Docstoc

BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERCER ISLAND_ WA

Document Sample
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERCER ISLAND_ WA Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                                        AB 4193
                              BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL                                         June 4, 2007
                               CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, WA                                       Regular Business


CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS STRATEGIES                          Proposed Council Action:
FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
                                                           Staff briefing. No action required.


DEPARTMENT OF                              Parks and Recreation, (Peter M. Mayer, Director)

COUNCIL LIAISON                            n/a

EXHIBITS                                   1. Council's Financial Guiding Principles
                                           2. LB Park Maintenance & Operations Highlights 2004-07
                                           3. Luther Burbank Park Operation, Maintenance and Park Master
                                              Planning (2007-08 Biennial Budget)
                                           4. Probable Cost of Construction Memo- Luther Burbank Park
                                              Master Plan (March 2006)
                                           5. Draft Phasing Strategy- Luther Burbank Park (April 2006)
                                           6. Park and Recreation Plan 2007-2012- Action Plan
                                           7. Cost Summary of Park Plans, Projects and Initiatives
                                           8. CIP Management and Budget Policy
                                           9. Revenue Tool Kit
                                           10. King County Parks Levies Fact Sheet
                                           11. King County EMS Levy Information
                                           12. ST2/Roads and Transit Sales Tax Vote

APPROVED BY CITY MANAGER


                           AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE                       $           n/a
                           AMOUNT BUDGETED                             $           n/a
                           APPROPRIATION REQUIRED                      $           n/a


SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
At the Council’s January 2007 retreat, staff presented a summary of completed projects in Luther Burbank
Park, (both funded and unfunded), along with phase-in strategies for park improvements. The City Manager
indicated that the Council needed to determine the pace of implementation they wished to pursue in
completing the Park’s 20-year master plan, and how to fund its implementation. He also noted the need to
develop a strategy for replacing the operation and maintenance (O&M) funding levy which is due to expire
at the end of 2009 (six year levy approved in November 2003). The following agreement was reached:
       Agreement: Councilmember Pearman recommended, and the Council concurred, that by the end of 2007
       they would have a “grand parks plan.” This plan would be a holistic approach to capital and operations funding
       as well as an implementation plan for all Mercer Island parks. Links to potential funding sources would also be
       an element of this plan. Developing the parks plan would be added to the work plan for 2007.

In addition, Council reached agreement on funding strategies for major City projects, including Luther
Burbank and other parks:
                                                 Page 1
       Luther Burbank Master        In 2007, develop holistic capital and O&M funding plan for all
       Plan and O&M                 Mercer Island parks (that includes replacement of Luther
                                    Burbank O&M levy dollars in 2010).

Where to from here?
The June 4th Council Meeting is intended to provide a detailed background on park planning efforts and
investments, identified park improvements, and financing strategies. Staff intends to brief the Council on
these issues, address clarifying questions, and capture discussion points to be pursued at the June 16th
Mini-Planning Session. This Mini-Planning Session will provide a venue for a more in-depth discussion of a
parks improvement and investment strategy.

Assumptions
As staff prepared a summary of the park system’s funding needs, several assumptions were made:
   • The City will maintain current levels of service (LOS) for all parks and open space areas- consistent
        with Council direction at their January planning session;
   • General Fund and Beautification Fund contributions for maintenance and operations of parks,
        ballfields and I-90 properties will continue at approximately their current levels;
   • Park projects already identified and matched with funding sources in the Six Year Parks CIP will
        continue to be supported and funded;
   • Past guidance and policy action embraces the notion that when the City has taken on a major new
        asset, new stable ongoing revenue sources are needed to support any additional operations and
        maintenance costs.
   • Staff shall identify funding alternatives to implement master planned capital improvements, new
        initiatives and their resulting operations and maintenance implications consistent with the Financial
        Guiding Principles approved by the Council at their January 2007 Planning Session (Exhibit 1).

As a result of the guidance received at the January Council retreat, staff has prepared an accounting and
summary of budgetary and park and recreation planning tools. These tools identify short and long-range
park improvements, prescribe vegetation and forest management activities, highlight ballfield development
needs and desired trail investments. Together, these planning documents assist the City in developing a
more “holistic capital and operations/maintenance funding plan” for the park system. Documents
referenced include:
      • Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Plan (1996)
      • Pioneer Park Master Plan (2001)
      • Mercerdale Park Master Plan (2000)
      • Pioneer Park Forest Management Plan (2003)
      • Homestead Field Master Plan (2003)
      • Open Space Vegetation Plan (2004)
      • Luther Burbank Park Master Plan (2006)
      • Evans-McDonough City Budget Survey Summary Report (2004 and 2006)
      • Park and Recreation Plan (2007)
      • Ballfield Use Analysis (2006-07)
      • City of Mercer Island 2007-08 Budget
      • Island Crest Park Master Plan (pending- 2007)


2004 Luther Burbank Park Levy (UNFUNDED AFTER 2009)
During the initial period of transition from King County to the City, the City tested a number of different
maintenance service levels. Upon receiving direction from Council regarding levels of service, staff
prepared a multi-year capital improvement plan with an estimate of annual operating costs. These budget
projections were used to prepare proposals for funding ongoing Luther Burbank costs into the long term

                                                    Page 2
future – a property tax levy proposition. Past guidance and policy action embraced the notion that when the
City has taken on a major new asset, stable ongoing revenue sources are needed to support them. Staff
estimated ongoing operations and maintenance at $300,000 with an additional $100,000 needed each year
in minor capital repairs and replacements. Upon further discussion, an additional $15,000 per year for
Upper Luther Burbank Park was added for operations and maintenance. In November 2003, voters
approved a property tax levy increase of $415,000 (with inflation adjusters) for the specific purpose of
paying for existing and future expenses to maintain and operate upper and lower Luther Burbank Park at
prescribed levels of service for a period of six years. In 2004 staff increased their maintenance frequencies
at high impact areas of the park and pursued the implementation of the capital maintenance and repair plan.
A replacement levy is required to continue routine maintenance and operations of the park. A summary of
improvements is provided as Exhibit 2.

PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan (1996)- (MOSTLY COMPLETED- STATUS REPORT PENDING)
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan has guided recreational and non-motorized transportation trail
development over the past 11 years. In 1995, the City initiated a Facility Planning process to further refine
and focus the development of alternatives to the automobile which have included a variety of trails. Along
with facility recommendations and design standards, it includes suggestions for promotion, interagency and
interdepartmental cooperation, increased education, and enforcement programs. The Plan focused on
encouraging and enhancing both recreation and utility use by upgrading the pedestrian and bicycle system
primarily through improvements to the on-street program. The City Council, the Road and Trails Board, City
staff, interested citizens and consultants worked together to develop a Facility Plan that has provided the
backbone of the community’s trail system. Adopted on July 15, 1996, the City Council authorized
implementation of the Plan at an estimated cost of $441,500 to support 47 separate projects (AB3080).
Since that time, the majority of the projects have been implemented. A review of the 1996 Plan, including
progress to-date, next steps and future planning will be the topic of a future Council meeting.

Pioneer Park Master Plan (2001) (COMPLETED- ONGOING ANNUAL TRAIL MAINTENANCE)
In the Fall of 2000, the Mercer Island Open Space Conservancy Trust and the City of Mercer Island Parks
and Recreation Department initiated the development of a long-term Master Plan for improvements to
Pioneer Park. This process was driven by a commitment to proper stewardship of this unique resource.
The planning team began the process by carefully formulating a program of park elements and
improvements that would provide for reasonable public access while protecting the long-term health of the
resource. Much discussion focused on the role of the open space in the community, the role of the Trust as
stewards of this property, and on the suitability of adding new park elements to a predominantly undisturbed
forest setting.

