrol and collection of
cash from the pay box. Financial accounting would be handled by the Port of Edmonds,
50% shared by the City of Edmonds.
City of Edmonds cis Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
The revenue could be at a maximum of two parking turn-overs per day x 365 days/year
for a total of $91,980, or at a minimum of one parking per day x 365 days/ year for a total
of $45,990.
Revenue 9--axilnuirt Mirtifilux
Revenue
$91,980 $45,990
Expenditure
Parking Attendant (3hr/day/x $15hr) 11,700 11,700
Supplies (gas, vehicle/chalk/barrels) 2,000 2,000
Pay box and stall numbering 500 500
Net Revenue
$77,780 $31,790
In partnership with the Port of Edmonds, the revenue would come to both entities to be
used for the benefit of the recreational resources on the waterfront.
In the 2003 budget proposal, $20,000 was cut from the Beach Ranger program for
environmental education and beach patrols. The Port of Edmonds agreed to provide the
funding for one year only. With the potential of revenue generation from paid parking at
the Edmonds Fishing Pier, the ability to fund the staffing of this vital waterfront
protection could be protected and addressed through this new funding source. The
remaining 50% (City's portion) of the collected funds +/- $30,000 could then be
dedicated to the operation and maintenance waterfront related annual costs in the Park
Maintenance general fund budget.
Additionally, the Port of Edmonds has initiated discussions with the City of Edmonds
regarding the deterioration of the north sea wall and the pile timber wall located on the
north Port of Edmonds property line. The site lies just north of the Edmonds Fishing Pier
at the north breakwater. Research into the property description and the partnership
agreements with the IAC grant determined that the timber wall section just north of the
restroom lies within the City of Edmonds' property boundary. The Port of Edmonds
desires to have the City of Edmonds pay for that portion of the repair of the north timber
wall which is estimated to be at a $300,000 cost.
In staff discussions, the City has been honest with the Port and stated that we do not have
$300,000 to contribute to the repair of the eastern end of the north timber wall. We did
offer to begin conversations with the Edmonds' City Council to research revenue options
for funding the capital repair. Funds from the partnership revenue received from the
parking lot fees could also be a source of funds to address this capital repair project.
Attachment: Map location of timber wall
g 0p,00,G►' I
CONCR
E-
�rs
VTER BORDER OB
W
>TURAUNT Bo
DI
Z Bo \
moB
`
r CBMH RIM=15.04'
3
w
Q
QI 6"X6" WOOD PLANTER (TYP)
W
Q�
Q
N52*54'39"E
78.26'
PORT OF EDMONDS
i08250209
CO' Ty
TELEPHONE
PLANTER
rn�irorrr BEACH
SEAL
SCULPTURE
-"BEACH RULES.
1# 1, RIM = 15.46
ONC W & S,
SDMH, RIM=15.53'
CHANNEL SE & NW
IE=2.7'
12" CONC. NW, IE=9.8'
rRA C1C
1 1 �" C'
1�J
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
February 7 & 8 2003
Edmonds City Council
Arvilla Ohlde
Potential Revenue Streams/Flower Program
Utility Round -Up is a mechanism offered to utility customers which allows them the
option of "rounding up" the amount due on their utility bill to be contributed to a
community program. The customer can round up the amount to the next dollar, ten
dollars, or whatever, and the excess is dedicated to the specific program. An example is
if the individual's utility bill was in the amount of $45.00, they could elect to "round up"
the payment to $50.00. $5.00 would go to the flower program.
In my national search regarding the program, cities have seen, with very little
advertisement, an annual contribution of between $5,000 and $10,000. With additional
promotional literature, increased receipts could be realized. Annually, the flower
program needs approximately $20,000 to operate. The value of the program for
economic benefit is substantial and is reflected in the decision by the City Council to fund
the 2003 budget.
I have received a number of calls during the budget process in late November regarding
the public interest in protecting and preserving the program. A number of options were
presented. As an example, some individuals felt that they would like to adopt the baskets
or gather funds throughout the year. I was very clear about the process of the flower
propagation, which has been presented a number of times to the Edmonds City Council.
Attached is a press release that was anticipated to be printed just prior to the City
Council's approval of the 2003 budget.
It clarifies that the program needs to be funded a year in advance of the funding year. As
stated in the press release, funds need to be collected by September I" of the preceeding
year to assure that the City Council will, in fact, place the privately supported funding of
the program.
City of Edmonds cr3 Administrative Services
Last year Mr. Hoffman provided, through his will, a contribution to the flower program.
A special fund account is in place with the contribution from a number of local citizens,
setting in place the ability to see the private contribution offset the cost to the general
fund. Members of the Senior Kiwanis have made contact and floated the idea of creating
a community fund raising effort. I have explained to Mr. Cassut, representing the Club,
that funding needs to be stable. It cannot be created and placed in an annual, vulnerable
position. Funds need to be stable from year-to-year.
Cc: Mayor Haakenson
N
i
The flowers are wilting in Edmonds......
Twenty-six years ago the City of Edmonds began the annual flower beautification
program. Over the years the program has grown to provide bountiful hanging
baskets and premium flowering corner parks throughout the city.
Annually the planted corner parks and the hanging of the baskets bring color to
the landscape and pleasure to the soul.
The seedlings are grown in the City greenhouses. Plants selected annually must
provide prolific blooms and tolerate weather conditions while remaining colorful
from May to mid -September. The unique color combinations and plant selection
has resulted in a presentation of flowers that reflects the City of Edmonds'
notoriety as the "city of flowers ...... this community's pride and historical
commitment is celebrated in the glorious floral presentations noted throughout
the Pacific Northwest.
The annual Edmonds' Flower program doesn't just happen. Extensive
horticulture knowledge is necessary in the annual selection of seed with colorful
considerations of color schemes, the methods of combating vandalism, pest
control, and disease and soil conditions. By the first week of January the work on
the production of the annual beautification program begins. In 2002 this
program included 14o baskets and 74 curbside corner plantings which were
planted, watered and cared for by City Park maintenance staff.
In order to provide the annual floral display which heralds the arrival of
community fairs and festivals the City Council funds $32,000 for direct program
costs. The number of staff who work exclusively in the flower program has
remained constant even as the program has grown over the past 26 years.
Currently two full-time staff (Janice Noe and Melinda Duell) and three part-time
staff work on the flower program. The size of the program has remained at the
current level for the past eight years as resources have not been available to
successfully accommodate additional growth. For example, with 14o baskets,
this translates into 7.4 hours per day, three days a week, to just water all the
baskets from the watering truck with one driver and one staff watering. The
remaining two days of the week are dedicated to fertilizing, weeding, soil and
disease maintenance, pruning and insect control at the 74 corner parks and 24
beautification areas throughout the City.
The assumption is that anyone can grow flowers, therefore, how difficult can it be
to have the flower program? Putting out flowers in the spring is only a small
fraction of the total program. Seed selection, color schemes, propagation,
battling disease & soil conditions, watering, monitoring, trimming plus
vandalism repairs are just few of the steps to creating a quality beautification
program that celebrates in glorious color for all to enjoy.
Historically the local garden clubs (Floretum Garden Club and Algoma Garden
Club) assist with the final planting of the hanging baskets and the primary corner
parks along 5th and Main Street. To compliment the City of Edmonds
beautification program and to promote civic pride, the not -for -profit community
organization "Edmonds In Bloom" began the first community floral competition
in 1996. Private homes, local businesses and multi -family dwellings all enter the
competition which provides the private compliment to the beautification of
public parks in Edmonds.
The flower program is a great source of pride for the community. The City staff
creates a beautiful product with remarkably limited resources. Every effort has
been made to reduce operating costs by adding efficient irrigation, composting,
use of volunteer labor and wise use of paid labor and resources. With all this in
mind though, the City Council in light of the recent revenue shortfalls is looking
to cut the 2003 flower program by $20,000. The result will be the reduction of
the flower baskets by 6o% leaving 5o baskets in the core downtown area and the
reduction of the corner parks by 50%.
Community commitment is the answer to the future of the flower program in
Edmonds. With diminished commitment of public resources private funds are
the solution to insure the continuation and the retention of beautification as an
economic element for visitor enticement.
Private citizens want to get involved. Mayor Haakenson and Park Director Arvilla
Ohlde have received numerous calls regarding the crisis. The City Council budget
decisions have not been finalized regarding their desire to cut the flower program
by $20,000. The public wants to help but the program is a year long process -
beginning in January 2003. Seeds will be purchased and propagation started
with the limited funds. To realize a fully funded flower program $20,00o needs
to be in place immediately and on an annual basis private funding must be in
place by September 1st of each year as the preceding years' budget is presented to
the Mayor.
The City of Edmonds has established an endowment fund created specifically for
private donations to the flower program. Thirty years ago, the City of Edmonds
Beautification Committee was in existence and involved private citizens
dedicated to the flower program. Today local residents look forward to the
annual floral display. Many recognize that the flower program contributes to the
quality of life in Edmonds. They desire to have the program continue for
generations to come.
The public has been asking "what can I do?" The City Council is approving a 2003
budget with a $20,000 cut in the flower program. If citizens want the City to
continue to fund the flower program they need to let elected officials know that
this is important to their quality of life in Edmonds.
MEMORANDUM
To: Edmonds City Council
CC: Mayor Gary Haakenson From: Arvilla Ohlde, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director 1a 6
Date: February 7 & 8, 2003
Re: Potential Revenue Streams / Flower Program, Beach Rangers, Yost Pool
Philanthropist Contribution
During the 2003 budget presentations, the issues of funding the Yost Pool to a full
summer schedule ($17,000), funding the Beach Ranger Patrols ($19,000) and funding
the flower program ($20,000) were discussed.
As you know, the Port of Edmonds agreed to fund the Beach Ranger Patrols for one year
only and the City Council approved the funding of the flower program for 2003. Yost
Pool remained on a reduced 60-day schedule with revenue to offset the cost of operation.
In looking to the future and the scenario of securing outside funding, options are being
researched and IF private funding could be secured to provide for these annual costs, it
would require 1.9-million with a 5% annual interest and 1.1-million at 3% to address the
annual expense of the three programs ($56,000 / 2003 dollars.)
The concept of the establishment of a non -expendable trust is similar to the existing 610
Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund. Currently the fund principle is at %-million and realizes
$20,000 annually. The Cemetery Board is using the collection of these funds to reach a
point in the future to offset M & O with an annual future goal of interest collection of
$70,000.
A similar "non -expendable trust" could be set up to address the cost of these or other
important programs. The difficulty will be the realization of securing nearly 2-million
dollars. It won't just magically appear. It will take a community drive, it will take time
and it will require a number of dedicated staff hours. As an example, the 610 Fund has
been building for the past 15 years and started with a large donation from the Larry
Hubbard Estate.
City of Edmonds c53t Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
3% annual interest
Beach Rangers $19,000 $630,000
Yost Pool $17,000 $620,000
Flowers $20,000 $650,000
5% annual interest
$365,000 estimate
$345,000 estimate
$390,000 estimate
EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
Date: February 7, 2003
To: Mayor and Council
From: Thomas J. Tomberg, Fire Chief
Subject: Revenues
The Fire Department will increase 2003 revenue as indicated below.
CURRENT
Source
Year
Amount
Comment
EMS Levy
2003
1,622,743
+ 15,770 increase over 2002
Woodway BLS/Fire Contract
2002
211,664
2003
232,830
+ 21,166 increase
Woodway ALS Contract
2002
30,917
Paid to Medic 7
2003
32,463
+ 32,463 in new money
Esperance BLS/Fire Contract
2002
181,659
2003
191,678
+ 10,019 increase
Esperance ALS Contract
2002
42,000
Paid to Medic 7
2003
35,883
+ 35,883 in new money; on
Public Safety Committee
agenda 2/11; approved by
District Board 1 /22
The total of 2003 increased revenue from the existing and new sources identified above
is $115,301 (pending Council approval of amended Esperance agreement to add ALS).
OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF
FEES -• CURRENT, PROPOSED ANDIOR UNDER CONSIDERATION
Increases to existing fees, and any new proposed fees should be evaluated in the
context of the current EMS levy, impact on the business community, and any effort to
pass a Public Safety Levy Lid Lift.
Source
Status Comment
Business Fire Permits Existing
Plan Check Fees Existing
Inspection Fees Existing
Engine Company Inspection Fees New
DUI Cost Recovery
Fire False Alarms
Ambulance utility charge
RCW 35.21.766
New
New
$705 in 2002 @ $5 each
$5,296 in 2002; working wl
Development Services
$7,520 in 2002; working w/
Development Services
1,924 in 2002; 1,450 initial, 474
reinspections
In Goodwin's hands; do if we can
169 alarms in 2002, most false; 59
Multiple; graduated charge based on
number
New Monthly utility charge on occupied
households, apartments, businesses
industries; researching Kennewick
ordinance — may not be practical as
it is used together with existing
medical transport charges
Charge school district for fire New
protection in lieu of property tax,
RCW 52.30.020
Thanks. TT
$2 per student; researching through
City Attorney
�v
9e
9°
•
� v
• •
•
�� s i
.r
C
m
a
3
CD
rMIL
CD
♦ I
+CD+�
V)
0
m
rMIL
mn
CL
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
...t Cr
Cr
CD
0.
�•
O
COD
CD
�
'
-
U
w
CCDD
CD
cn
0
CD
CD
D_
CD
D_
CD
r-l-
CD
_O
-0
<
C:
cn
O
cn
CD-�, CD
CD
CD
=r
CD
-h
O
CD
cn
CD
_
O
3
�-
0
CD
in
CD
cn
0
-1
CD
c
CD
O
N
p
0
0o
�CD
CDO
CL
CO
CD
CJ7
_0
O
<<
CD
C)
CD
=3
O
O
cn
O
�•
O
CD
CD
0
cn
�-
r-q-
3
�<
O
CD
1
CDCD
O
n
�
w
CD
_
cn
Cl)
90
l
O0
CD
O
cr
3
-0
cn0'
CCD
0.._
CD
CD
CD
cn
_
`<
r+
Q
i
r-+.