The purpose of the Master Plan was to address physical improvements that would improve access and
enhance public use of the park. The subsequent development of a forest management plan for the park
focused on the management of trees and vegetation. The combination of these plans has helped ensure
that Pioneer Park remains a place of natural beauty for generations of Island residents to enjoy.

The final Master Plan provided recommendations for trail design, entry and roadway improvements,
viewpoint improvements, park furniture, planting and signing in each of the three quadrants of the park. On
October 15, 2001 (AB3818), the City Council approved funding for these capital improvements costing
$365,673 which were subsequently implemented in 2002.

Mercerdale Park Master Plan (2000) (COMPLETED)
The original master plan was developed by MacLeod Reckord Landscape Architects and was approved by
the City Council in 1989. The plan was based on the recommendations of the Mercerdale Task Force and
established by the City Council on June 13, 1988 to:

                                                  Page 3
       Instruct the City Manager, working with the Park and Community Activities Board, to develop
       alternative concept designs consistent with the commitment to retain Mercerdale as public
       land and develop it as a naturally landscaped park with open space, trails, an area for
       people to enjoy as a quiet spot, some play areas for children and public plaza as a focal
       point that invites interaction with the Central Business District. The planning effort should
       include the athletic use of the fields, a short-term or interim use and not preclude future use
       of the site for elderly housing, senior or community centers (should the need arise) or
       current use of the site by the thrift shop and recycling center (City Council motion of June
       13, 1988)
This original vision was revisited and amended in 2000 as recited below. The City pursued a management
strategy that complied with the intent of the motion with the development of park facilities at the south end of
the business district. The native garden, adjacent to the recycling center and the skateboard facility were
two significant additions to the park since its dedication on November 2, 1990. The proposed revisions to
the master plan reflected four noticeable changes from the 1989 Plan: 1) removal of informal amphitheater;
; 2) relocation of children’s play area; 3) elimination of formal garden along SE 32nd street ; and 4) the
development of a wetland garden.
The proposed revisions were to provide additional amenities that enhance the enjoyment of the park,
maintain its integrity and provide a plan that could be implemented over the next several years.
The Revised Master Plan was designed to improve the infrastructure of the park. The most visually
significant improvement was the proposed children’s play area and wetland garden. The Mercer Island
Preschool Association (MIPA) addressed the City Council on December 6, 1999, supporting the
development of the children’s play area. The association representative informed the Council that they had
designated the effort as a “Millennium Pride Project” and planned to raise sufficient funds to complete the
development of the play area for the community. Staff would work closely with the MIPA in designing and
developing the play area. Subsequently, on February 7, 2000, Council
       Approve(d) the Mercerdale Park Master Plan as presented and authorize(d) staff to proceed
       with the proposed improvements as approved in the 1999-2000 budget; and confirm that the
       City will continue to retain Mercerdale as a public land and continue to develop it as a
       naturally landscaped park with open space, trails, an area for people to enjoy as a quiet
       spot, some play areas for children and a public plaza as a focal point that invites interaction
       with the Town Center, including the current use of the Thrift Shop and recycling center.

On June 18, 2001, Council authorized staff to proceed with efforts to create the children’s play area,
improve and expand the skate park and begin design of a veteran’s recognition project intended to
memorialize veterans. (AB 3585)

The Mercerdale Park Children’s Play Area and Skate Park project included the creation and development of
a new play area that included a large and a small play structure, two swing sets, spring toys, play area
border with safety surfacing, brick walkway, park furniture and public art panel. In addition, repairs were
conducted to the existing skate park and a new expanded skating area with a variety of elements was
created. Significant drainage, irrigation, pathway and landscaping improvements were also made. These
improvements were completed and dedicated on September 11, 2002 at a cost of $477,102. The Veteran’s
Recognition Project evolved over a four year period into a pergola structure that the artist, Richard
Frombach, named “Standing Strong” It was completed and dedicated on May 30, 2005 at a cost of
$62,500.

Pioneer Park Forest Management Plan (2003) (ONGOING)
The Pioneer Park Forest Management Plan was adopted by the Open Space Conservancy Trust at its
November 6th, 2003 meeting. It was approved subsequently by the Mercer Island City Council on
December 15th, 2003. (AB3818)


                                                    Page 4
The Open Space Conservancy Trust was established by an ordinance of the City of Mercer Island in 1992.
The purpose of the Trust, according to the ordinance, is: to receive and hold open space properties in
perpetuity, to protect, maintain and preserve these properties, and to insure that the development and use
of the properties are consistent and compatible with the purposes of the Trust. The ordinance defines an
open space property as a property with potential natural or scenic resources that has been reserved by
Mercer Island City Council for passive and low impact forms of use, such as walking, jogging and
picnicking. In 2003, the Trust adopted the following mission statement:

       “The Mercer Island Open Space Conservancy Trust is a board of citizen volunteers appointed by the
       City Council to oversee open space properties placed in the Trust as passive, low-impact
       recreational open space. The Trust manages these properties to protect, maintain and preserve
       them as natural, scenic and recreational resources, maintaining all their ecological, scenic,
       aesthetic, scientific, and educational attributes for the current and future residents of Mercer Island”.

In 1994, Council approved the document called Policies for Protecting, Maintaining and Preserving Mercer
Island Open Space Conservancy Trust Properties. That document provided direction for managing the park,
including an extensive section called Pioneer Park Site Management Plan. It has been the guiding
document for forest management in Pioneer Park. This new plan retains, restates and expands upon the
goals and objectives outlined in that document.

The Trust Board has expanded on the goals for forest management within the park. The Board reviewed the
assumptions that would underlie any plan and it looked at alternative management scenarios for the park. It
considered how criteria for a sustainable urban forest should be applied. Twelve goals were established
impacting the long-term condition of the park. The Trust Board, City Staff and City Council adopted a
strategy that relies predominantly on native regeneration but also incorporates some conifer planting to
direct succession toward a more evergreen forest.

The Trust Board’s vision for Pioneer Park is to achieve the complexity and character that can be found in
native forests uninfluenced by urbanization. Therefore, conifer trees and evergreen understory will be
favored in the overall strategy. Natural regeneration of native plants will be encouraged. Since natural
regeneration is abundant, the main management tool will be controlling vegetation that competes with
desired native vegetation. Fostering spontaneously generated native vegetation is more effective than
widespread planting activities. Nevertheless, conifer planting will occur where natural regeneration is weak
or absent. To guide plan implementation, a set of priority projects were outlined with initial cost estimates
spread out over a 10 year period equating to $546,114. Since plan adoption, the City Council has
appropriated approximately $50-55,000 per year toward these projects.


Homestead Field Master Plan (2003) (UNFUNDED)
The City’s 2001-2002 CIP was built with direction from the City Council, beginning with discussions of
priorities at their annual retreat held in March 2000. Originally scheduled for 2004, renovation of the
Homestead athletic field was given a higher priority by City Council and was then scheduled to be
completed in 2002. In 2001, City staff completed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to invite
interested consultants to submit their qualifications for this and other City projects. At the conclusion of a
competitive process, City staff retained Bruce Dees & Associates, a landscape architecture firm specializing
in athletic facility and park design to work on the project.
In coordination with the renovation project, City staff felt it was prudent to engage regular users of the park
as well as residents of the Homestead neighborhood in a visioning process intended to develop a master
plan for the park. A citizen’s advisory committee, made up of representatives from the high school girls’
softball booster club, Mercer Island School District, a neighbor of the park, the Mercer Island Police
Department, Mercer Island Youth Soccer Association, and Park & Recreation Department was formed.


                                                    Page 5
The advisory committee met a total of six times as the master plan was developed. There were also two
public meetings held to gather input and feedback from interested neighbors. The first meeting was at the
beginning of the master-planning phase to inform the public of the proposed improvements and to solicit
input before the planning began. The second meeting was held at the end of the master planning process
to receive feedback on the proposed plan.
At its May 6, 2002 meeting the Council opted to purse field drainage improvements valued at $494,722 but
did not pursue improvements associated with the proposed master plan (AB3659). In August 2002, a newly
formed Parks and Recreation Council Subcommittee was briefed on Mercer Island Softball Booster’s Club’s
park improvement request (AB 3694). Consensus was achieved that the master plan should return to the
full City Council with the following items included in it: hooded backstops, portable bleachers, and the
dashed lines along ADA accessible ramps. In addition, the Committee decided that covered dugouts and
net along the north side of the north ball field would not be included.
On August 4, 2003, Staff returned to the full Council with the recommendations. Council agreed with the
Subcommittee and incorporated the items into a revised Master Plan (AB 3795). The total anticipated
expenditure with these additions represented approximately $412,000 in improvements.


Open Space Vegetation Plan (2004) (ONGOING)
In late 2002, the City’s vegetation management efforts in parks, open spaces and rights-of-way became an
issue of debate and community interest.

City staff developed a implementation strategy based on the public benefits of each park and open space
property. The vegetation in the City’s parks and open spaces provides multiple benefits to the public.
Some of these benefits are quantifiable functions, like erosion control, storm water buffering, pollution
abatement and recreation. Other benefits, such as aesthetic, design and wildlife functions are more
subjective in their value. Nevertheless, we know that if the vegetation is left unmanaged, these benefits
decrease. Invasive plants crowd out native vegetation and prevent new trees from replacing those that are
lost over time. The result is fewer trees, more thickets of blackberry and carpets of ivy.

The Open Space Vegetation Plan concludes that open space properties are losing trees and native
vegetation from the rampant growth of invasive, non-native plants. This trend is expected to cause
significant additional losses in the next twenty years. This will result in the decline of the benefits that open
space properties currently provide to the public. The City Council was presented the Plan on October 4,
2004 (AB3922) and has received subsequent annual briefings on February 6, 2006 (AB4053) and May 7,
2007 (AB 4173).

The Plan identified the restoration of Pioneer Park as the highest priority, which calls for the gradual
improvement of the forest condition. Those parks identified as second priority sites (Mercerdale Hillside,
Upper Luther Burbank Park, Island Crest Park, Ellis Pond, SE 53rd Open Space) would maintain their
current vegetation quality over the long term. Third priority sites would receive a level of work that would
retard the loss of forest cover. In 2004, Council adopted a budget with $200,000 per year for this level of
service. Subsequently in each biennium, Council allocated additional funding to elevate the level of service
for third priority sites to at least a Level of Service B (with the goal to maintain current vegetation quality). A
total of $129,553 was targeted for this purpose. This plan assumes that the Pioneer Park Forest
Management Plan remains the guiding document for that property and is funded accordingly. Therefore,
Pioneer Park is not part of this Plan.


Luther Burbank Park Master Plan (2006) (ONGOING)
On January 1, 2003, King County’s Luther Burbank Park was transferred to the City of Mercer Island. In
November 2003, voters approved a new six year property tax increase to support operations, maintenance
and minor capital improvements.
                                                      Page 6
During its 2004 Retreat, the City Council considered how best to undertake planning for the future of Luther
Burbank Park. As a result of this discussion, a Community Visioning process was undertaken to determine
the future of the park. A special 2-hour Council study session provided an opportunity to discuss “big
picture” planning parameters for the park enabling the Council to identify its priorities before beginning a
large-scale community visioning process. An inventory of the park (i.e. opportunities and constraints)
conducted by a landscape architectural firm, The Berger Partnership, facilitated the development of six firm
Council-driven parameters that helped set the stage for further community involvement (Exhibit 3).

Over a three month period from November 2004 to January 2005, the Mercer Island community participated
in an extensive Community Visioning Process. As a result of this initial process, several recommendations
were made to the City Council:
    1) Pursue conducting a park master planning process using the Guidelines as a starting point;
    2) Continue with a fully open and transparent public process
    3) Recruit a younger crowd – the Island’s “future” – to participate in future planning
    4) Determine how a future vote might best be carried out
    5) Recognize the current broad support for a continued levy
    6) Implement a comprehensive Luther Burbank communication program right away

Because of the success of the Community Design Guidelines process, a subsequent park master planning
effort was authorized by the City Council in September 2005. A public involvement specialist, Norton-
Arnold & Company, was teamed up with landscape and environmental design experts, The Berger
Partnership and Anchor Environmental, to facilitate the planning process with City staff.

The process allowed for detailed analysis and continued public discussion on the future of Luther Burbank,
and provided a continued venue for expression of strong community interest. The eight-month long master
planning process included 15 opportunities for public involvement.

Three planning phases characterized the master planning process:
   1) Information gathering/concept design development
   2) Review of concept designs
   3) Review of preferred concept design

The overall mission of the master plan was 1) to identify where the preferred elements of the Design
Guidelines can be implemented over a 20 year horizon, and 2) at what capital and operational cost.

The probable cost of construction associated with the master plan is $8,052,095, excluding construction
mark-ups, soft costs, contingencies, and buildings (including new beach facility, shell house and boiler
building improvements) (Exhibit 4) A draft phasing strategy has been proposed by the consultant team
(Exhibit 5) that identifies a logical structure in which phasing of projects over time could occur.

Park and Recreation Plan (2007) (ONGOING)
A significant resource in crafting a longer term parks financing strategy is the recently adopted (February
2007) six year Parks and Recreation Plan. This plan replaced the 1991 Comprehensive Park, Recreation,
Open Space, Arts, and Trails Plan. The new plan inventories park properties, identifies capital needs,
prescribes stewardship activities and guides the City in establishing goals and objectives (Exhibit 6).

Ballfield Use Analysis (2006-07) (UNFUNDED)
In the fall of 2006, a systematic study of the community’s outdoor athletic venues was commenced. The
purpose is to assess current usage and future demands. Results will guide the City in determining how to
best manage and schedule the use of existing fields. This may include field improvements and
modifications to scheduling policies. Preliminary results have been incorporated into the costing data
included as Exhibit 7.
                                                   Page 7
Island Crest Park Master Plan (PENDING - 2007)
A 2007-08 CIP project calls for a master planning process of Island Crest Park. This is one of two
remaining parks without a master plan. This process is anticipated to get underway in the fall/winter of
2007.

ESTIMATED COSTS AND FINANCING STRATEGIES
A summary of park plans and initiatives is provided as Exhibit 7. Several “themes” and their associated
financing options are summarized in a table below. The “themes” and financing options are for
illustrative purposes only to help facilitate discussion. The actual “theme” and financing strategy(ies)
desired will be deliberated upon at the Council’s Mini-Planning Session.