0
0
O
cn
CD
In
3.
f--F
CD
CD
D
n
CD
w
cn
CD
cn
i
a
0
a
w
a
CD
0)
0
N
0
4609
W
A
00
D
..n
(n
Cn
cn o
(�
OCD
n
cD.T
CD
❑
{f}
CD
0
-69
-Ge
-69
11
-0
-.&
-..%,
-.&
•
ui
Cn
C)
O
b,g
o
0
0
N
W
C-
C� CG.
C)
Cn
Cn
O)
V
C)
N
W
U7
co
Cn
Cn
--1
OC)
m
a)
3
CD
cn
0
r
0
CD
0
1
c
cr
CD
_E
N'
CD
CZ
CD
1
3
CD
CD
cn
•
•
0
•
•
0
0
m
m
>
3
co
3
c�
ooOQCD0.
o
—
00
c
o
3
<
Cn
0
•
c�rnOCL
cn��
OECD
c;-
CD
CL
0
CD
CD
cn
0
0
CD
o
C:
3
o
(n
cn
X
C.0
-�,
0
CAD
COD
_0_
n'
CD
O
CL
cnCD
O
Cn
CD
CD
COD
CD
3.
c��
C
m
3
CD
cn
0
CD
3
CD
CD
cn
cn
O
a-
m
CD
m
3
CD
0-
�
•
T
rn
CD
>
0
�
z
Cn
=
000
�
;7
M
Q'-'-O
CDN
��'�Q
3
D3
K:3
S.
CD
M'
0
CD
0)
CD
T.
�
CL
3
�
5--0
0 �
CD
CD
DO
00
N
-�
+
<
O
0
C
Q.
O
O
CD
O
�
00
O
Sv
CD
00
CD
CD
CZ
CD
O
O
O
Q
f�4
N
�
O
NtgC
N
L
O
� �-
GJCJ1�
W
co
CAO
-p
m
lw
3
c�
cn
O
h
z
CD
O
n
3
0)
Q.
CD
3
CD
cn
Development Services Department Staffing
• The 2002 staffing level (28.5) is the bare
minimum staffing level to meet the
demands of permit reviews,
comprehensive planning, capital project
management, and code enforcement
and future growth.
• Increased permit fees ($196,022) could
cover the costs of restoring staffing cuts
made in 2003 budget ($165,070)
• Revenues would have to be monitored
to insure that the positions can be
funded
Expedited Permit Review
• The City of Edmonds is not staffed for
expedited permit review.
• Land use permits that are subject to
regulatory reform are processed within
120 days
• More effective measures are to look at
improving codes and process to find
ways to streamline or reduce timelines
CD
M
o
o
o
c
BCD
o
o
c
a
as
O
o '�1'J
-�
oU.)
oCOl
o
o '�iJ
p y
7�
p N
00
CD
00
�c
O0
cW
O
G
O
GN
G
�' G
��f!
A
G\
�--CDCD
y
N
CCD
D
CD
rAr.
c�
G
CCD
GCA
CA
ulCD
yM
CD
cD
iZ°
�
o
4 �
o.
�
0
0
�
�
4ft
�cr�
(D
CD
CD
► (D
c
►i
a
y
�o
a
° CD
N
. J
eD
o.
Q n
COD -
c�
►+.
w
V~J CA
c
�
o
Cg'�0����
Z
c
�ooF-L�
as
a
a
fb
"
g
0. iD
C
CD
�.
�
� o
O
CD
F+
�c�•n
CD
0. O
OCD
►FM+
�
a
7d
����o�-cD$
e�
CCD
~
P.CD
CD
LA
�'
b
CD
oR
CD
CA
f b
zz
a
s
a
s
.
�• A
CD g
CD
.,
a
(IQ
CD
7�,d
;CD
C "
CD
J
\
a
Cy
A
Growth Management Issues
• A significant issue for the City to undertake
early in 2003 is setting our preliminary
growth target for planned growth to 2025.
• A draft range has been developed for our
consideration through SCT.
■ Our current estimated population is 39,460.
■ Our projected range for our incorporated city
limits is between 44,880 to 47,660 (Change
of between 5420 to 8,200 new population)
• The unincorporated area (Esperance) has a
2000 population of 3,500. The projected
change is between 390 to 540 new
population.
• Our total population range, assuming
annexation of the Esperance area would be
an increase between 9310 to 12,240 new
population
• The importance of developing our population
projection is that it will be utilized in our
major Comprehensive Plan update in 2004.
• The Planning Board will be reviewing the
potential growth targets on February 12,
2003, with a public hearing scheduled for
February 26, 2003.
• Staff will be conducting a work session with
the City Council on February 25, 2003 to go
over in detail the population projection
process.
e
ay- ED&
Edmond ' s Planning Board
Memorandum
f°. t 890
Date: January 8, 2003
To: The Edmonds City Council
From: John Dewhirst, Planning Board Chair
Subject: Potential list of "Reasonable Measures" related to Buildable Lands in
Edmonds
The Planning Board has held a series of work sessions on this subject. During the discussions,
the Board identified a preliminary list of some `reasonable measures" for consideration by the
city in order to encourage infill development of its "buildable lands" in the coming years. State
law requires the following:
Under the Buildable Lands Program, local governments monitor the intensity
and density of development to determine whether a county and the cities within
its boundaries are achieving urban densities sufficient to meet state growth
projections. If development does not occur at planned levels, then reasonable
measures, other than adjusting urban growth areas, need to be identified and
2ippropriate action taken. [Source: Buildable Lands Program Guidelines,
Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development, June, 2002]
The Buildable Lands Report to the state which was approved by Snohomish County Tomorrow
included a finding that:
• Based on a review of actual observed densities of development during the period of
1995-2000, the cities and county are achieving urban densities within urban growth areas
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans.
Collectively, the cities and county are achieving urban densities and meeting their growth
projections. However, while Edmonds retains sufficient capacity to achieve its specific growth
target for 2012, actual growth has not been occurring at a rate sufficient to achieve the localized
growth target for Edmonds. While the city is not required to adopt `reasonable measures" under
the Buildable Lands Program at this juncture, the Planning Board believes it is important for the
city to continue to demonstrate its commitment to encouraging infill development consistent with
its comprehensive plan.
City of Edmonds ce Planning Board
To this end, the Planning Board has reviewed a lengthy list of "reasonable measures" suggested
for consideration by the state, and offers the following suggestions to the City Council for
consideration in Edmonds. The Board would like direction from the Council on whether the
Board should undertake further research and pursue any or all of these potential actions.
In addition to the potential actions listed below, the Board would also like to highlight actions
that the city has already accomplished in recent years in order to encourage the development —
and redevelopment - of buildable lands within the city. These are listed at the end of this memo.
Potential "Reasonable Measures" for Consideration by the City of Edmonds.
Lot size rounding allowed in selective cases to provide for infill develoment.
An example of this approach would be allowing a subdivision to be done when property
contains more than 99% of the minimum required to be subdivided into two lots. Criteria
would need to be developed to identify when this could be done.
2. Lot size averaging to provide for infill development of difficult -to -develop lots.
An example of this approach would be allowing a subdivision to attain lots that achieve
an average lot size that meets the minimum requirement for the zone, but allows some
percentage variation within the subdivision to deal with difficult terrain, property
configuration, or other development situations.
3. Establish flexible housing standards for multi family zones.
For example, permit housing types such as small -lot single family (less than S, 000 sq. ft)
or cottage housing (single family homes with jointly held common space) in multifamily
zones. It might also be possible to find single family neighborhoods in transitional areas
that would be willing to allow these housing types.
4. Actively encourage higher -density residential and infill development in the Highway 99
corridor.
Development along the Highway 99 corridor is less than that allowed even under
existing zoning. Zoning and incentives need to be put in place to encourage a higher
density of infill development and redevelopment.
Use SEPA Planned Actions as a tool to promote development in targeted areas,
particularly along Highway 99.
Because they require substantial analysis and process, SEPA planned actions can be
expensive and time-consuming to complete. However, once accomplished, they can
significantly encourage development and economic growth consistent with adopted
plans. Highway 99 is an area that may need this type of 'push " to get an increased
intensity of development started.
6. Review and implement regulations and incentives to encourage smaller multi family
dwelling units in multi family zones, including the mixed use zones downtown.
The concern is that too many large units are built that are not a 7-dable to most people
living in the area. There is a need to make sure that housing is built in the future to allow
an aging population with fixed incomes and changing housing needs to remain in the
community.
"Reasonable Measures" already undertaken by the City of Edmonds.
For Edmonds, the Buildable Lands review provides an opportunity for the city to evaluate its
policies relative to the empirical data provided, and review the actions that it has taken to meet
its responsibilities under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Edmonds faces development
challenges unique to its status as a waterfront community that is close to build -out. There is more
plentiful land in other areas of the region. Although there is capacity for development in
Edmonds, it is mainly on smaller lots sprinkled throughout the City. Many of the properties in
Edmonds are more difficult to develop because of environmental constraints. If developers do
not have to deal with these issues in other locations in the region, the tendency is to go where it is
easier to develop. Land values also play a significant role in this situation. Nonetheless, the city
has undertaken a series of coordinated measures designed to encourage infill development and
redevelopment in the city. These include:
• Revised regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), encouraging their use;
• Public capital facility investments targeted to support anticipated growth (an example of
this would be transportation system improvements designed to support development to
established standards);
• Revised regulations for Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) which encourage
clustering of units outside of undevelopable areas;
• A proposed revision in design standards and the design review process to simplify
permitting and promote compatible urban development;
• Encouraged downtown vitality through a combination of economic development and
flexible mixed use development standards. As an example, the city lifted an artificially
low cap on housing density in the BC zone which has helped encourage additional mixed
use housing downtown;
• Through its cultural resources, historic resources, and economic development plans, the
city has actively sought to tie together its public and private actions into a cohesive
economic development strategy;
• Actively encouraged mixed use development by establishing, and revising, its mixed use
zoning designations to encourage mixed use infill and redevelopment opportunities. As
already mentioned, the downtown mixed use zone (BC) has been modified to encourage
more housing and redevelopment. The Planning Board is considering a new mixed use
zoning for the other activity center within the city, near the hospital and Highway 99.
The city has also adopted a new set of zoning rules and a master plan for mixed use
development on its most significant undeveloped site, the Unocal property.
• The city has actively reviewed and revised its regulations to encourage infill
development and active use of its activity centers. These include measures as varied as
revised parking standards for multi family development, and the encouragement of
outdoor seating and sidewalk activity in business areas.
Sidewalks & Prioritization
• Sidewalk projects have been prioritized with the recent
adoption of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(Prioritization criteria included: pedestrian safety,
connectivity to services and facilities, link existing walkways
together, level of activity, compatibility with surroundings,
environmental impacts, and public support)
• Fund 112 is in trouble due to the passage of 1-776 and the
loss of $350,000 of associated revenue
• Virtually all sidewalk projects in the CIP are grant dependent
• Staff will pursue possible grants but we must have matching
funds
• Unless the sidewalk is located near a school and on a
federally classified roadway, grant funding is probably highly
unlikely
• Engineering planned to secure walkway grants for the 72nd
Avenue, 96th Avenue, and the 164th Street walkway projects.
The School Safety Enhancements Program however was
part of Referendum 51 which was voted down last fall
• Unless significant other revenues are allocated to the Fund
112, it is unlikely that any sidewalks will be built
• Another possible alternative to consider for constructing
sidewalks would be to from local improvement districts (LID)
CITY OF EDMONDs TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT— 2002 UPDATE
HOV and Transit Priority
In conjunction with WSDOT and local jurisdictions, Community Transit is implementing a system of
arterial HOV improvements including transit signal priority on selected corridors in Snohomish County.
Planned improvements within or bordering on the City of Edmonds include:
Transit emphasis lanes long SR-99
Transit signal priority along SR-99 at 2120' St SW, 216'h St SW, 220" St SW, 224`s St SW, and 238"
St SW
Streets and Highways
The street and highway system in Edmonds is well established, and in order to improve transit service in
these facilities, special design efforts will be required. Areas that need to be evaluated include provision of
HOV lane on SR-104 and enhanced bus stop locations.
SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Walkway Plan is included as APPENDIX C in this Transportation
Plan. The Comprehensive Walkway Plan provides for continued development of the walkway system by
developing a system for evaluating and prioritizing projects from among the numerous competing
potential sidewalk improvements.
Walkway Selection Criteria
The improvement prioritization process evaluates potential walkway projects against criteria that were
developed with input from the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). Additionally the CAC helped
develop a weighting system for the criteria that reflects the relative importance of each consideration.
The criteria include safety; connection to services and facilities; completion of links in the system; the
expected level of usage; and compatibility with the community goals, as well as physical and
environmental feasibility of the improvement. The seven Walkway Selection Criteria are described as
follows.
1. Pedestrian Safety (Weight = 5)
Description: How safe is the route for pedestrians?
Does this improvement:
• Separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, especially in high traffic areas?
• Improve width of walkway and surface conditions?
• Address potential conflicts at road crossings?
Points: 3 = Strong concerns for pedestrian safety along this route
2 = Some concerns for pedestrian safety along this route
1 = This route is very similar to other routes in Edmonds
0 = Not a safety concern
2. Connectivity - Services and Facilities (Weight = 4)
Description: Does this route connect to facilities or services such as schools, parks, churches,
community centers, businesses or transit routes?
Chapter 5 — Recommended Plan Page 117
CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT — 2002 UPDATE
Does this improvement:
• Provide direct access to facilities or services?
• Ensure that the route links to a safe direct access to facilities or services?
Points: 3 = Route provides significant access to a number of services and facilities.
2 = Route provides access to some services and facilities.
1 = Route provides very limited access to very few services or facilities.
0 = Route does not provide access to services or facilities.
3. Connectivity - Link (Weight = 3)
Description: Does this route complete gaps in the City's walkway system?
Does this improvement:
a Complete important pedestrian routes?
* Make important destinations more accessible to users?
• Ultimately develop a web of walkways?
Points: 3 = Location is a missing link in a very important pedestrian route
2 = Location is a missing link in a pedestrian route
1 = Location is one of several missing links in a route and important
0 = Not a missing link in the City walkway system
4. Level of Activity (Weight = 2)
Description: Is this a well -traveled route, or would it be if improved?