Costs associated with planned capital investments and their incremental operational and maintenance
expenses are noted. Costing data does NOT include construction mark-ups, soft costs, and contingencies.
These costs, including escalation, will be calculated after determining a financing strategy(ies) and
identifying a ballot schedule.

Staff have identified four primary financing tools that Council may wish to consider in financing any/all of the
park projects. A brief description of each of the themes and financing strategies is noted below:

   •   “Implement Current Plans”- enables implementation of existing/pending park master plans and
       supports trail development in the recently acquired Engstrom Open Space. Incremental O&M
       included;
   •   “Active Recreation Emphasis”- supports the improvement/development of recreation venues for
       active sports and recreation, including a new acquisition for ballfield development. Incremental O&M
       included;
   •   “Conservation Initiative”- includes aggressive acquisition strategies while developing additional trail
       connections and implements the Luther Burbank Park master plan. Incremental O&M included;
   •   “Little of Everything”- pursues the implementation of selected projects identified in existing/pending
       park master plans, including more limited trail development and new acquisitions. Incremental O&M
       included;
   •   “The Holiday Tree”- includes all improvements identified in existing/pending park master plans as
       well as acquiring all proposed properties.




                                                    Page 8
Insert spreadsheet




                     Page 9
Page 10
To finance these new capital improvements/acquisitions and any corresponding operations and
maintenance costs, there are three viable options in light of the Financial Guiding Principles accepted by the
Council at their January 2007 Planning Session. When taking on a major new asset, the City’s past
practice has been to find new stable ongoing revenue sources to support any additional operations and
maintenance costs. The CIP Management and Budget Policy is attached as Exhibit 8.

   1) Voted (i.e. UTGO) debt (20 years)
   2) “Original flavor” levy lid lift (20 years or permanent)
   3) “Alternate” levy lid lift (6 years only)

Each of these options is described below:

                         Unlimited Tax G.O. Debt      Levy Lid Lift (Original)    Levy Lid Lift (Alternate)
       Purpose          Any capital purpose         Any operating or capital     Any operating or capital
                                                    purpose; supplanting         purpose; no supplanting
                                                    allowed                      allowed

       Length of Time Typically 20 years            No limit unless proceeds     6 years
                                                    used to pay debt service

       Restrictions     Arbitrage regulations apply 1% annual growth limit       No inflationary limit
                        for bond issues of $5.0M or
                        more

       Authorization    Voter approval required     Voter approval required      Voter approval required


Other financing options were identified in the Revenue Tool Kit presented to the Council at their January
2007 Planning Session (Exhibit 9); however, their use was precluded by the Financial Guiding Principles
noted above. For example, conspicuously missing from the above list of options is banked capacity—the
use of which is limited to maintaining existing service levels per the Financial Guiding Principles. In
addition, streamlined sales tax revenue, which the City will begin receiving in July 2008, wasn’t noted as a
financing option, because this revenue source is needed to offset the projected decline in development-
related fees and sales tax revenues beginning in the second half of 2008.

From these three options, two financing strategies have been identified to pay for these new capital
improvements, and two financing strategies have been identified to cover the additional operations and
maintenance costs:

   1) 20 year voted debt (annual debt service) – This is the traditional financing approach for major
      general government capital improvements/acquisitions. A voted property tax increase (for 20 years)
      is used to pay the debt service (principal and interest) on the bonds.

   2) 20 year capital lid lift (“pay as you go”) – Instead of issuing debt, the City could effectively
      establish a “sinking fund” or “pay as you go” approach to support capital improvements as sufficient
      funding is accumulated.

   3) 6 year + CPI operations/maintenance lid lift – This is what the current Luther Burbank Park
      operations and maintenance levy is. The primary advantage of this financing strategy is the ability to
      cover actual annual inflationary increases over the six year levy period. The primary drawback,
      however, is the requirement to go back to the voters once every six years.

   4) Permanent operations/maintenance lid lift – The appeal of this kind of levy lid lift is the one time
      requirement to go to the voters. If approved, it’s permanent. Keeping pace with annual inflationary

                                                    Page 11
       increases given the 1% annual growth limitation per state law is the primary disadvantage. In
       essence, the City would have to rely on the growth of other revenue sources to cover any
       inflationary increases over and above 1%.


Current Taxing Obligations for Mercer Island

Property Taxes
Property Taxes play an essential role in financing the operations of the City of Mercer Island, accounting for
45% of the City's revenue that supports the major activities of the City. In 2007, Mercer Island property
owners will pay a total of $9.8 million in property taxes.

There are two types of property tax collected by the City - levied (regular) and voter approved. The levied
portion may be used for any purpose that the City deems necessary. On Mercer Island, as in most cities,
the property tax levy supports our General Fund–the general operations of the City. Services paid for in the
General Fund include the major activities of the City – police and fire services and maintenance of parks
and roads. The utilities receive no revenue from property taxes since they must be self-supporting through
utility rates.

The second type of property tax collected by the City is dedicated for specific purposes that have
been voted on by the residents. Voter approved taxes in the past have included land for parks and open
space, new fire trucks, and the remodeling of City Hall. These large capital items are financed by general
obligation bonds, typically payable over 20 years. In 2007, voted debt payments supported by taxes amount
to $460,000.

Which agencies get your property tax dollars?
The total property tax bill that a resident pays consists of not only the City levied and voter approved portion
but also the property taxes that other jurisdictions assess on the residents. The City portion of the property
tax bill has totaled less than 20% for the past five years and in 2007 amounts to 16.6% of the total tax bill.
There are 6 other jurisdictions that have taxing authority on Mercer Island. The largest two in 20076, totaling
54.1% of the total tax bill, were the assessments for school funding–the State School Fund at 31.0% and
the Mercer Island School District at 23.1%. King County is the next largest taxing jurisdiction receiving
17.2% of the total property tax bill. The Port of Seattle, King County Library District and the Emergency
Medical Services Levy receive the remainder of the taxes, which amounts to 12.0%. Below is a table of the
taxing jurisdictions and the percentage of each tax dollar that they will receive in 2007.

                                                                       Mill Rate         Percent
                       Mercer Island Tax Rates – 2007
                                                                     (per $1,000)        of Total
            City of Mercer Island                                            1.25306         16.7%
            Mercer Island School District                                    1.72961         23.1%
            State Schools                                                    2.32535         31.0%
            King County                                                      1.28956         17.2%
            King County Library District                                      .46183          6.2%
            Emergency Medical Services                                        .20621          2.7%
            Port of Seattle                                                   .23158          3.1%
            Total Tax Rate                                                   7.49720        100.0%




                                                   Page 12
Property Tax Levy Rates
If a homeowner on Mercer Island only paid property taxes to the City, how much would that amount to? For
a homeowner with property valued at $900,000, the City's portion of the property tax bill in 2007 would
amount to $1,127. Following is the 2007 property tax breakdown on a $900,000 house on Mercer Island:


                                                                            Tax
                                Mercer Island Taxing Jurisdictions
                                                                           Amount
                          City of Mercer Island                              $ 1,127
                          Mercer Island School District                        1,559
                          State Schools                                        2,092
                          King County                                          1,161
                          King County Library District                           418
                          Emergency Medical Services                             182
                          Port of Seattle                                        209
                          2007 Total                                         $ 6,747

Limits on Property Taxes
Each year the amount of revenue to be raised from property taxes is determined by the City Council based
on forecasted expenditures, other revenue sources, and state law limitations. Previously, Washington State
law limited regular property tax levy increases to 6% of the previous year's levy or the rate of inflation,
whichever was less. The City Council, however, could levy over the rate of inflation with a super majority
vote. Initiative 747, which passed in November 2001, limits regular levy increases to 1% per year (or the
rate of inflation if less than 1%). In 2007, the City raised its regular property tax by 1% in accordance with
the law.