Level of activity may be determined by:
• Measured counts
• Identification by the public and staff, through observation and experience
Points: 3 = Route is utilized by a significant number of pedestrians
2 = Route is utilized consistently by pedestrians
1 = Route has occasional use by pedestrians
0 = Route is not utilized by pedestrians
5. Compatibility (Weight = 1)
Description: Is this route consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Policies, and Objectives?
Is this route compatible with the surrounding land uses?
Points: 3 = Route would enhance the nearby properties and complete a portion of the City's
Walkway Plan.
2 = Route would enhance the nearby properties.
1 = Route is in a rural area which serves pedestrians pretty well.
0 = Surrounding land uses do not generate pedestrian traffic
Chapter 5 — Recommended Plan Page 118
CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT— 2002 UPDATE
6. Environmental Impacts (Weight = 1)
Description: Will the development of the route have any impacts on the environment?
Environmental impacts include
• Wetlands
• Shorelines
• Wildlife habitat
• Improve views or aesthetics
Points: 3 = Route has no negative environmental impact and provides scenic views for, users.
2 = Route has some negative environmental impact but aesthetically improves the area.
1 = Route has some negative environmental impact
0 = Route will have major negative impact on the environment
7. Public Support (Weight = 2)
Description: Does the public support the development of this route?
Points: 3 = A support petition has been filed with a large number of signatures from abutting and
nearby property owners and the general public.
2 = Route has been the subject of a number of citizen letters along with testimony at public
meetings in support of walkways.
1= Route has been the subject of some negative concern, expressed at public meetings.
0 = Route has been the subject of major negative concern, expressed at public meetings.
These criteria were used to prioritize suggestions for walkways gathered from public meetings, CAC
meetings, and deficiencies determined from review of the walkway inventory. A possible total of 55
points could be awarded. Projects with 39 to 55 points are designated Priority 1. Projects with 30 to 38
points are designated Priority 2, and projects with 29 or fewer points are designated Priority 3. Table 31
summarizes all of the projects that were considered in ranked order, along with their point totals,
feasibility assessment, project length, and estimated cost. A more detailed matrix showing the criteria
points and assumptions used for the cost estimate is included in APPENDIX H of this Transportation
Plan.
Projects already included in the current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were also rated, and are noted as
"In Progress" in the matrix. Completion of the Priority 1 projects would require an expenditure of
$2,346,000 in 2002 dollars. Recommended walkway projects, which include the "In Progress" and
Priority 1 projects, are illustrated in Figure 23. A financial program should be included in the CIP to
allow completion of a portion of these walkways over time.
Chapter 5 — Recommended Plan Page 119
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
H
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
�
CD
cr
CD
O
CD
O
�
O
\G
O
\O
D
O
�
O
kr
O
"r�
CD
G
I
I I
o0
0o Oi
Oi
Oi
N
N
"I
r-7
�--:.
�p
�--�
O
�--�
O
�--�
O
-+
O
-.
O
O
O
M
M
l-
l-
[-
[-
It
�--�
1-t
(,]
* r-
r
r-
O
m
tt
b\c
r-
oo
oo
00
oo
00
o0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
M
6kf)9
� �
6v9
v,
y�9
.--i
E s
.--i
69
—
69
.•-i
69
—
69
—
69
—
69
—�
69
•--�
64)
—
69
.--i
69
.--i
69
N
69
N
69
N
69
N
69
N
69
N
69
N
64
N
69
N
69
N
69
O
CD
C)
O
O
O
0
CD
00
O
00
N�
w
O
p
r
ro
r
_
�_
O
00
5
w
�o
o
O
O
N
G
V
I
I I
I
I
I
M
c�i
a,
�t
I
I
O
NN
II�t
�o
I
I
I
o�
"o
of
Z
m
v
69
69
69
69
69
6r9
69
69
69
44
C 'Q
kn
to kn
Vl
O)
kn
00
00
r
It
r-
It
r-
qt
kn
qt
to
NT1:T
qt
It
ITIt
�
M
It
M
It
N
NT
N
V
�
qT
M
M
ON
M
(71
M
O�
m
F p„
00
.-+
.--�
oo
N
M
qT
kn
.--�
\.D
Q'
—
O
O
vi
a\
O
kn
00
v1
K1
00
00
.-.
10
1D
a\%O
CLD �
r-
N It
r
z M
00
N
N
cV
V
Cl)
�O
z
N
N
',o
N
N
00
�o
O�
h
qT
z
'CON
CPA
y
"I
W-
N
N
ri
-
r:
--
N
a
c
cnWIf)
U�
v,
WWv7
En
M
U10cncnEnW
En
WMcn
°
C7
c7 �7
�7
C7
C7
xxo
c7
00oxo
00
0
00000
0
000
xxx
x
xx
x
x
xxxxx
x
xxx
wa,a,
a,
c+,P,
a.
w
P.wwau,
a
aaa
b
333
a)U)
Uz��3
3U
�En�3
cn
v
>
¢da
>
cd
vv�
— M
c
qC/)
>��d�d
Q'
as
rya
;
;�
>
W
„�v�v�a
y
.�
.�
w
vv�
.�
v)asEn+
a
ul
U)3MU)U3
WP,vnv�v)
.�
�.
�.
x,
N
N
�"
N
IML �
OU
.y
.y
+.�%+
td
NCD
0�1
y
oo �D .�•
N
[-
O�
001
00
N
U
X
06
b
r-
A
KI
V
ON
M
N
l�
M
N
r-
0000
0000
0000
Fz
N
\,o
\0
N
H
..
.-.
N
N
.�
.--i
.-.
333�3333z3A3�3�AA�
3
r33EnEnEnco
a'
cn
O
w+ +�
00
.�
+�
�o
Vl
O
O
z
�
�.
V•1
00
O
•..�
d
\,O
00
�o
�
N
\0 �
N
N
O�
\.c
00
O
l�
a+
00
^"
O\
M
"
u
M
o0
w
00
00
OCi
cd
N
[- 00
N
nJ
[-
.-r
00
N
O
0O
C40
CdIn
333333
33
�33333
EnMcn
a
a�-d-d
bb.y
o^w
°_?d
dy
dy
x��6
0
�
add
00 a+
�
-5
�
Cd
_add¢
�_O
�
ate+
a
F+
C.
V
O
y
00
� V
00
Q1
�dyyd
V1
N
N N
r-
0 N
G7i
OCi
U
�Cdr
/.
N
o0o
�
c,
P1
[-
l�
-
N
N
W
N
N
O,
t-
r-
00
00
00
r
y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
0
0
o
0
O
0
o
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T 4 M
0
0
I 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t- t� r- kr o0 i ,i N O �D
m 0 M O M to O M \D O W 6
N
rn
00
C
00
C�
t-
.
kr�
l
ll:j
oD
\�6
tr
-+V
--
01
�O�
�D
N
00
M -* 4 � l- O — M tn to ,O l- 00 � D\ O
M
en
t
t
r)
[-
00
C.,
c)
o
-
-N
M
er
in
"o_U
l-
l
N N N N N M Kl M M M M M C4 M M'I
U 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Ili
69
4
69
Ct
69
-I:t
69
'It
69
It
65
-I
69
'I
69
kr
69
tr
69
kr
69
kf
es
tK
69
Vl
69
kr
69
vi
69
tK
H9
kf
69
h
69
O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O CD CDO O
CDCDO
O
O
O
CD
O
CD
CDO CD
O
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CDO
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
+r _ 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0�
0
0
p I k N o0 r- M 00 M M
O �D M 'F \D M M M t` M 00 M M
U 'n �D �p �p oo
�D
0\
�
-.
'-�
O
00
00
�
N
oo
D\
Z
I'D
\p
M
�o
O
N
Vl
%D
l�
Mr
V1
\0
O
00
wl
rf)
�O
�p
\D
�p
rr 69 r N N r
69 69 6969696969��601 9 yj00 6969�
N
yj6969Is6-.
N
69
69
69
69
69bl
9
&96964
41
•- N N N N N N CV N N N N N N N N N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
96t
rar+ C o0 [-- t-- t- t- t� \D \O \.D %D W) to kn N
tn
mil'
T
V
cn
M
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
'fl M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
p.l
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
c*1
M
M
M
M
M
\D .-r IZT C \ Wn t- 00 \.D O\ O CN M — M VI) to
++ kn v) N .--� tl- 110 N t- N \D �c M 00 00 •--� .--�
W
r-
t-
.--�
M
.--�
00
O
—
�D
N
00
to
00
N
N
O\
.-�
\D
CD
M
kn
O
�
N
.-+
t-
N
Vl
M
O
\D
M
\D
M
\D
01 O \-D M M M Wn �D M \D \D
lD
�D
\O
rI 1-7 nj
N
Q
M
Q Q X X X
X
a
�
d XXXXXXXXXXX X
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
�3�3�33333a)�3���
o v�v>Q > > >¢o��
a
ova
>oo
c
Cv
�vvP,ov�v��
f�
rn 3 0 q ., ., o v� b
fn
[�
v�
G�"
fY+
•aC
>
O
.�
00
N N N 0O0 CN r- O\ � N Lil
V
l�
N
en
N
_
W
N
00
333 333 3333y
3
LIDUD
333�33333
3��3333
to CO cn Q�% Y
y�y
> En
>
►1 d �+ y �+ � > > FY >>
,
>
w
>
di
>
Q%
>
>In
i�
O
>
�ti
>
Q%
>
>
to
Y
toCID
Y
r
Ln cn Coo �I ¢ d �I
•• •:a
i t
d
¢
En
¢
d
¢
d
.�y
¢
�
.n
(� Q�
00 �+ �+
— 00 Y O �
O \p N
"
'b
.L'
h
•�
a'-+
'Ly
Y
♦+
N
.t"..
f+
lei
+'
+r
W
4 48
w N N N N 00 00 00 CN O O N
W
[�
CN
l�
00
00
0\
r-
N
N
000
00
0000
N
o0
N
E 33 33 b3333333 www3q"Q
333
�3�
3
3
3
�33
oEn cn tn>>>"'b
�F
�
�
�333�3
�.
�
3 v) DO vn vA Cl) In
Cn .r
w ¢ad¢ ¢
COOO
�
o
cn
to
to
¢¢
.r
v�Cnb�drd
.r
>
0 .yC .yC 000 00 00 00 IC 15 O �
�
O
cC
�
\D
\D
-S
�
O�
O
C
�
•y
N
a'-:-
,L"
d
tI1 N oho O� O� O� N N N N N N N .00 v) to
Cn
N
Q
A
3
N
N
Chi
w
a--
—00
00
oo
°i
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
a C
,O
r-
r-
w
V'1
K1
O,
,D
V'1
00
V•1
M
00
O\
W)"
r+
M"t
tr
�o
In
to
In
,D
,O
,O
,O
,O
\O
,O
\.o
,D
,O
\O
,o
V
69
69
69
69
69
U'9
6R
69
d9
69
69
69
69
69
69
0
o
0
o
0
O
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
O
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oo
,O
,O
O
69
69
69
69
69
69
be
69
I 69
It's
69
69
69
•�
d
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
A,
F
O
O
O
00
,O
t 1
In
In
en
M
Ar
.Fi
O,
O
.I-
I-
Rt
In
O
In
kn
N
00
O,
to
N
M
"t
.-�
,O
�--�
O\
VI)r-
CD
�
N
tNIt
v
Z
;fl
o
W
rA
q,
xxx00
00
w
�d°F[,i"�Qd
U
O,
O
0
a,
Y
F
In
,o
O
U
r-
00
N
3
�3333
33�33�
o
�
�Qf'"dQdQQQ��QQ
;�>>>�
o
>>>�'�'>>
a
M
M
W
N
M�
00
N
0000
N
°'
3333
33
33
1�
W
>
rl
PL4
Y
W
Y
0
CIO
(L)
Y
rA
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
e
b
b
-
0000
• +
O
N
`o
N
Q
-
0000
^"
.q.
G4
N
P
N
00
P,
.q.
4
V1
0o
a0
00
.
O
a
Y
q
O
CC
id
a •�
Y �
�U
o >+
.0 O
0
O
U
1
V
o
o
v V
O N
O
N N
O q W O
.b O c+i w
N
c o w
O
O a
i G O N
V V
N a~i
O
• �'j q
o
V O
N
V 14 .�C�y
N V N
.i
a u q
'� 0-4
y
y w � �
C
t V pN
u'�.y
rn
pa°ai h 3 `�
•� 3 1� 3 3
cqs
cd
�Q
00 v000o,o
[��3 N ,p 1�r en et
L7aiJ�N❑O,N l� N N N N
00 T �
Legend
INZ Project in Progress
1*"'V Top Priority Locations
A of E04fo
. &A�blv
I&E-180
Recommended Walkway Projects
Source: Snohomish County GIS Center & BWR Corp.
This map is intended rig pw"es only and is riot
guaranteed to rate measurements. While cam has been
1. kv, to ensure the accuracy of the i nformai ion shown on this
paKc, the City of Ed ino nds assumes no responsibility for errors or
omissions that may be found.
le, ST sw
Srvd
.7 ;•� ------ I'll, $
N
W+ E
S
September 2002
Figure 23
COUNCIL RETREAT
FEBRUARY 7, 2003
HOW DO WE MATCH OUR
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TO
MEET FUTURE SERVICE DELIVERY
NEEDS? - -
Requested by: Councilmember Jeff Wilson
Presenter: Brent Hunter
00
(3)
T—
z
0
5
0
w
LL
0
CO
z
w
N
2
11
Q)
2
>
M (v
U)
cu Q) 0
Q) 0- of T-
> 0
-tf C
CL
73
LL
L)
c
m
0
7
LL
CL
E.