Voted Debt Capacity
For parks and open space facilities, the legal limit for voted debt is $196.0 million, which equals 2.5% of the
City’s total assessed valuation. Subtracting out the related net outstanding debt as of 12/31/06 ($265,604),
the City’s remaining debt capacity for parks and open space facilities is $195.7 million. In other words, the
City has very little debt and, therefore, has preserved almost all of its debt capacity for future parks and
open space facilities. By way of comparison, the City of Kirkland has $8.3 million in net outstanding debt as
of 12/31/06 relative to a legal limit for voted debt of $219.0 million for parks and open space facilities.




                                                    Page 13
Current Financing of Parks and Open Space
Parks and recreation expenditures are funded from a number of sources to support operations and
maintenance, including gifts/donations, user fees, contracts, and the General and Beautification Funds.
Parks maintenance/operations in 2007-08 are budgeted as follows:

                                                      2007
                                                                                       Levy
                      Gen Fund Beaut Fund Contracts                Other        O&M            Capital       Total
Parks (general)       $ 577,012                                                                            $  577,012
Ballfields            $ 239,957                                                                            $  239,957
I-90                            $ 45,000 $  404,000                  33,000                                $  482,000
Luther Burbank Park                                                           $ 234,000            103,000 $  337,000
Upper LB Park                                                                 $ 15,000                     $   15,000
           Subtotals $ 816,969    $   45,000    $   404,000    $     33,000   $ 249,000    $      103,000 $ 1,650,969



                                                      2008
                                                                                          Levy
                      Gen Fund Beaut Fund   Contracts              Fund Bal      O&M             Capital        Total
Parks (general)       $ 602,500                                                                            $     602,500
Ballfields            $ 250,920                                                                            $     250,920
I-90                            $  62,000 $   412,000          $     29,000                                $     503,000
Luther Burbank Park                                                           $ 247,500     $ 105,000      $     352,500
Upper LB Park                                                                 $ 15,000                     $      15,000
           Subtotals $ 853,420    $    62,000   $    412,000   $     29,000   $ 262,500     $ 105,000      $   1,723,920


The Parks and Open Space portion of the CIP has traditionally been funded from a variety of pay-as-you-go
sources, such as general CIP revenue (Real Estate Excise Tax 1 and 2), voter-approved levy and bond
issues, state and local grants, and gifts/donations.

Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) is the 0.5% tax paid by the seller in property transactions. State law restricts
the use of REET for specific capital purposes. REET-1 (the 1st quarter of 1% of the sales price) may be
used for streets, parks, facilities or utilities. REET-2 (the 2nd quarter of 1% of the sales price) may be used
for streets, parks, or utilities, but may not be used for facilities. Neither REET-1 nor REET- 2 may be used
for equipment or technology. 100% of REET 1 is contributed toward the CIP, while approximately 38% of
REET 2 collections are directed into the CIP (62% is allocated to the Street Fund). The table below
identifies the various CIP funding sources.




                                                    Page 14
                       Capital Improvement Program Financing Strategy




Future Ballot Measures
Should Council opt to pursue a financing strategy that entails a ballot measure, other issues slated on
upcoming ballots will be a factor for consideration. Public opinions, other ballot issues and anticipated voter
turn-out are factors affecting the placement of any desired parks and/or open space measure. The
following summarizes known measures on upcoming ballots and the impact on an average Mercer Island
homeowner ($900,000 home value):

Primary (August 21, 2007)
                                           Amount Mercer
                                             per       Island
                   Issue                    $1,000    Impact Duration                    Notes
King County Parks Support Levy                  0.05 $ 45.00 6 years  $108 million over 6 years
King County Parks Expansion Levy                0.05 $ 45.00 6 years  $108 million over 6 years

About the King County Parks Support and Expansion Levies
King County owns and manages more than 25,000 acres of parks and open space and 175 miles of trails —
one of the largest systems in the country – but it experienced a major funding crisis in 2002. With its parks
and facilities threatened with closure, the Parks Division embraced extraordinary change and innovation
and now partially pays its own way (about 24 percent of the division budget) through partnerships,
increased user fees and entrepreneurial ventures.

A County-wide budget crisis led to significant park maintenance reductions, transfers of some parks and
facilities to other jurisdictions, and a shift in focus to regional parks, open space and the regional trail
system. Voters approved a reduced 4.9-cent, four-year operating levy in 2003 to keep King County Parks
open. That levy, which funds more than 55 percent of the parks' operating budget, expires at the end of
2007.

Two companion six-year levies (with inflation adjustors) have been placed on the August 2007 Primary
ballot, a 5-cent King County Parks Support Levy (“Renew, Restore, Preserve”) and a 5-cent “Expanding
Parks and Recreation Opportunities”. More information on these levies is provided as part of Exhibit 10.




                                                   Page 15
General Election (November 6, 2007)
                                                                  Mercer
                                                      Amount      Island
                    Issue                            per $1,000 Impact Duration                     Notes
King County EMS Levy                                        0.30 $ 270.00 6 years $605 million over 6 years
King County Parks Levy (if defeated in primary)          tbd        tbd       tbd                    tbd
Sound Transit 2 (ST2) Sales Tax Increase            .5 increase                   $12.4 billion over 20 years

About the King County EMS Levy
King County funds the area’s Medic One/Emergency Medical System a 6-year EMS levy. The current levy
started in 2002 with a levy rate of $.25 per $1,000 of Assessed Value (AV). The current levy expires in
2007, therefore requiring a reauthorization of the levy for collection beginning in 2008. Under state law, the
County may reauthorize the levy for 6 years, 10 years, or for an indefinite amount of time, at a maximum
rate of $.50 per $1,000 AV. Historically King County has never exceeded $.29 per $1,000 AV, and the
average length of each levy has been 6 years. More information on this levy is provided as Exhibit 11.

About the ST2 Sales Tax Package
Sound Transit 2 would expand the regional mass transit system by adding 50 miles of light rail, improving
commuter rail facilities and increasing express bus service. Sound Transit 2 is part of the Roads & Transit
proposal that will go to voters in November 2007. The Roads & Transit plan addresses the region’s most
pressing road and transit needs for the next 20 years. A more detailed briefing of this package will be
presented by Deputy City Manager Londi Lindell on the evening of June 4th (AB 4192).

The new Roads & Transit capital investments would create assets worth $17.6 billion in 2006 dollars ($10.9
billion for Sound Transit and $6.7 billion for RTID). If voters approve this measure, the typical household
would pay an additional sales tax of $150 a year. The owner of an average vehicle valued at $10,000 would
pay an additional $80. Additional information on ST2 is provide as Exhibit 12.