LLI
En
U)
c
U)
L)
C:
Q)
Qj
CL
Q)
FL
U-
a)
a)
0)
C:
ui
Q)
E'.
uj::
D
a
Ul
CD
W
CE
2::
®:
_0
0-
1= --.
o.2
-
C:
cu
cu
(L>
C)
(n
c
Co
2
0-
(D -
= 7
E,:
L)
2!
cu
clf ;:
}\}
co
CL -
£
Q)
0
ca
c
a).-
cu
(D
-c,
C:
CY)
.c
= :
Q>
-
tm
C:
E
E
C
L
0
o
0
cu
En Z
0
0)
c
CL:
z
w
ry
ry
D
z
0
w
LL
0
CO)
z
w
N
p
LLJ
0
a.
5
z
D
2
r-I
n,
0
<
z
D
0
0
0 A E
E
'D
A
CD
',t-
Q)
(D
cn
<
U-
U)
I
o
cn
t5
0
W -co::
cu
E
LIJ
W
cn
LD..
-6-
t
LL
cu
a
0
-2:
cn 5
lie ❑
0
AD -E -
, "
L-
cu
US
a) CL
0 En
0) 0.)
0 0
>
0
C-
:3
LL
U)
E::
(U.-
it
LLJ z
L
0
aj
C,
0. 9 z:
LL,
CITY OF EDMONDS
Exhibit #1
COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED POSITIONS
For the Years 1997 - 2003
ELECTED OFFICIALS: Mayor and Seven Councilmembers
GENERAL FUND:
2003 Positions
Listed are after proposed
budget reductions
DEPARTMENT
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
City Council -Council Assistant
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
Office of the Mayor (includes Mayor)
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
Human Resources
2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
Municipal Court
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
Court Criminal Justice Funding
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Administrative Services
Financial & Information Svcs.
10
10
10
10
11
11
10.7
City Clerk
4
6
6
6
5
5
5
Utility Fund
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
Police
58
63
64
64
66.5
66.5
63
Stevens Hospital Security Contract
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
Police Criminal Justice Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Drug Enforcement Fund
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fire
41
41
41
41
41.5
44.5
51
Community Services
5
4
2
2
2
2
2
Development Services
21
23.5
27.5
28.5
28.5
28.5
24.5
Parks & Recreation
7
8.5
8.5
8.5
10
11
11
Parks Maintenance
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
Public Works Administration
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Facilities
12
12
13
13
13
13
11
Utility Fund
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
STREET/STORMWATER FUNDS
12
13
16
16
16
16
15
CEMETERY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WATER/SEWER FUND:
Water
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Sewer
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Treatment Plant
17
17
16
16
16
16
17
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
TOTAL
239.5
253.5
259.5
261.5
264.5
268.5
263.1
2003
city
Population
Positions (FT)
Citizens: Employees
Edmonds
39515
263.1
150 1
Mountlake Terrace
20362
155
131 1
Mercer Island
22036
160
138 1
Kirkland
45054
377
120 1
Lynnwood
33847
320
106 1
Bremerton
37260
318
117 1
P: Reporls:02 Budgt: Data:Posilions 112/6/2003
7
7
N
N
co
t
l
emse}}
1>
N
N
Ir
lc7
cV
CA
C) M d
C]
C)
m
ch
CD
M_
Q r N
T
T
CO
�c��a7
lc�
0
It0.
L.
N
N
N
N
T
T
10
N
O
ti7
U')
(D
(D
cc)
+tea'
04
N
(D
N
GCS C
'a
r
N
N
N
+(D
9
>- �
co
w
ao
as
N
r—
�'
N
N
r
r
N
N
.0
O
N
0)
N
T
ti
T
ti
N
It
Lo
0
t`
cM
M
'9t
It
C'7
C`7
0)
r-
N
C) l0 O
T
r
(O
CO
�
1
M
O
>-
p NO
O
O
N
F,
d
N
N
N
N
4)
coT
(0
0
0)
ce)
O
CD
i
xi
a) CD CD
O
O
A
.may
Nt
0)
U')
p>- N
CO
CD
M
f-
O
N
IL
N
N
N
04
O
M
N
O
cM0_
cD_
N
000
cM
w
d
O[�-
O
M
0)
= M
00
00
cM
co
N
cM
0
�
cM0
Cn
000
LO
0)O
'O y
i) N
CV
cy
�
T
M
T
m
N
N
N
N
i
a
4)
N
N
N
N
co
�O
w` N
M
M
T
r
r
r
M
'0 O O
-
T
O
(D
T
Ci)
O
7 0 O
00
00
t-
ti
r
(D
00
N
O
0)tc�
Cn
Id-r
LO
_
r
T
N
N
N
N
ti
O
O
N
d
V
N
C
10
41
O
N
N
O
0
_
m
R
00
>
Q
m
y
m
x
LL
N
M
d
2
3
w
d
d
W
0
0)
7
'C3
O
d
y
C
K
W
.0
0
C
LL
E
7
IC
J
d
7
m
O
'C
7
d
C
C
W
U.
0
'�
0
I--
J
O
Q
)--
m
Q
m
W
0
r
C)
'a
N
M
U
C7
J Z
i
Oc'
N - .
No � �c�
610
co mac'
4-1 moo
70 I - opt
ry
S
w
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mac'
cN r- o rn oo r` cD LO
L
0
a
CL
(n
N
cn
co co
lop m N
N
O
LL
LO O
4= CL O
U)
PROJECTED STAFFING (FTE) 2003 - 2012
General Fund 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Mayor 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Comm.Serv. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Human Res. 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Court 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Adm Serv. 10.75 10.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75
City Clerk 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Police total 63 66.5 67.5 67.5 70.5 72.5 73.5 73.5 74.5 74.5
(Police Officers) (53) (53) (54) (54) (55) (57) (58) (58) (59) (59)
Hospital 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Fire 51 55 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
Dev. Serv. 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5
Recreation 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Parks 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14
Cemetery 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pub Wks Admin 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Facilities Maint 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Streets**** 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 4.5 4.5 4.5 5 5
TOTAL 210.5 218.5 222 223 226 229.5 230.5 230.5 233 234
(gain +22.5 FTE) 8 3.5 1 3 3.5 1 2.5 1
1. Finance Services may need to add an additional Utility Billing Clerk in 2005, when the new
Billing software program is completed.
2. Police would like to; a) restore the 3.5 positions lost in 2003, b) add 4 new Officers as needed
keep up with the projected population growth, c) fund the Sgt. position currently paid by and assigned to
the Police Academy, d) add 2 new middle management positions - Lts., e) add two additional
clerical/administrative positions.
3. Fire would like to; a) restore the 1.5 positions lost in 2003 and add a newSafety/Training Officer
position, b) add one additional Firefighter to even the shifts and further reduce overtime, c) add a
Medical Services Officer position in 2006 when the Medic 7 agreement ends.
4. Parks would like to restore the summer seasonal positions lost in 2003 ($120,000) plus add three
additional Maintenance Workers to keep up with the projected population growth and additional new park
areas added.
5. Facility Maintenance would like to restore the 2 maintenance and custodial positions lost in 2003.
6. Street anticipates an increase in their General Fund contribution due to the flat increase in
gas tax revenues; the increased General Fund cost is illustrated by adding an additional 1.5 FTE.
IDEAS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
CONTRACTING .............
SPECIAL DISTRICTS.......
CONTRACTED SERVICES
SPECIAL PROJECTS
PARKS, FIRE, STREETS
CONSOLIDATIONS............ METRO POLICE
INTERNAL REORG......
COURT
FI Wai TRAINING
WATER/SEWER
ANIMAL CONTROL
INFORMATION SERVICES
PARb"S/FACILITIES
I -I R/LEGAL SERVICES
CITY CLERK/MAYOR
PUB. WORKS/ENGINEERS
LABOR AGIIEEMENTS...... LAYOFFS BY SENIORITY
BENEFIT COST SHARING
SUB -CONTRACTING
GENERAL ........................ ALTERNATIVE LABOR
BUDGETING PROCESS
ENTREPRENEURIAL OPER.
:! w
c
�
o
x
�
U
U
cn
L
�
N
zw
i
cl
0
U
.0
0
3
uo
zu
C
>
O
zU
b
L
IN
A
1410,
co
N
Q
Z3
iz
printfile
Page 1 of 2
EER3Munldpal Research & Servien, Center of Maslutigton
Sale of Surplus City Property
New Information Added 01/25/01
Cities and towns frequently need to sell or convey equipment or property which is no longer needed for
municipal purposes. There are relatively few statutes concerning procedures for sale of surplus property.
Cities and towns should be familiar with those listed in the Statutes section (under "Reference Sources"
below), and you should keep these points in mind:
1. Prior to sale, always determine the fair market value of the item to be sold. If you sell it for less, you
may be violating Article VIII, 7 of the state constitution, the "gift clause." But see RCW 39,33.010,
listed in the Statutes section (under "Reference Sources" below).
2. Hold a public hearing, if required by RQW 39.33,M or RCW 35,94.040, listed in the Statutes. AGO
1997 No. 5 concludes that the public hearing requirement in RCW 39.33.020 only applies to
intergovernmental transfers of property.
3. Pass a resolution declaring the property to be surplus, and specifying how the property is to be sold,
or delegating that task to a particular administrative official.
4. Proceed with sale as required by the town or city council, or in any commercially reasonable way. Sale
can be by auction, private sale, sealed bid, through a broker or agent, etc.
5. Keep in mind that city officials and certain administrative officers may be restricted from purchasing
surplus property due to conflict of interest concerns. The general rule is that those who are involved in
the decision to surplus property (the council) and those in charge of administering the sale (mayor,
city manager, or other city officer responsible for the sale) should not purchase the property. General
city employees can purchase surplus city property.
6. Consider adopting policies concerning sale of city property. See the Documents, section, below.
Reference Sources
• Statutes
rMuG3'1GDI!'r-MM =�
http://Www.mrsc. orglprintfile. aspx?pmtPath=%2fSubj ects%2fLegal%2fsurplus%2fFiles%2... 2/3/2003
C. If the purchasing manager cannot dispose of the property in one of the methods specified
herein, the purchasing manager shall notify City Council and recommend further action.
City Council will then direct the surplus property's disposition.
D. The purchasing manager shall ensure that the proper fund is credited with any resulting
proceeds. (Ord. 9436 3, 1985; Ord. 8916 §5,1980.)
Section 4. BMC 4.86.060 is hereby amended as follows
4.86.060 — Procedure — Property Of A Value Of Twenty Thousand Dollars Or More
Disposition of surplus property of a value of twenty thousand dollars or more must be approved by
a majority of the City Council. The procedure is as follows:
A. The finance committee shall review the report of the purchasing manager at a public
meeting, and shall then either give further directions to the purchasing manager, or make its
recommendations to the full council, which has final authority to determine how the
disposal will be carried out.
B. The purchasing manager shall carry out the directions of the finance committee or the full
council with the assistance of the department owning the property.
C. If the City Council directs the surplus property's disposal, the purchasing manager shall then
dispose of the property in the manner specified by Council and shall ensure that the proper
fund is credited with any resulting proceeds. If either the finance committee or the full City
Council shall not approve disposing of the surplus property, the finance committee or the
full City Council shall give the purchasing manager directions for further action.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DISPOSITION OF
SUPRLUS PROPERTY, AMENDING BELLINGHAM MUNICIPAL
CODE 4.86 - 3
City of Bellingham
CTIY ATTORNEY
210 Lottie Sbvd
Bellingham, Washington 98225
Telephone (360) 676-6903
77
D. If the purchasing manager cannot dispose of the property in the manner specified by
Council, the purchasing manager shall report this fact to the Council and make a I
recommendation for finther action.
Section 5. BMC 4.86.080 is hereby amended as follows:
4.86.080 — Guidelines For Decision
The disposition of all surplus personal property under this chapter shall be done in a manner that is
in the City's best interests. Factors to consider in determining the City's best interests include but
are not limited to:
A. Possible future requirements of the city;
B. Present value of the property;
C. Likelihood of locating a buyer;
D. Intergovernmental cooperation;
E. The general welfare of the citizens of the city.
(Ord. 8916 §8, 1980.)
PASSED BY COUNCIL THIS 11th DAY OF October ,1999.
- 20VCOQ-�
Gene Knutson, Council President
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DISPOSITION OF
SUPRLUS PROPERTY, AMENDING BELLINGHAM MUNICIPAL
CODE 4.86 - 4
City of Bellingham
CrrY ATTORNEY
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, Washington 98225
Telephone (360) 67"903
iB
APPROVED BY ME THIS , �D �AY OF 1"g.
Mark Asmundson, Mayor
Attest:
Approved as to Form:
cy o .
Office of the City Attorney
Published: 10/15/99
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DISPOSMON OF
SUPRLUS PROPERTY, AMENDING BELLINGHAM MUNICIPAL
CODE 4.86 - 5
City of BeIlinghom
CITY ATTORNEY
210 Lottie Street
Bellingham, Washington 98225
Telephone (360) 676-6901
0
printfile
Pagel of 3
Municipal Research & Services Center of Mashingiton
Lake Stevens, WA Ordinance No. 442
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE STEVENS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR SALE,
DONATION, AND OTHER DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Stevens on occasion has surplus and personal property which needs to be
disposed of; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to adopt procedures for the sale, donation or other disposition of surplus and
other personal property;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE STEVENS, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1._Adoption of Ordinanc . The Lake Stevens Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter
2.48 as follows:
Chapter 2.48
SALE AND DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
2.48.010 Sale or donation of unneeded property owned by the City.
2.48.020 Sale of surplus and personal property of one thousand dollars or less in value or to another
governmental entity.
2.48.030 Sale of surplus and personal property over one thousand dollars in value.
2.48.040 Bid deposit for the sale of surplus and personal property over one thousand dollars in value.
2.48.050 Bid opening in the sale of surplus and personal property over one thousand dollars in value.
2.48.060 Award or rejection of bids in the sale of surplus and personal property over one thousand dollars
in value.
2.48.070 When bids rejected or not bids received.
2,48,010 $ale or donation of unneeded w The Mayor or designee may authorize
department directors to sell property owned by the City and which is in the custody of their departments
when they have certified in writing to the Mayor that said properties are no longer of public use to the City,
or that the sale thereof would be in the best interests of the City. Department heads shall certify in writing
that they have taken reasonable steps to determine the value of the property and shall notify the Mayor in
writing of the estimated value. The Mayor or designee may also authorize a donation of surplus property
with an estimated value of which is less than $250.00 to a specific bona fide charitable organization which
is tax exempt pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Sec. 501 (c) (3).