Special Election (Spring 2008)
                                                               Mercer
                                                   Amount      Island
                  Issue                           per $1,000 Impact Duration                      Notes
MISD Capital and Technology Levy                         0.20 $ 180.00 4 years 2004: .1962-.1874 per $1,000 ($157-$150)
                                                     *Ilustrative purposes only




About the District’s Capital and Technology Levy
A four-year, $4.79 million capital-projects levy for facility and technology improvements passed in 2004 by a
vote of 71.85% which will expire in 2008. School District staff anticipates the 2008 renewal/replacement
request will be larger than the 2004 measure. No further information is available at this time. A four-year,
$37 million operations levy and a one-year, $400,000 school transportation levy passed in 2006.

Other 2008 Ballots
2/5/08 - Special
3/11/08 - Special
4/22/08 - Special
5/20/08 - Special
8/19/08 - Primary
11/4/08 - General




                                                              Page 16
Public Support for Parks
Local support for parks, trails and open space continues to be favorable. The City of Mercer Island
advanced Proposition No. 1 (property tax levy of $415,000 per year for six years to operate and maintain
Luther Burbank Park) on the November 4, 2003 General Election ballot, garnering support from 55.53% of
the voters.

In addition, the past two Budget Surveys (2004 and 2006) conducted by Evans-McDonough have indicated
strong and growing support for parks, trails and open space. Maintaining parks, trail and open space was
ranked 4th out of 11 City services. In 2006, 87% of the respondents rated the maintenance of parks, trails
and open spaces positively- the highest ranked of 11 City services and 2% higher than in the 2004 survey.
In addition, 91% of those responding in 2006 rated the Parks and Recreation Department favorably second
only to the Fire Department (95% favorable).


Recommended Process/Next Steps
The purpose of this presentation is to provide a detailed background on park planning efforts and
investments, identified park improvements, and potential financing strategies. Staff will brief the Council on
these issues, address clarifying questions, and capture discussion points to be pursued at the Mini-Planning
Session.

Sample questions to be addressed at Mini-Planning Session:
      1) What projects and initiatives shall be included in any future ballot measure?
      2) Identify scope (capital and operations and maintenance?) and size (total dollar value) of any
         future levy and/or bond issue
      3) Identify duration of any future levy and/or bond issue
      4) What combination of financing strategies shall be used?
      5) Timing of election- what ballot shall the levy and/or bond appear?
      6) Other questions?

Should Council pursue a future ballot measure staff recommends engaging a public opinion research firm to
sample registered voters of Mercer Island. This would allow a better understanding of the likelihood of
success, and would also test a number of themes and cost thresholds.

RECOMMENDATION
Assistant City Manager/Parks and Recreation Director
MOVE TO:       Staff briefing. No action required. Staff will note additional Council questions for discussion
               at the Mini-Planning Session.




                                                   Page 17
                                                                                             PARKS FUNDING PACKAGES AND FINANCING STRATEGIES                                                                           For Illustrative Purposes Only
                                                                                                                                                                      Financing Tools
              Theme                             Capital          Added O&M                              20 Yr Voted Debt     Prop Tax        20 Yr Capital Lid Lift       Prop Tax    6 year + CPI     Prop Tax     Permanent       Prop Tax
                                              Investment                            Total              (Annual Debt Svc)    % Increase        ("Pay As You Go")          % Increase   O&M Lid Lift    % Increase   O&M Lid Lift    % Increase
Implement Current Plans
                 Luther Burbank Park      $      7,137,595   $       462,108                                                             $                  525,197           6.11%                                $    462,108          5.37%
                            Engstrom      $         50,000   $        10,181                                                             $                    3,679           0.04%                                $     10,181          0.12%
                    Homestead Field       $        454,500   $        81,855                                                             $                   33,443           0.39%                                $     81,855          0.95%
                    Island Crest Park     $      3,655,000   $        14,308                                                             $                  268,941           3.13%                                $     14,308          0.17%
                              TOTAL       $     11,297,095   $       568,452    $   11,865,547                                           $                  831,260           9.67%                                $    568,452          6.61%




Active Recreation Emphasis
                      Homestead Field     $        454,500   $        81,855                       $               36,470        0.42%                                                $     81,855         0.95%
                      Island Crest Park   $      3,655,000   $        14,308                       $              293,287        3.41%                                                $     14,308         0.17%
              South Mercer Playfields     $      4,300,000   $         3,125                       $              345,043        4.01%                                                $      3,125         0.04%
                       New Acquisitions   $     13,354,000   $       325,000                       $            1,071,560       12.46%                                                $    325,000         3.78%
         Other Ballfield Improvements     $        225,000   $           -                         $               18,055        0.21%                                                $        -           0.00%
                                          $     21,988,500   $       424,288    $   22,412,788     $            1,764,414       20.52%                                                $    424,288         4.93%

Conservation Initiative
                Luther Burbank Park       $      7,137,595   $       462,108                                                           $                    525,197           6.11%   $    462,108         5.37%
               Engstrom Open Space        $         50,000   $        10,181                                                           $                      3,679           0.04%   $     10,181         0.12%
                  Trail Development       $      1,662,000   $         6,250                                                           $                    122,293           1.42%   $      6,250         0.07%
                    New Acquisitions      $     24,154,000   $       475,000                       $            1,938,179       22.54% $                        -             0.00%   $    475,000         5.52%
                                          $     33,003,595   $       953,539    $   33,957,134     $            1,938,179       22.54% $                    651,169           7.57%   $    953,539        11.09%


Little of Everything
                Luther Burbank Park       $      7,137,595   $       462,108                       $              572,739        6.66%                                                                             $    462,108          5.37%
               Engstrom Open Space        $         50,000   $        10,181                       $                4,012        0.05%                                                                             $     10,181          0.12%
                      Homestead Field     $        275,000   $        49,500                       $               22,067        0.26%                                                                             $     49,500          0.58%
                      Island Crest Park   $      1,750,000   $         7,700                       $              140,425        1.63%                                                                             $      7,700          0.09%
                    Trail Development     $        412,000   $         1,524                       $               33,060        0.38%                                                                             $      1,524          0.02%
              South Mercer Playfields     $      2,230,000   $         1,142                       $              178,941        2.08%                                                                             $      1,142          0.01%
                       New Acqusitions    $     13,354,000   $       325,000                       $            1,071,560       12.46%                                                                             $    325,000          3.78%
         Other Ballfield Improvements     $        225,000   $           -                         $               18,055        0.21%                                                                             $        -            0.00%
                                          $     25,433,595   $       857,156    $   26,290,751     $            2,040,857       23.73%                                                                             $    857,156          9.97%



The Holiday Tree
                Luther Burbank Park       $      7,137,595   $        462,108                      $              572,739        6.66%                                                $     462,108        5.37%
               Engstrom Open Space        $         50,000   $         10,181                      $                4,012        0.05%                                                $      10,181        0.12%
                      Homestead Field     $        454,500   $         81,810                      $               36,470        0.42%                                                $      81,810        0.95%
                      Island Crest Park   $      3,655,000   $         14,308                      $              293,287        3.41%                                                $      14,308        0.17%
                     Tral Development     $      1,662,000   $          6,250                      $              133,363        1.55%                                                $       6,250        0.07%
              South Mercer Playfields     $      4,300,000   $          3,125                      $              345,043        4.01%                                                $       3,125        0.04%
                      New Acquisitions    $     24,154,000   $        478,500                      $            1,938,179       22.54%                                                $     478,500        5.56%
         Other Ballfield Improvements     $        225,000   $            -                        $               18,055        0.21%                                                $         -          0.00%
                                          $     41,638,095   $      1,056,282   $   42,694,377     $            3,341,148       38.85%                                                $   1,056,282       12.28%




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Page 9
                                               Approved – Council Mini-Planning Session 6-24-06



                         Financial Guiding Principles

General Prioritization of Needs –
 •   Address operating and capital needs according to the Council’s adopted Priorities
     of Government.
 •   Address existing known operating service and capital improvement needs before
     adding new capital assets or services.
 •   Continually review services for efficiency and effectiveness. (Added at 2006 Mini-
     session).


Financing Priorities –

Operating Funds

 •   Maintain reserves at fiscally responsible levels (high, medium, low risk levels?)
 •   Spend unallocated fund balances before acquiring new revenues.
 •   Allocate any yearend General Fund surplus with the following priorities:
      1. First address any deficiencies in Contingency Reserves up to established
         policy levels;
      2. Then apply to starting General Fund balance for succeeding year up to the
         level that eliminates any projected deficits; (Council narrowed to only
         succeeding year at Mini-session.)
      3. Then apply to unfunded capital needs.

 •   Ongoing operating revenues should be applied with the following priority:
      1. Satisfy operating service needs
      2. New operating services needs
      3. Capital expenses

 •   Consider seeking a property tax levy lid lift when the following conditions exist:
     the need for additional revenue is clear and convincing.
      1. There is a consensus among Councilmembers that reallocation of existing
         revenues and/or reducing or eliminating other services is not an acceptable
         solution.
      2. The need for revenue is driven by demands for:
           o maintaining existing service levels for the City’s highest priority services;
               or
           o adding new basic services; or
           o expanding the scope of existing services.


                                         AB 4193
                                         Exhibit 1
                                         Page 18
                                              Approved – Council Mini-Planning Session 6-24-06


 •   Consider using “banked capacity” only under the following conditions:
      1. The need for additional revenue is clear and convincing.
      2. There is a consensus among Councilmembers that reallocation of existing
         revenues and/or reducing or eliminating other services is not an acceptable
         solution.
      3. The need for revenue is driven by demands for maintaining existing service
         levels for the City’s highest priority services (e.g. public safety).

Capital Funds

 •   Acquisition of major new capital assets should generally be funded with new
     revenues.
 •   Ongoing capital revenues should be applied with the following priority:
      1. Maintain or upgrade existing capital assets
      2. Acquire new capital assets

 •   Use debt financing only when the following conditions exist:
      1.   Object of the expenditure is a major new capital asset.
      2.   Object of expenditure can be used by residents/taxpayers in the future.
      3.   There are insufficient existing capital revenues available.
      4.   All the revenue is needed at the same time (i.e. the project cannot be phased
           over time).




                                        AB 4193
                                        Exhibit 1
                                        Page 19
1
                King County Executive Ron Sims’
                  Parks Levy Recommendation
Two companion levies to be placed on August 2007 Primary ballot:

      5¢ King County Parks Support: Renew, Restore, Preserve

      5¢ Expanding Parks & Recreation Opportunities

County Parks Support Levy: 5-cent, six-year levy, with inflation adjustor
Replace current reduced level of maintenance funding                  4.44¢

Restore maintenance levels to pre-2002/budget crisis                 0.56¢

TOTAL                                                                 5.00¢

Expanding Parks & Recreation Opportunities: 5-cent, six-year levy, with
inflation adjustor
King County Open Space and Regional Trails acquisitions          3¢

City Trails and Open Space                                           1¢

Environmental education and conservation programming and             1¢
Related capital and operating support at Woodland Park Zoo
TOTAL                                                                5¢

Companion Levies, Unlinked:
  • Passage of either levy is not pre-conditioned on passage of the other.

County Parks Support Levy:
  • Based on status quo budget; this levy renewal ensures parks stay open
      with increment to restore maintenance levels to pre-2002 budget crisis
      levels.

Expanding Parks & Recreation Opportunities:
   • The 3-cent allocation to King County will be applied to:
         o Protect additional lands, shorelines, and streams within our
            watersheds as open space and ensuring appropriate public access
            to these areas.
         o Expand the County’s regional trail system in accordance with the
            King County Regional Trail Plan by acquiring trail corridors and
            developing key urban trail connections. Trails to be developed
            include:
                   East Lake Sammamish trail
                   Sammamish River Trail connection to East Lake
                   Sammamish Trail
                   Soos Creek Trail
         o Funds may not supplant existing funding.

3/29/2007                           AB 4193
                                    Exhibit 10
                                    Page 46
2
    •   The 1-cent allocation to cities will be allocated through application to the
        Conservation Futures Tax Citizen Oversight Committee, whose mission
        will be expanded for this purpose.
            o Cities or citizen groups may apply for funds.
            o Funds must be matched (grantees must provide not less than
                equivalent value to the amount of the grant)
            o City trail projects must support connections to the regional trail
                system, defined to include both county regional trails and city trails
                that are regional in nature, and may specifically include local trails
                in underserved areas linking to city or county trails that connect to
                regional trails.
            o City open space projects must be consistent with the criteria in the
                current King County Conservation Futures Tax program.
            o Funds may not supplant existing funding.

    •   The 1-cent allocation to the Woodland Park Zoo will be allocated to
        expanding the Zoo’s environmental education and conservation programs,
        and making capital improvements to Zoo facilities, including:
           o Zoo environmental education and conservation programs to be
              expanded include programs such as: School-to-Zoo, Wild Wise,
              Forest Explorers and Zoo Corp; interpretive programs such as
              Willawong Station (interactive bird aviary). Funds could be used for
              technology support, curriculum development, capital, staffing, and
              other tools supporting these educational programs.
           o Capital improvements include green space enhancements on the
              zoo grounds.
           o Funds may not supplant existing funding.

Oversight:
  • Expenditure of funds by the County under these levies should be annually
      reviewed by a citizen’s committee for consistency with the authorizing
      ordinance.
  • Current levy is subject to similar oversight. Click on
      http://www.metrokc.gov/parks/businessplan/ and scroll right-hand menu to
      see report examples.


                                         ###




3/29/2007                              AB 4193
                                       Exhibit 10
                                       Page 47
Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process




     Site Directory                                                                                      Search       » Successful Search
   Public Health                   Tips
   Webpage Directory                    Home » Emergency Medical Services (EMS) » EMS Levy
   Clinic & Office
   Locations
                                     Emergency Medical Services
 For Care Providers
                                     EMS Levy Updates
   For Health Care
   Providers                              Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process
     For Educators
                                          Timeline for the 2008 Medic One/EMS Levy Process
   Health Educators
                                          Draft Proposed Recommendations
   Toolbox
        About Us                          Meeting overviews
   History & Profile                      Schedule of meetings

   Jobs                                   Contact information

   Employee Directory
                                      Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process

      Contact Us

    Public Health                    Medic One
Seattle & King County
999 3rd Ave, Ste. 1200               Our Medic One/EMS system provides life saving service to the residents of
  Seattle, WA 98104                  Seattle and King County. Our regional response model has an international
                                     reputation for innovation and excellence in out-of-hospital emergency care.
 Phone: 206-296-4600                 Medic One offers uniform medical care regardless of location, incident
   TTY Relay: 711                    circumstances, day of the week, or time of day. For the past 30 years, the
                                     system has maintained the highest reported survival rates in the treatment of
                                     out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients across the nation.
 Click here to email us
                                     How the Medic One/EMS System works:

 Subscribe to Free                   Any time you call 911 for a physical emergency, you are utilizing the Medic
   Email Alerts!                     One/EMS system. Your request for help is received by one of five dispatch
                                     centers throughout King County, and trained professional dispatchers
Click here to learn more             determine the level of care you require. This system ensures that your call is
                                     routed to the most appropriate medical care providers.