2,48,029 Sale surplus and personal property one thogsand dollarsr less in Yalue or to angth?,r
goyernmental entity. Approval of the City Council is not required for the sale or disposition of any personal
property:
(1) With an estimated value of one thousand dollars or less; or
http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx?pmtPath=%2fOrds%2fFiles%2f ,36-442.txt 2/3/2003
printfile Page 2 of 3
(2) To another governmental entity to be used by that entity;
when such property has been certified for disposition by the Mayor or designee, such sale or disposition
shall be made by the City Administrator or designee in accordance with informal procedures and in the best
interest of the City. No City employee may acquire property at a sale if the employee had any role in
establishing the price of said property.
2.48.030 Sale of surplus and personal property over one thousand dollars in value. The City Administrator
or designee, upon receipt of written instruction from the Mayor to sell personal property owned by the City
valued at more than one thousand dollars, shall call for sealed bids. The call for sealed bids shall contain a
description of the property to be sold, the location thereof, the name and address of the person with whom
the bid is to be filed, the last date for filing bids, and any other pertinent information. Such call shall be
published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not less than five (5) days before the last date
for filing of bids.
2.48,040 Bid deposit for the sale of surplus and personal property over one thousand dollars in value. Each
bid shall be accompanied by a deposit in the form of a certified check in an amount equal to not less than
ten percent of the amount of the bid. All such deposits so made shall be returned to the unsuccessful
bidders depositing the same after award of contract has been made. The deposit of the successful bidder
shall be applied toward the bid price, or upon failure of such bidder to consummate the purchase, such
deposit shall be forfeited as liquidated damages and such deposit so forfeited shall be credited to the
appropriate account.
2,48,050-pid-Wening in the s l thousand oll r in v l
Sealed bids shall be opened in public by the City Administrator or duly authorized agent at the time and
place specified in the call for bids. The City Administrator or duly authorized agent shall make a tabulation
of all bids received and forward the bids to the Mayor.
2 Award i nproperty
in value. The Mayor or designee shall present all bids, together with recommendations, to the City Council
at a regularly scheduled meeting for approval or rejection by the Council.
2.48.070 When bids rejected or no bids received. In the event no bids are received or all bids received are
rejected by the City Council then the Council may either ask for new sealed bids or direct the sale or
disposition of such surplus property under the procedures adopted pursuant to Section 2.48.020 (2).
Section 2. Severability. Should any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or its
application to any person or circumstance, be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid for any reason,
or should any portion of this Ordinance be pre-empted by state or federal lawor regulation, such decision
or pre-emption shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to
other persons or circumstances.
$�ctjQn 3. Effective Date. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in the official newspaper of the
City in accordance with RCW 35A.12.160, and the ordinance shall take effect and be in full force five (5)
days after the date of publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE STEVENS THIS DAY OF
Diana S. Hale, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Norma J. Scott, City Clerk/Admin. Asst.
Approved as to form:
http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx?pmtPath=%2fOrds%2fFiles%2fL36-442.txt 2/3/2003
printfile
Page 3 of 3
Timothy X. Sullivan, City Attorney
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Third Reading:
Published:
http://www.mrsc.org/printfile.aspx7pmtPath=%2fOrds%2fFiles%21L36-442.txt 2/3/2003
r1l
Q
J
J
0
Z
L
L
z
0
(i
n1
d
LO
M - O ^ CA
C 0O- N
O
Oct
C) n
(
O
Lr) �0) O
CD
O <3 Ln r- NM
1l V_ ++ C V
O
t0 C . d � a, LA
N
C) E ._ CA - d} 00 C
m CV) sa O' _ U?
i- �. ; w N L O CV)
.O i
CU
y
of
C Q
aZS o7j :. - � M y U
'.
co
41
CD w
43
co Cc
+� V] a
0' 0 LL Z n. J CL U
d - .._ .�.:• �.. 't3 :.ITN 'y '� '+6i 1Y 'N �`}
M M' N r
LL7 L[] Lf7 LC) � it
N N r
40 o_
3 `-
U)
CCL
Ln
F' A �co Lf1 d d0IT
fn tV C] cY LS7 C7 CD
t"' M Lf1 m LV Cl CD, C CO
r- QDko oT`t-M
LL a1 m
X.
Lu
CD _0 6 x__'.M' ffil... 0>
Qi :; i rr q'i�7r ." .CIS ''C °.�*^ . �•.�'- �-]
`n O Ff¢ f'tr`ry
W
O
co
coo
a)
o
N
ff}
C)
O
4Ji41
�.
M
U_
_
'
cr
'-o
LL
0
:)
e
•Cr
Ae
ilk
.�•
.:
W
0
U_
a
U
C g
m O
u =
u
� U
U y
20
c c LL u C
c-c ° .° a a E o h c
ti Y o c N n c = u c
g E y
c a' t n c? 4 E o
cc .V -
U - L n
O n U C 3 n u = `b v c'� o cn N a
c a u o N c c a
o u
c—
-- E u j Q y c E a-E c o c
u °' ° °° V -
U C a C O -+ n E V c U C OU a A U C n 0 C
0o L
c .= U a C C O - Y C v ° ^� C. ? Q U A
n ti C N T E o .L+ O
C
a s •-
= w _
L U a o o u •� u
n u 3 c 'p d o C
y u
_ U i iV L.1 •
u` J -• b o m E n op 00 '" .oi. d 4 a c °
` u U 0
3 2 y L U c d u Uu°n
E c D
c
Lu. E ^ —
u > •E
p o' 3 o _ — o f
S o w c-
E E „� J A 'a .c =- o I m e .c o A c T E= u
E E.- L ° m o A- .. E w
o > E c° n E L 3 ca N u°
u �., N o .� ,e A u° y o E o y r
a °O E E E-E n 3 `o ° 3 '° n c u c = E
.° Q n E A o U '° n u o— u b
o
`o c
E o n o o _= o '° t o
c w c -n :tft E c- 3 c` o c `n w N o a° n 3 E_
E n o a c n" c LonL v o o a uSib
J Co
Y '�'� N A U 3 is a E Y
n U d O E O O •� ~ C T C
O
ti c ua O �u u° b 'E c u v v
SFi:
e�
L'LI
�
C°CL
N U
3 ro y_
C
iti
Q
.0
ro
Q
N
><
Y aCi
°
d
ro° O Y
E„
>>
'�
U-
ro o
C
.�� �.
b
O
O ...
b0
t L
C
rd
-0
c)
c
a-r
°
v- '••' =
ra O
ra
bo
a rn 3
aroi,�
3
Ems"
I
Ego o
-
sa
0-,O
rn
3
T c
L
U ro
5.
(D u a
C a� a
3
cu 0
O u L ro
0 a
ro
i C
ro
0 E rJ
i
a
c
•f
d 0
ro
•�
N N
..
Y Y =
ro
•i�J.
C
b
C C _
ro
3
+' d�
L rd
0_ a=
a� :3
t 0
M
a� ro
n
o,EYao
i^EL
0 E
L
•'
L �, 3
0
a
ca
°.3
t
CL
moo
b y 0
u c
b
f
Z O t
W O0
i
W O� ._
N 00 L
t 3 a
O
yl
a� u
t
N N
d�
ewE-
s� a
3 X-
bl- �s
E
w V
C
3 ar y
a O
XE
y pp U
c 3
D b L
a=-Z 3
ro
° °
fa
3
y ro C
0
a ro 0
,,
E
ro L
ro ,,
s ° 0o
.-+ .-•
t
a cw
N 0
a ao
.o a s c_
N y 3 3
06 o m a
ro 0 •N
i° 3
b
0> 0°
O O
rnEa
b
va
,,3
0_ s
W b
wt
o u d
n
V a
ro c u ro
o
nos 3
cu E
L„
a
C^
4-at.+ ar .r
N Lu i
V°- a
-0 4- o u
E a
L aa�Ei
�.� c
°� 3
�s
.�
ro
Y N E
'- rd
3 •! �
i
M CC T U
L ro rd
Y
a
aai b u
.n
L
U
m=T-
u
N rCd rCd a
b o a
dci L N
t rCd O`
r a
F- 3 3 ig
F- n o E
F- 3
3 r
rCd eCd
o
3
L
0 3
a ro
0 uno
U ajT
C
-0c
w
w 0`0
c
a
_
a Y
b°
ro u
E croi
m
u
b
EO°
b
c�L
aroa
`wZo
3.+ O
�''
J, 0
_wmW
T
~ u
b0
C
C_
a rd
E
V
l!1 a
C] w •(j
C
ate... c
C
0 p
'�
y
ro 3 L
cV . c
,� �d
0 m
y
a G6 N
aroi
Z L
�, O
,�
0
-0 �
t
r_ ` 4--
.." 0
� C
0 A? �
t+o
� C c
rd m
G V
ro E
rri
O C a�
y
v 0 -E
.� m
CD
ZOCL
i7=3
3-C
O
0
a� c
.,c
O C
.0a a
3
W I N .w
.' b. in O
M
rd s
,d
N
'a ro
ra A ..
0._
""w_L_.c
O c
C
d 0a eE
N
T
O
"L
ro
ir-T•C
ro O V"
i +.�:Y'
r
C y°
�n
Lam-. �+
F,0 0
CD ce
E. ra'•:" ., L
E
..,, ..
p' to c
0
•. •.a�' .+: O a' aci: w ^ X CO
w v� r^
m
aa�
. O i
..Cl.• v. Vt v _Y "w,'�•`'
d ;O UG
_
•u PCs.-. E
�'�_ '^
a
"oiu
C! •uja
..+ C
rd ,n q0
ro C
." S -a
U ¢�
a .r
`p . a
W 0
•Y `� rn
• ��., '-
�_
b 0.7
3
rCn
a CA-
•0
._
•L
O b
3 ro
m m 0
c 0
a
v+
? F'
u
rd .� a
L-
r?
d M a c
E
as _ ,'•„
•0
E
a� rd E
a
d cn
L a m
ro
C a x
ro O
x
3?
t a� a�
f a ro 68
.0 w=
s�
w
t- n W
Y
F- E w
ra
v
_0 c
0
0 E
CL 0 Q) E
I N 22 M
co (D 0
0 0 c >
cu
C: U m
> 4-- rd
M 0
-r- . 8 =
0•U; .— 0
o c z
r> .2
t 6
I-n
u
v iaj e-, 0 0
Z, 0
cr
0 AJ
Z aj .0
Nv
jD--; -
rya
rt b
ca
cd
CF.
I
c
`-'
I
C) O O N V1
L
0
U v, O v-- U
°L O U
C v B.
d N C)-
c
,� c >. > U
;� ro
O c c ro ro �
a�v E+ r �t
ma c 0
-0-0 E z E `
ui d N Y
aci n a0i
N N V"' �+ V O_
N C N C N
C Y �• Y
L N 'D
O a� TU E O y
W N " "F- > o
S 4 - °
� ^ ram
co c
O n C b ro
40 LA
N L
E Y a o
c c
v
a O
Y t 4) b o O U I
>.o
.+ c
E >,� O Lro vim-.
ro 3v d a "O
3 ° O c d
V
FL- o w vo- 0 b ii
LLI
F
LU
`}
1
v
O
q
M
2 C ,C
N
ro O
E
C
N
O L
^ V
C
d
C
T
�e E U
E °,'
a '5
O Q
w
E o
a�
E 3 E
E
b rou.
b
.-
Ln Ln
E d i
to
ci
n ai w
a}'i
o
fa
Q
r -a
N Y ro
cnv}in3cnU
U
�
m = o
-le
eon°' 3
O
C
m•°
u •y O
O
O L •`�
!'
;? o w
F
.i
iW�
O Q to a+
❑
r H (1 :3
CM
0�j
S]
p Ou OL
/Ll�_.
►Vl
v_+ v 4- tM1
.O
O OL
W
p�p ed $
OL
aJ t
OL
,fl
r 4=p.O
-rn
r_ ca •N
°L�rs
eg' '> c
C ar
N..s
IfO y+ -0
U
'•.0 Q? O 'Q C
.
u O w >
vw��
m [� O V1
Q
E i]
y y
Ll O L) 3
LU a O oq E w
ej E Bo a
w w 12 v t
0 0 a
L-
'�J
'a��r
-0b
uC
>a�-
CE
O
O t
.N > YN ,
C O
w�
a o O °' :3
ULO
X c
U
a
.ro
N W tli
r
o o
c
o '�
p 7
E.>
E
a
:f
p ? U
I'
N '�'' O '�' 'J
_
y N 2 C C N co
E '6
p C v
L o L
aEa>
rCra v
Eba
m va
M0
urOcli
>
no.EO
ao
•!�A
C O Q
O
L
o E
41
LU c
E
LL •" yo .� u
rd '�
W ! 0
= E L rLa Y
o ko a
a� N ,�, E Q 7 L
N U O v H
b
7I-N
�. .
'y
LIJ
L� •
■
� V {• 7L F
1
■
a
_ F
■
F
f
- F F
�i
■ 4
r�
u
:� � ;c: ( �' 1.i•,'; `fit
�• 1lk �C � i, �;� � Y � i r - v,
`` •!y ,11 b0 Y
:S ,. 1 . L ,:��� ,1�••`''Li= 3' �O `� rd bA = b b v-• 'V y �n
ac o E O a� 0 rEa
's L a� a
o (D c a 'N E
c
a rlj N
cz IdO u- C C 4_ >_
c n w u 3 a> a 3 a) u E t 0
r� i �.• sT` a •� • r rC 3 a> p b E a a v, T J 'o = E Oa
E 3.
ro
y
ow
> u =
> CL 0 �o
Ei
+�ujCL Mc N d_ a
o
.`+ �• ate+ a�•C-p QCY 'C 0 >�0 00
% n a s ro = c ra b e -`° a 3 E
-y .a on a 3 m
b0 r0 rt U p C_ y=, - ^: 7+ rt • +r ` • .to to 4W-•
c a� 3 ^� c_ 0
V
o
CL
ro �..- L ro s w- o= Q.-:; O`• .yam
y, fib 3 E. r E 0 a ..� a :' . w •'+a3.,3 "a
.Y': re . o Y
t JL d H w a ro ro O li u m 3- 3 ... a
= �'' •5 -. .. y:�.�. ill
ipc - -. l ��:�ifi^s°'�: ^ •a -ti, � -
n
11
F ■ • • . r - � . � L . � V
ti
8
h
r
0 0
0 Y.0
a . LD
U 0 -
Of (1) Q' " 0
-R
> 0
00 ro
E
CD 43 E
M
E
o N 0
cu
E
--2 U-
0
M y A a. E 0 CL
tA CL cl
60'0-
a
E
E
UJ
4 .0
M .1
0 Ed .0c.E
E Co, 0
0
E
-0 0 ra..;
_g E
E
-i w :n-=a :cc
00)
Bw
0
Ed 0
L-
ro >
m ZZ.
0-. -
�E o U-
E
Lv
0 wQ 0
3g' c CL
Lu
CD
ro >
0
W)
x.
40't o
0 0
-A
'a C A C.•`
-4A .8
0 'E,
Ern o
-0
0-
0 43 -0
o LU
CD
r3 e.
�/ 'M 3AV Hl 9j-
Y~ Y
Ix CY
a a 3
a a
W
W (D Y
Z a Q
(L Ca
> w_ _
a
w m O
Y� 2
L'+ Q
4 �
M '3AV H191
N
N
w
H
N
3AV Hl6
-S 3AV
141 6
O
N
� N
c
N
K
F
H
y m
a
W
7
�
y c�i Y
t E Q c
a
��
U_ F
� Zm
3
U) w c
W
c c 10 F a
N U U
�1
Q LL m m
ci c.i C
Oy �`
Z.
'S 3AV HIS
Q m
cca8cy W
-S 3AV Otl4
o W'W g m
CL
6
13SN�
a`
s
� Q w � 4
l
0
Z ~ a
3 a
II II
111
1
4 r_i
W W Q-
E
CV H
., CT E U
— O
.J O ra 6
O C C Ln
-.O C �• to
rd L O rs
7 U
C�� '^ •9 L 3
N N
O
y m Y w
O «�
b 3 >
Q
IV
d O O L0
O�
Y a c
a n
L
u 3 m 0
N
L�
• O-��F- C00 NO
U b U1
m c
ra
u
O o
L L r�
LLJ
E L _N
_0�, n
p u —
W
> E
u
U s
„
aL... .0 O C i..+ 00
W
�_ ra 6 pa a
v
v E o p
0^ yp
b x N Ci
C E
y
> U
L
ra
t p u
Y
O 0M - 0
E
C.
,LL
y ra i rya E ra D r_
p
-
o Y
L ra O
`t o O X
� Q
tl7 � CDN
i
00 O u _n
!Z C p
Y E�
E
Td b •
L U C
O �n ,L., W
YCL
u O i O
wl
o� 3 D-0 >-
3 awn
Q
o'0-0��°0
�
„
.04
.. ra p_
w L E ra --O}'
CLE ra E
a
.E
'J W 3
YD p
o� c 0 r x
Y
}E
1
Qov c
3 b a' b 3
N a
E
It
CL
-M 3AV H1 001
--------------
C
a>
O O
d
CD 00
O
M
+sr tsr
E
b
CL :3 -EY Y
ca Mb m 3
V L b 4-
O O
C y O �-' b E
E Z > 0 0 30
0 0 o N> Q
c 0 o E Q •o W m M, "- N
b�81 3�W oF- O p
•0 aL+ O to O c ate+
a a> ^ ' m rap > b b >
-p _0 Y Z -0 0012 U
U
vO EQ� Z:) F-
N OWN
L
F- a
W
W w
W
LU
F
H � �
w LLIW g 0 O
w U
0
F- O •o-u g b O ,cd c 0
w g E >- E E z
O Ccro p 0~ `CN amY - d0
U d O 3 HJ ce
30w Uc: o
G x Z oU w O m m U o ba
-
b roNro
U ;3d QciN -ro, = _3N cbNm�dw Uai o j z= b E Nc. _
.p �
o a O ro nro o L mo Tfo Y
CO
t t bo c u p U,o u znV O pLi0Z
ZaU Z u0CA co mymEd cuoid b b oW O w 0
'u O
Qaaan m0 L v)3z OJ^u LLcd
m m
7
c�
W
I-
W Z zo F,
�C p N p
ro O E
O L
p ro t d > E st
O U c Z c a c
O ..0 U N mU c d.p �;a U ON._ .� O - -.x 0
w v� u c c' °' c c 3- c E- �7 E `o m �>d x co • d Y o 2 b c
U_v. 'o p d no c d' ^'B: Z n"� a ro ma a� u m o b c nE u� `
U n c Y 3 d E- _1 >> 3 T C o d 'd m E ro ro m c n
LL. > n cL O vi ro U3. ` a> ms L �_ m t
vti d E O N O Ym c0 m b Q Z U 3 b H d> = ro b ro 0 v o in aYci v a U m c U d -+ b
N�_� C7N '-��e ro��.0 CD 0� = a`� a`)= Z� =YJ c o� ys� a�i r °> 4) o00 Lnn_
J E °� C7 _j d i b b U b 0 bO 0 0 N o a>i aci 0�= 0 :° ro b c� �o b u u 0 0 0 b 3 b }d E
1d Q Q 0CnZw��-aC9 JO Q�n!� �� mY=mmm-w Qa- �m-w 0U��-�Uc9n o-
U w
cz
D
0
Z
C
c O_
E
_
Z L 0
W U X
cz
W
W
0 0 N
�_ O_L c - Oc _
O i v
p m.0 y
QL - :eu- o
LL.O Q U'u U a Z.
U Y
=
c_ aa) d m m
•>
b C t o f .c
°C7v)
LU
OUim
m
0
•U
O
Q u
WO
c
C W
3�v
OY �
Ups
•c- d � a
�.�t�tn c
-. ZvO�
o'�avm c cjY
aNi
- o 0
.ro
Z L c
J
Z v m
Q�C��mmwZZC7C7Q
b 0 0� 0 O O
J
J.
ro 0
E o '�>
4�
L .-0
U J x
ro C 0 w
O-0 eo _C 7 w x l
ed C U Y m d W
QQ.
= = W U C Q C ro
C7L 0 y(n --wY cJi Cps OL-
03
u b cU
Q a c,
m O= 0
J m
Ca i� ta1 Improvements Program
Park Acquisition/Improvement- Fund 125
Projects for 2003-2008
PROJECT NAME
Ir i7evelo rnent Prix [s
162nd Street Park
Anderso'n Center Field / Court
Brackett's l andin Improvements
Esperanoe Nei hborhood Improvements
-City Park Im rovments
Civic Center Complex Improvements
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1 %
1%
1 %
1 %
$0
$0
$30 000
$380,000
$40,000
$70 000
$10,000
$35 000
$20,000
$15,000
$263 000
$ 45,000
$10,000
$ 70,000
$20 000
(Edmonds Marsh
$40.000
$40,000
50,000
Fishing Pier/Olympic Beach
IL nndale Park Improvements
Maplewood Park Improvement
$80,000
$0
$0
$30,000
$25,000
20,000
10 000
40,000
Marina Beach Park Improvements
Math- $elfin r Park
$0
$0
310,000
30,000
Meadowdale Field / Clubhouse Renovation
Plne Rfdge Park Irtiprovemen's
Pine Street Park Improvements
$0
$10,000
$0
$40,000
70,000
110,000
10 000
Seaview Park Im rovements
$0
$45,000
Sierra Park Improvements
$55,000
Southwest County Park
$0
90,000
Underwater Park Improvements
$7,000
Yost Park/Pool Improvement
Besutlficatlon
Beautification Ci! de/Sr. Ctr_ Treesca a
Gil -wide ParklFasVI& Improvements
.ADA Improvements
Centralized Irrigation
Citywride Park Improvements
'Misc Paving
$50 000
$30 000
$40 000
$50,000
$85 000
$190:000
$60 000
$20,000
$40,000
$15,000.
$40,000
$20,000
$10.000
$15,000
$20,000
-$20,000
$10,000
$15,000..
10,000
-20,000
40,000
10.000
50,000
20 000
30,000
20,000
30,000
20,000
iMisc Small Projects
-Sports Fields Upgrade/Playground Partnership
'Waterfront Bulkheads
$145,000
$78.000
$1 700,000
$50,000
$20,000
$20,000
$15,000
$40,000
$100 000
$15,000
$30,000
$20,000
10 000
30,000
100,000
50,000
S ecialized Facilities
Aquatic Recreation Com lex
note #1
note #1
Skateboard Facility
Trail Development
$80.000
$266 000
Interuban Trail Development
Misc. Unpaved Trail / Bike Path/Im rovements
$345,000
$50,000
$50,000
Planning
Hummin bird Hill Park
$10,000
Cultural Arts Center
$50,000
40,0001
Comprehensive Plan
$40,000
50,000
20,000
Waterfront AcquWflon
Note 01: $10000.000 General Obfii7ation Bond Issue
Total Park Projects
$3,585,000
$325,000
$706,000
$473,000
$ 1,015,000
$420,000
Park Ac ulsltionllm rovement- Fund 126
(Special Capital)
Projects for 2003-2008
PROJECT NAME
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Debt Service on City Hall
$481 224
$480,571
$484,056
$416,237
$415,502
415 500
Debt Service on Library Roof
$26,000
$26,000
$26,000
$26,000
26,000
26,000
Debt Service on Marina Beach
$181 468
$184,292
$181 572
$183,532
183,532
183,532
Contribution to PSCC Purchase
Debt Service on PSCC Purchase
$73,823
$73,823
$73,823
$73,823
73,823
73,823
Misc. O ens ace/Land
$20,000
$40,000
$80,000
$20,000
20 000
20,000
,Meadowdale Heights Ac uisition
$20,000
$20,000
$100,000
$20,000
20000
20,000
,Edmonds Marsh/Hatchea Acquisition
$1,000000
200,000
(North Edmonds Beach Acquisition
$20,000
100,000
Old Woodwa. Elementary School Acquisition
$1,463 000
Waterfront Acquisition
Tideland Acquisitions
$30,000
$100,000
$40,000
$10 000
10,000
10 000
Es ereance Neighborhood Park Acquisition
$300 000
Total Park Projects
$2.152.5151
$924,6861
$2,448,451
$749,592
$948,857
848,855
City of Edmonds
Council Retreat
February 2, 2002
Prepared by: Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation
Discussion of 1st and 2nd Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET)
Overview
The State of Washington authorizes cities and counties to impose taxes upon the sale of
real estate up to one half of one percent of the selling price of the property. This taxing
authority is divided into two one quarter of one percent increments. The allowable uses
of each quarter percent varies. The primary difference relates to the purchase of property
which is an allowable use only for the 1 st quarter percent.
History
The City of Edmonds imposes both REET increments. The annual income from each
increment is approximately $700,000. In 1995, the 1st 1/4% was pledged for the annual
debt service on the City Hall building. The 2nd 1/4% is devoted to parks improvements
(Ordinance 3160/1977;ECC 3.29017). In October 2000, the. City Council voted to
officially devote both REET funds to the purchase and improvement of park property.
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 is a discussion of real estate excise tax prepared by the Municipal Research &
Services Center. Exhibit 2 is a compilation of frequently asked questions relating to the
authority to impose the tax and the allowable uses of the tax. Exhibit 3 is a listing of the
enabling RCW's along with copies of each statute.
Exhibits 4 and 5 are five year forecasts for both REET funds,
Real Estate Excise Tax Information Pagel of 3
FAQs I Search RCW & I Municipal I About ( Site I I p Contact I ,
WAC Codes MRSC Index Links Help Home
Municipal Research & Services Center ■ Working Together for Excellence in Local GoVerhment
Real Estate Excise Tax f XHu ff I
This page includes a discussion of the real estate excise tax. Also included are links to. (1) the state laws
authorizing the real estate excise tax; (2) frequently asked questions; and (3) various documents,
including sample ordinances to levy the real estate excise tax.
The State of Washington is authorized to levy a real estate excise tax on all sales of real estate, measured
by the full selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages and other debts given to secure
the purchase at a rate of 1.28 percent. RCW 82.45.060. A locally -imposed tax is also authorized.
However, the rate at which it can be levied and the uses to which it may be put differs by city or county
size and whether the city or county is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). All cities
and counties may levy a quarter percent tax (described as "the first quarter percent of the real estate
excise tax" or "REET 1"). RCW 82.46.010. Cities and counties that are planning under GMA have the
authority to levy a second quarter percent tax (REET 2). RCW 82.46.035(2). Note that this statute
specifies that if a county is required to plan under GMA, or if a city is located in such a county, the tax
may be levied by a vote of the legislative body. If, however, the county chooses to plan under GMA, the
tax must be approved by a majority of the voters.
How Can the First Quarter Percent -- REET 1 -- Be Spent?
Cities and counties fall into three categories: 1) those that are not planning under GMA; 2) those that are
planning under GMA, but have a population under 5,000; and 3) those that are planning under GMA and
have a population of 5,000 or over.
Cities and Counties That Are Not Planning Under GMA and Those That Are Planning But
Have a Population Under 5,000. Both groups of entities have the same restrictions on their
spending of REET 1 revenues. They must use these funds "for any capital purpose identified in a
capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in RCW
35.43.040." RAW 82.46.010(2). RCW 35.43.040 lists local improvements that can be funded
through a local improvement district (LID), including streets, parks, sewers, water mains,
swimming pools and gymnasiums, etc. (Note that in chapter 272, Laws of 1994, the legislature
clarified its original intent that "local capital improvements" was intended to include the
acquisition of real and personal property associated with such local capital improvements. This
means that land acquisition for parks is a permitted expenditure.)
Capital projects not listed in the LID statute (for example, a fire station, city hall, courthouse or
library) are also permitted uses as long as they are included in the city's or county's capital
improvement plan. Expenditures that are not allowed are such things as the purchase of police
cars. Accountants may consider these to be "capital" for accounting purposes, but they are not
"capital purposes" or "local capital improvements." See cotrespandence. between Allen R.
Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County and Philip H. Austin, Senior Deputy
Attorney General.
Cities and Counties With a Population of 5,000 or More That Are Planning Under GMA.
These jurisdictions must spend the first quarter percent of their real estate excise tax receipts
http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetweb.htm 01/24/2002
Real Estate Excise Tax Information
Page 2 of 3
solely on capital projects that are listed in the capital facilities plan element of their
comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(2)(6). RCW 82.46.010(6) defines "capital projects" as:
those public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets; roads;
highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic signals; bridges; domestic
water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities; law
enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial
facilities...
Spending the Second Quarter Percent -- REET 2
This part of the real estate excise tax may only be levied by cities and counties that are required to or
choose to plan under the Growth Management Act. All cities and counties that levy this tax face the
same provisions, whether their population is greater or less than 5,000.
.For this quarter percent of the real estate excise tax, "capital project" means those:
public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, roads, highways,
sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm
and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or
improvement of parks. R�W_82,46M5(5).
Note that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts, although it is a
permitted use for street, water, and sewer projects.
What's the Half Cent Tax Shown in RCW 82.46.010(3)?
Cities and counties that are not levying the optional half -cent sales tax under RCW 82.14.030(2) have
the option of levying an additional one-half percent real estate excise tax. These receipts are not
designated for capital projects. They are a general fund revenue for city operating expenditures. Only
one city, Clarkston, has chosen to do this. From a financial standpoint, the optional half -cent sales tax
will probably always bring in more revenue than this additional one-half percent real estate excise tax.
For border cities and counties, however, who do not feel they are able to levy the optional sales tax, this
tax is a revenue option.
Accounting for These Funds
Because this revenue source has a dedicated purpose, it must be accounted for separately in a capital
projects fund. Those cities and counties that are planning under GMA and levying both REET 1 and
REET 2 need to keep track of each of these revenues separately because the uses to which they may be
put are different. RCW 82.46.030(2) and RCW 82.46.035(4).
Reference Sources
■ Statutes
• Frequent_ly Asked Question (FAQs)
http://www.mrsc.org%finance/reet/reetweb.htm 01/24/2002
Real Estate Excise Tax Information
Page 3 of 3
Documents
* March 2 1984 letter from Alan R. Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County To
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Washington State Attorney General.
• March 6, 1984 Ietter from Philip H. Austin, Senior Deputy Attorney General to Alan R.Hancock,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County.
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for cities that
are not planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or for cities that are planning under
GMA but which have a population of 5,000 or less.
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for all cities
that are planning under GMA and have a population of more than 5,000.
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax rates for
cities planning under GMA.
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for counties
that are not planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or for cities that are planning
under GMA but which have a population of 5,000 or less.
• MRSC sam le ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for all
counties that are planning under GMA and have a population of more than 5,000.
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax rates for
counties planning under GMA.
• Real estate excise tax. rates from the Washington State Department of Revenue.
FAQs I Search I
RCW & Municipal About C Site ontact
WAC Codes MRSC Index Links Help Us
(Home
http://www.mrse.org/finance/reet/reetweb.htm 01/24/2002
Real Estate Excise Tax - Frequently Asked Questions Pagel of 3
RCW & Municipal About Site Contact
FAQs Search WAC Codes MRSC Index Links Help Us Home
Municipal Research & Services Center e Working Together for Excellence in Local Government
Frequently Asked Questions on
Real Estate Excise Tax
77v", MIT
Questions
a.
1. On_whgt is the real estate excise tax based?
2. What cities and counties can levy the second 4uarter percent of the real estate excise tax GREET
2)?
3. poes a eity_or_co nt nee a vote of the people in order to levy the second auarter.percent of the
real estate excise tax � ETA?
4. How and when can a city that is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and that has
a population of 5,000 or less spend_its real estate excise tax revenues?
5. When anti how can a city that is planning under the Growth Management Act GMA and that has
a population-of.over5,000 spend its real estate excise tax revenues?
6. When and how can a city or count f oLny size at is nQt planning under the Growth
Management Act spend its real estate excise tax revenues?
7. Can the real estate excise tax be levied even. though the city or county is not yet allowed to spend
it?
8. Can cities and _counties use real estate excise tax funds for p�annit�g?
9. Can real estate excise tax funds be used for maintenance?
10. MAY a citor county use real estate excise tax revenues to pay debt service on a councilmanic
bond?
1. On what is the real estate excise tax based?
The real estate excise tax is levied on all sales of real estate. The amount of the tax is based on the
full selling price, including the amount of any liens, mortgages, and other debts given to secure
the purchase.
2. What cities and counties can levy the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax
(BEET 2)?
Counties that are required or have chosen to plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
the cities located in them. RCW 82.46.035(1).
3. Does a city or county need a vote of the people in order to levy the second quarter percent of
the real estate excise tax (BEET 2)?
It depends. If the city or county is required to plan under the Growth Management Act, then only
an affirmative vote of the legislative body is needed to levy this tax. However, if the city is located
in a county that has chosen to plan under GMA, this tax may be levied.only "if first authorized by
a proposition approved by a majority of the voters." RCW 82.46.035(2). Only cities planning
http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetfaqs.htm 01 /24/2002
Real Estate Excise Tax - Frequently Asked Questions Page 2 of 3
under GMA may levy this tax.
4. How and when can a city that is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
that has a population of 5,000 or less spend its real estate excise tax revenues?
The receipts from the first quarter percent (BEET 1) can be spent on "any capital purpose
identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in
RCW 35.43.040." RCW 82.46.010(2). RCW 35.43.040 lists projects for which local improvement
districts (LIDS) may be formed and includes everything from street projects to parks to sewers to
swimming pools. For a complete list, consult the statute.
The second quarter percent (REET 2) cannot be spent until the city or county has completed the
capital facilities element of its comprehensive plan. This part of the tax has more limited uses. It
can only be spent on street projects, water and sewer projects, and parks projects (excluding the
acquisition of land). RCW 82.46.035(5).
5. When and how can a city that is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and
that has a population of over 5,000 spend its real estate excise tax revenues?
Revenues from the first quarter percent (REST 1) may be spent only on capital projects in a
capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan. RCW 82.46.010(2). RCW 82.46.010(6)
lists these projects and the list seems to include everything a city or county might ever put in a
capital facilities element, including the acquisition of land for parks. Since the projects must be in
the capital facilities plan, obviously, the plan must be complete before any REET funds can be
spent.
Like REET 1 revenues, those from the second quarter percent of the real estate excise tax (REET
2) cannot be spent until the capital facilities element is finished. Allowable expenditures are street
projects, water and sewer projects, and parks projects (excluding the acquisition of land). RCW
82.46.045(5).
6. When and how can a city or county (of any size) that is not planning under the Growth
Management Act spend its real estate excise tax revenues?
The receipts from the first quarter percent (REET 1) can be spent on "any capital purpose
identified in a capital improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those listed in
RCW 35.43.040," RCW 82.46.010(2). RCW 35.43.040 lists projects for which local improvement
districts (LIDs) may be formed and includes everything from street projects to parks to sewers to
swimming pools. For a complete list, consult the statute.
7. Can the real estate excise tax be levied even though the city or county is not yet allowed to
spend it?
Yes. The tax can be levied and placed in a municipal or county improvements fund until the city
or coutny completes the capital facilities element of its comprehensive plan.
8. Can cities and counties use real estate excise tax funds for planning?
Cities and counties cannot use these funds for planning in the sense of developing a capital
facilities element or a capital improvements plan. However, MRSC has advised that cities and
http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetfags.htm 01/24/2002
Real Estate Excise Tax - Frequently Asked Questions
Page 3 of 3
counties can use these funds for design costs, engineering costs, surveys, etc. for specific projects
in their capital facilities element or capital improvements plan. Funds from the second quarter
percent (BEET 2) can only be used in conjunction with street, water, sewer, and parks projects.
RCW 82.46.035(5).
9. Can real estate excise tax funds be used for maintenance?
Only if it's a major maintenance project in a capital facilities element or capital improvements
plan. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a project qualifies. Painting is almost certainly not an accepted
use. Putting a new roof on a building would probably be a permitted use. If the project is
considered a "public work" for bidding purposes, then REET funds can be used. The second
quarter percent (REET 2) can only be used for street, water, sewer, and parks major maintenance
because its uses are limited to those kinds of projects.
10. Maya city or county use real estate excise tax revenues to pay debt service on a
councilmanic bond?
Yes, as long as the project is one for which these revenues may be used. For example, revenues
from the second quarter percent (BEET 2) can only be spent on street, water, sewer, and parks
projects. Therefore, these revenues could not be used to pay debt service on a new city hall or
county courthouse. Note that if the real estate excise tax receipts fall short of the amount needed to
pay debt service, the general fund must make up the difference.
RCW & Municipal About Site Contact
FAQs Search WAC I Codes MRSC Index Links Help Us
http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetfaqs.htm � _01/24/2002
Statutes - Real Estate Excise Tax
Page 1 of 1
RCW & Municipal About Site Contact
FAQs Search WAC � Codes MRSC Index Links I Help Us Home
Municipal Research & Services Center + Working Together for Excell nce in Local Government
Statutes - Real Estate Excise Tax
EXHM "
e RCW 82.46.010
Tax on sale of real property authorized - Proceeds dedicated to local capital projects - Additional
tax authorized - Maximum rates. The authority to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate
excise tax and the permitted uses. Also the authority to levy a half cent tax for general government
purposes if the city does not levy the second half cent of the retail sales and use tax.
■ RCW 82.46.030
The remaining proceeds from the county tax under *RCW 82.46.010 (1) shall be placed in a
county capital improvements fund. The remaining proceeds from city or town_ taxes under *RCW
82.46.010 (1) shall be distributed to the respective cities and towns monthly and placed by the city
treasurer in a municipal capital improvements fund.
e RCW 82.46.035
Additional tax - Certain counties and cities - Ballot - Use limited to capital projects - Temporary
rescindment for noncompliance. The authority for levying the second half cent.
■ RCW 35.43.040
Authority generally. Statute that lists "local capital improvements" referred to in RCW 82.46,010
as spending options for the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax for cities that are
not planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or cities that are planning under GMA
but have a population of 5,000 or less.
RCW & Municipal About Site Contact
FAQs I Search WAC i Codes MRSC Index I Links I Help I Us I Home
http://www.mrsc.org/finance/reet/reetstat.htm 01/24/2002
Pagel of 2
RCW 82.46.010
Tax on sale of real property authorized -- Proceeds dedicated to
local capital projects -- Additional tax authorized -- Maximum rates.
(1) The legislative authority of any county or city shall identify in
the adopted budget the capital projects funded in whole or in part
from the proceeds of the tax authorized in this section, and shall
indicate that such tax is intended to be in addition to other funds
that may be reasonably available for such capital projects.
(2) The legislative authority of any county or any city may
impose an excise tax on each sale of real property in the -
unincorporated areas of the county for the county tax and in the
corporate limits of the city for the city tax at a rate not exceeding
one -quarter of one percent of the selling price. The revenues from
this tax shall be used by any city or county with a population of
five thousand or less and any city or county that does not plan under
RCW 36.70A.040 for any capital purpose identified in a capital
improvements plan and local capital improvements, including those
listed in RCW 35.43.040.
After April 30, 1992, revenues generated from the tax imposed
under this subsection in counties over five thousand population and
cities over five thousand population that are required or choose to
plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be used solely for financing capital
projects specified in a capital facilities plan element of a
comprehensive plan and housing relocation assistance under RCW
59.18.440 and 59.18.450. However, revenues (a) pledged by such
counties and cities to debt retirement prior to April 30, 1992, may
continue to be used for that purpose until the original debt for
which the revenues were pledged is retired, or (b) committed prior to
April 30, 1992, by such counties or cities to a project may continue
to be used for that purpose until the project is completed.
(3) In lieu of imposing the tax authorized in RCW 82.14.030(2),
the legislative authority of any county or any city may impose an
Additional excise tax on each sale of real property in the
unincorporated areas of the county for the county tax and in the
corporate limits of the city for the city tax at a rate not exceeding
one-half of one percent of the selling price.
(4) Taxes imposed under this section shall be collected from
persons who are taxable by the,state under chapter 82.45 RCW upon the
occurrence of any taxable event within the unincorporated areas of
the county or within the corporate limits of the city, as the case
may be.
(5) Taxes imposed under this section shall comply with all
applicable rules, regulations, laws, and court decisions regarding
real estate excise taxes as imposed by the state under chapter 82.45
http ://www.mrse. org/nxt/gateway. dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082 %20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002
Page 2 of 2
RCW.
(6) As used in this section, "city" means any city or town and
"capital project" means those public works projects of a local
government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets;
roads; highways; sidewalks; street and road lighting systems; traffic
signals; bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer
systems; parks; recreational facilities; law enforcement facilities;
fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and/or
judicial facilities; river and/or waterway flood control projects by
those jurisdictions that, prior to June 11, 1992, have expended funds
derived from the tax authorized by this section for such purposes;
and, until December 31, 1995, housing projects for those
jurisdictions that, prior to June 11, 1992, have expended or
committed to expend funds derived from the tax authorized by this
section or the tax authorized by RCW 82.46.035 for such purposes.
[1994 c 272 § 1; 1992 c 221 § 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 36; 1982 1st ex.s. c 49 §
11.]
NOTES:
Legislative declaration -- 1994 c 272: "The legislature declares
that, in section 13, chapter 49, Laws of 1982 1st ex. sess.,
effective July 1, 1982, its original intent in limiting the use of
the proceeds of the tax authorized in RCW 82.46.010(2) to "local
capital improvements" was to include in such expenditures the
acquisition of real and personal property associated with such local
capital improvements. Any such expenditures made by cities, towns,
and counties on or after July 1, 1982, are hereby declared to be
authorized and valid." [1994 c 272 § 2.1
Expenditures prior to June 11, 1992: "All expenditures of
revenues collected under RCW 82.46.010 made prior to June 11, 1992,
are deemed to be in compliance with RCW 82.46.010." [1992 c 221 § 4.]
Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 lst ex.s.
c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
Intent -- Construction -- Effective date -- Fire district
funding -- 1982 1st ex.s. c 49: See notes following RCW 35.21.710.
http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20title/rcw"/`20%2082"/`2... 01 /24/2002
Page 1 of 1
RCW 82.46.030
Distribution of proceeds.
(1) The county treasurer shall place one percent of the proceeds of
the taxes imposed under this chapter in the county current expense
fund to defray costs of collection.
(2) The remaining proceeds from the county tax under RCW
82.46.010(2) shall be placed in a county capital improvements fund.
The remaining proceeds from city or town taxes under RCW 82.46.010(2)
shall be distributed to the respective cities and towns monthly and
placed by the city treasurer in a municipal capital improvements
fund.
(3) This section does not limit the existing authority of any
city, town, or county to impose special assessments on property
specially benefited thereby in the manner prescribed by law.
[2000 c 103 § 17; 1992 c 221 9 2; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 37; 1982 1st ex.s. c 49
13.1
NOTES:
Severability -- Part, section headings not law 1990 1st ex.s.
c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
Intent -- Construction -- Effective date -- Fire district
funding -- 1982 lst ex.s. c 49: See notes following RCW 35.21.710.
http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002
Pagel of 2
RCW 82.46.035
Additional tax -- Certain counties and cities -- Ballot proposition -
- Use limited to capital projects -- Temporary rescindment for
noncompliance.
(1) The legislative authority of any county or city shall identify in
the adopted budget the capital projects funded in whole or in part
from the proceeds of the tax authorized in this section, and shall
indicate that such tax is intended to be in addition to other funds
that may be reasonably available for such capital projects.
(2) The legislative authority of any county or any city that
plans under RCW 36.70A.040(1) may impose an additional excise tax on
each sale of real property in the unincorporated areas of the county
for the county tax and in the corporate limits of the city for the
city tax at a rate not exceeding one -quarter of one percent of the
selling price. Any county choosing to plan under RCW 36.70A.040(2)
and anv city within such a county may only adopt an ordinance
imposing the excise tax authorized by this section if the ordinance
is first authorized by a proposition approved by a majority of the
voters of the taxing district voting on the proposition at a general
election held within the district or at a special election within the
taxing district called by the district for the purpose of submitting
such proposition to the voters.
(3) Revenues generated from the tax imposed under subsection (2)
of this section shall be used by such counties and cities solely for
financing capital projects specified in a capital facilities plan
element of a comprehensive plan. However, revenues (a) pledged by
such counties and cities to debt retirement prior to March 1, 1992,
may continue to be used for that purpose until the original debt for
which the revenues were pledged is retired, or (b) committed prior to
March 1, 1992, by such counties or cities to a project may continue
to be used for that purpose until the project is completed.
(4) Revenues generated by the tax imposed by this section shall
be deposited in a separate account.
(5) As used in this section, "city" means any city or town and
"capital project" means those public works projects of a local
government for planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
repair, replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets,
roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, traffic
signals, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer
systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair,
rehabilitation, or improvement of parks.
(6) When the governor files a notice of noncompliance under RCW
36.70A.340 with the secretary of state and the appropriate county or
city, the county or city's authority to impose the additional excise
http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/rcw/rcw%20°/`2082%20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002
Page 2 of 2
tax under this section shall be temporarily rescinded until the
governor files a subsequent notice rescinding the notice of
noncompliance.
[1992 c 221 § 3; 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 33; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 § 38.1
NOTES:
Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1992 c 221 § 3
without cognizance of its amendment by 1991 sp.s. c 32 § 33. Both
amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under
RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Sections headings not law --- 1991 sp.s. c 32: See RCW
36.70A.902.
Severability -- Part, section headings not law -- 1990 1st ex.s.
c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.
http://www.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/rcw/rcw%20%2082%20%20title/rcw%20%2082%2... 01 /24/2002
Page 1 of 3
RCW 35.43.040
Authority generally.
Whenever the public interest or convenience may require, the
legislative authority of any city or town may order the whole or any
part of any local improvement including but not restricted to those,
or any combination thereof, listed below to be constructed,
reconstructed, repaired, or renewed and landscaping including but not
restricted to the planting, setting out, cultivating, maintaining,
and renewing of shade or ornamental trees and shrubbery thereon; may
order any and all work to be done necessary for completion thereof;
and may levy and collect special assessments on property specially
benefited thereby to pay the whole or any part of the expense
thereof, viz:
(1) Alleys, avenues, boulevards, lanes, park drives, parkways,
parking facilities, public places, public squares, public streets,
their grading, regrading, planking, replanking, paving; repaving,
macadamizing, remacadamizing, graveling, regraveling, piling,
repiling, capping, recapping, or other improvement; if the management
and control of park drives, parkways, and boulevards is vested in a
board of park commissioners, the plans and specifications for their
improvement must be approved by the board of park commissioners
before their adoption;
(2) Auxiliary water systems;
(3) Auditoriums, field houses, gymnasiums, swimming pools, or
other recreational, playground, museum, cultural, or arts facilities
or structures;
(4) Bridges, culverts, and trestles and approaches thereto;
(5) Bulkheads and retaining walls;
(6) Dikes and embankments;
(7) Drains, sewers, and sewe
sewers shall include as nearly as
can be drained through the trunk
thereto;
r appurtenances which as to trunk
possible all the territory which
sewer and subsewers connected
(8) Escalators or moving sidewalks together with the expense of
operation and maintenance;
(9) Parks and playgrounds;
(10) Sidewalks, curbing, and crosswalks;
http://www.mrse. org/me/rcw/RC W%20%203 5 %20%20TITLE/RC W%20%203 5 %20. %2... 01 /24/2002
Page 2 of 3
(11) Street lighting systems together with the expense of
furnishing electrical energy, maintenance, and operation;
(12) Underground utilities transmission lines;
(13) Water mains, hydrants, and appurtenances which as to trunk
water mains shall include as nearly as possible all the territory in
the zone or district to which water may be distributed from the trunk
water mains through lateral service and distribution mains and
services;
(14) Fences, culverts, syphons, or coverings or any other
feasible safeguards along, in place of, or over open canals or
ditches to protect the public from the hazards thereof;
(15) Roadbeds, trackage, signalization, storage facilities for
rolling stock, overhead and underground wiring, and any other
stationary equipment reasonably necessary for the operation of an
electrified public streetcar line;
(16) Systems of surface, underground, or overhead railways,
tramways, buses, or any other means of local transportation except
taxis, and including passenger, terminal, station parking, and
related facilities and properties; and such other facilities as may
be necessary for passenger and vehicular access to and from such
terminal, station, parking, and related facilities and properties,
together with all lands, rights of way, property, equipment, and
accessories necessary for such systems and facilities;
(17) Convention center facilities or structures in cities
incorporated before January 1, 1982, with a population over sixty
thousand located in a county with a population over one million,
other than the city of Seattle. Assessments for purposes of
convention center facilities or structures may be levied only to the
extent necessary to cover a funding shortfall that occurs when funds
received from special excise taxes imposed pursuant to chapter 67.28
RCW are insufficient to fund the annual debt service for such
facilities or structures, and may not be levied on property
exclusively maintained as single-family or multifamily permanent
residences whether they are rented, leased, or owner occupied; and
(18) Programs of aquatic plant control, lake or river
restoration, or water quality enhancement. Such programs shall
identify all the area of any lake or -river which will be improved and
shall include the adjacent waterfront property specially benefited by
such programs of improvements. Assessments may be levied only on
waterfront property including any waterfront property owned by the
department of natural resources or any other state agency. Notice of
an assessment on a private leasehold in public property shall comply
http ://www.mrsc. org/mc/rcw/RC W%20%203 5 %20%20TITLE/RC W%20%203 5 %20. %2... 01 /24/2002
Page 3 of 3
with provisions of chapter 79.44 RCW. Programs under this subsection
shall extend for a term of not more than five years.
[1997 c 452 § 16; 1989 c 277 § 1; 1985 c 397 § 1; 1983 c 291 § 1; 1981 c 17 § 1;
1969 ex.s. c 258 § 1; 1965 c 7 § 35.43.040. Prior: 1959 c 75 § 1; 1957 c 144 § 2;
prior: (i) 1911 c 98 § 1; RRS § 9352. (ii) 1945 c 190 § 1, part; 1915 c 168 § 6,
part; 1913 c 131 § 1, part; 1911 c 98 § 6, part; Rem. Supp. 1945 § 9357, part.
(iii) 1911 c 98 § 15; RRS § 9367. (iv) 1911 c 98 § 58, part; RRS § 9411, part.]
NOTES:
Intent -- Severability -- 1997 c 452: See notes following RCW
67.28.080.
Savings -- 1997 c 452: See note following RCW 67.28.181.
Authority supplemental -- Severability -- 1985 c 397: See RCW
35.51.900 and 35.51.901.
http : //www.mrsc. org/mc/rcw/RC W %20%203 5 °/`20%20TITLE/RC W %20%203 5 %20. %2... 01 /24/2002
Facilities Maintenance Issues
Primary Focus:
Upkeep and Renovation of City Buildings
Maintenance
Year Sq. Footage Worker FTE's Custodial Total
FTE's FTE's
1990
180,000
4
4.5
8.5
2002
2759000
4
7
11
2003
275,000
3
6
9
The amount of building square footage has increase by
52%, while staffing levels remain essentially at the same
level in 1990.
Last years budget cuts will defer maintenance on
buildings and allow the City's assets to deteriorate slowly
requiring a higher level of spending in later years.
Reduction in staff will hamper overall City operations
since staff will not be able to respond to building user
needs.
Buildings Owned
By The City of Edmonds
Name
Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
Public Safety Complex
33,000
City Hall
34,074
Frances Anderson Center
55,000
Library & Plaza Room
19,520
Public Works O & M Center
28,000
South County Senior Center
28,059
Fire Station #16
4,742
Fire Station #17
9,800
Fire Station #20
6,400
"Old" Public Works
14,100
Cemetery
759
City Park Maintenance Building
4,268
City Park Out -building
600
Edmonds Historical Museum
3,910
Chamber of Commerce Log Cabin
372
Wade James Theatre
6,289
Meadowdale Clubhouse
3,950
Boys & Girls Club & Storage Building
6,856
Civic Center Grandstand
9,200
Yost Pool
4,664
Fishing Pier
1,200
Total Area Maintained
274,763 s.f.
N
O
N
d
L
f+
Q
K
W
4)
v
C
4)
C
N
4)
LL
r
r
Co
CO)
C
O
cc
U) 00
a)
LL
V-
o —
V
(D� 00
ido
►2
ca
E
cc
Q
A
E LL
r
m
m
Q.
-405W
N
O
O
N
I _
O
O
N
O
I
O
N
0)
co
rn
LO
rn
rn
. I I 0)
O
r
—
I
� r
t _
r O
O
i O
O O O O O O O O CD 0 O O
O O O O O O O O O
CD
co cOo 't N O coo (OD It N
;unowd
Ln
M
Ln
(fl
co
m cn
C c:
m p
a)
C
� 7
4.1
c
a) a)
az C:
a�
w c�
a E2
Q Q
Papital Improvements Program
Buildings Maintenance- Fund 116
Projects for 2003-2008
PROJECT NAME
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
ADA Im rovements- City Wide
$5,000
$5,000
$8,000
Anderson Center Boiler Room Asbestos Abatement
$30,000
Anderson Center Enta Door Replacement
$15,000
Anderson Center Exterior Painting
$25,000
Anderson Center Exterior Siding Replacement
$25 000
Anderson Center Interior Paintin
$10,000
Anderson Center Duct Replacement
225,000
Boys & Girls Club Electrical Service
$10,000
Boys & Girls Club Exterior Paintinq
$3,000
Boys and Girls Club Roof
$25,000
Civic Center Stadium Paintin /Roof
$7,500
$20,000
Fire Station #20 Lighting
Fire Station #20 Furnace Wall
$1,000
$8,000
Fire Station #20 Exterior Painting
$1,000
$10,000
Fire Station #20 Roof Replacement
$30,000
Library AC Replacement
$50,000
Library Entry Door (Carry-over 2002
$23,000
Libraa Central Heatin2 Replacement
$200,000
Libra Plaza Door Replacement & Wood F
$7,000
Library Plaza Room Carpet (Carry-over 20
$10,000
Libra Plaza Windows Failed Seals
$10,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Restroom Upgradf
$3,000
Meadowdale Clubhouse Misc
$12 000
Museum Brick Repair
$30,000
Museum Carpet Replacement
$3,000
Museum Exterior Trim Paintinq
$1,000
Park Maintenance BIdq Ext. Painting
$3,000
Public Safe!y Complex Exterior Si na a
$4 000
Public Safety Complex HVAC Upgrade
$8,000
Public Safety Complex Painting
$8,000
Public Safe!Complex Soffit Installation
$10,000
$18,000
Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maint.
$5,0001
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Wade James Theater Gutter Replacement
$8,000
Wade James Theater Roof Replacement
$18,000
Yost Pool Exterior Lighting
$2,000
Yost Pool Gutter Replacement
$4,000
Yost Pool Buildin Misc
$5,000
$389,500
$73,000
$47,000
$51,000
$38,000
Total Facilities Projects $132,000
Revenues and Cash Balances 2003-2008
Beginning Cash Balance $220000
Interest Earnings $1,000
$145 600
-$186 550
-$202,950
-$193,350
-$187,750
$750
$0
$0
$0
$0
Transfer from Gen Fund #001
$56,600
$56,600
$56,600
$56,600
$56,600
$56,600
Total Revenues
$277,600
$202,950
-$129,950
-$146,350
-$136,750
-$131,150
Total Facilities Projects
$132,0001
$389,500
$73,000
$47,000
$51,000
$38,000
Ending Cash Balance
$145,600
-$186,550
-$202,950
-$193,350
-$187,750
-$169,150
Exceldata\Facility\CIP 2003 Bldg. Maint 116 Fund