                                     In life-threatening situations, such as cardiac arrest, paramedics providing
                                     Advanced Life Support (ALS) services respond to the scene. In less urgent
                                     cases, such as an injured leg, Emergency Medical Technicians providing
                                     Basic Life Support (BLS) services respond to the call. Once a patient is
                                     stabilized, it is determined whether they need further medical attention and
                                     transport is provided either by an ALS agency, BLS agency, or private
                                     ambulance.
                                                                     AB 4193
                                                                     Exhibit 11
                                                                     Page 48
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ems/levy/index.htm (1 of 5)
Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process


                                     Medic One is recognized as one of the best emergency medical services in
                                     the country. Because of our program, cardiac arrest victims here are three
                                     times more likely to survive compared to other cities. That’s the highest
                                     survival rate anywhere. It serves 1.8 million people in King County and
                                     responds every three minutes to a medical emergency.

                                     EMS Levy Process:

                                     We fund our Medic One/EMS system with a 6-year EMS levy. The current
                                     levy started in 2002 with a levy rate of $.25 per $1,000 of Assessed Value
                                     (AV). To help put this in perspective, somebody with a $200,000 home
                                     would pay $46.37 in 2005 for these Medic One services.

                                     The current levy expires in 2007, therefore requiring us to reauthorize the
                                     levy for collection beginning in 2008. Under state law, we can reauthorize
                                     the levy for 6 years, 10 years, or for an indefinite amount of time, at a
                                     maximum rate of $.50 per $1,000 AV. Historically speaking, King County
                                     has never exceeded $.29 per $1,000 AV, and the average length of each
                                     levy has been 6 years.

                                     Prior to determining what the tax rate and levy length should be for 2008, we
                                     have the opportunity to review the Medic One/EMS system as a whole, and
                                     develop a strategic plan to ensure Medic One/EMS remains a strong,
                                     medically-based system. Because this is a region-side system, we have
                                     stakeholders from throughout the County meeting to review the issues and
                                     options facing EMS , and develop recommendations for the next levy. The
                                     stakeholder group includes representatives from fire departments,
                                     paramedic providers, emergency physicians, dispatch centers, hospitals,
                                     private ambulance companies, and labor.

                                     The EMS system has three major components: - Advanced Life Support
                                     (ALS), Basic Life Support (BLS), and Regional Services/ Strategic Initiatives
                                     (RS/SI). For planning reasons, we created three subcommittees based on
                                     these components. The subcommittees consist of stakeholders and other
                                     interested parties, and are charged with delving into policy issues including
                                     the levy length, the levy rate, and funding mechanisms for EMS programs.
                                     Each subcommittee has developed a workplan to guide its analysis
                                     throughout this process, and is systematically working through each
                                     important topic to put together levy recommendations for the stakeholder
                                     group to support and approve.

                                     These recommendations will then be brought to a Regional Stakeholder
                                     group of elected officials convened by the King County Executive in Spring/
                                     Summer 2006. This group will review and finalize the regional EMS Strategic
                                     Plan for the 2008 levy period and beyond, and thus approve the EMS levy
                                     package to be put before the voters in November of 2007.

                                     Next Steps:

                                     Before the plan can be presented to King County voters, it must be approved
                                     by the councils of all cities over 50,000 in population and the King County
                                     Council. There are currently six cities over 50,000 (Bellevue, Federal Way,
                                     Kent, Renton, Seattle, and Shoreline), but projected annexations could result
                                     in there being as many as eight cities by November, 2007.

                                     This is a lengthy process - one that will take nearly two years from start to
                                     finish, but it is critical in order to develop a comprehensive plan that meets
                                     the Medic One/EMS service priorities for our region. This tiered approach is
                                                                             AB participation and input, a thorough
                                     imperative so that we obtain regional 4193
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                                                                      Page 49
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ems/levy/index.htm (2 of 5)
Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process


                                     discussion of issues, and, importantly, consensus among stakeholders who
                                     make up the Medic One/EMS system.

                                     Helen Chatalas, the Medic One/EMS Levy Planner, is heading up this
                                     project and soliciting recommendations. If you are interested in participating
                                     in this process, would like to be updated on policies being debated in these
                                     Medic One/EMS subcommittees, or simply have questions about the levy
                                     process, please contact her at Helen.Chatalas@metrokc.gov, or 206-296-
                                     4598.

                                                                                                      ^ back to top


                                      Timeline for the 2008 Medic One/EMS Levy Process



                                     DELIVERABLES:

                                          ■   Develop a clear, comprehensive, and regional strategic plan for the
                                              next EMS levy.
                                          ■   Maintain current medical-based EMS system continuing the regional
                                              approach.
                                          ■   Ensure regional participation, discussion of issues, consensus among
                                              stakeholders.
                                          ■   Ensure complete review of issues, options




                                     Phase 1: Develop Recommendations

                                     October 2005 – June 2006

                                              Hold ALS, BLS and Regional Services/Strategic Initiatives
                                              Subcommittee meetings
                                              Draft Strategic Plan
                                              Draft Financial Plan

                                     Phase 2: Elected Officials to Review and Approve Recommendations

                                     July 2006 - Dec 2006

                                     Approval of the:

                                              Strategic Plan
                                              Financial Plan
                                              Levy length
                                              Levy rate
                                              Election Date

                                     Phase 3: Cities and County to Review and Approve Plan
                                     EMS Levy campaign to begin

                                     January 2007 – August 2007

                                     Approval by:
                                                                      AB 4193
                                                                      Exhibit 11
                                                                      Page 50
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ems/levy/index.htm (3 of 5)
Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process


                                              Cities over 50,000 in population.
                                              King County Council

                                     November 2007 – General Election

                                                                                          ^ back to top


                                      Draft Proposed Recommendations (MS Word)



                                          ■   Final ALS Draft Recommendation
                                          ■   Final BLS Draft Recommendation
                                          ■   Final RS-SI Draft Recommendation


                                      Meeting overviews



                                          ■   May 2006
                                          ■   April 2006
                                          ■   March 2006
                                          ■   February 2006
                                          ■   January 2006
                                          ■   December 2005
                                          ■   November 2005
                                          ■   October 2005


                                      Schedule of meetings



                                     Stakeholders
                                     Date:     1st Thursday of each month
                                     Time:     1:00 – 3:00 pm
                                     Location: Renton Fire Station #14
                                               1900 Lind Ave SW , Renton [MAP]

                                     BLS
                                     Date:     2nd Thursday of each month
                                     Time:     1:30 – 3:30 pm
                                     Location: Mercer Island Fire Station #91
                                               3030 78th Avenue SE, Mercer Island [MAP]

                                     ALS
                                     Date:     3rd Tuesday of each month
                                     Time:     1:00 – 3:00 pm
                                     Location: Kirkland Fire Station #22
                                               6602 108th Avenue NE, Kirkland [MAP]



                                                                       AB 4193
                                                                       Exhibit 11
                                                                       Page 51
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ems/levy/index.htm (4 of 5)
  Medic One/EMS and the Levy Planning Process


                                       Dates:        November 15, 2005
                                                     December 20, 2005
                                                     February 21, 2006
                                                     March 21, 2006
                                                     May 16, 2006
                                                     June 20, 2006

                                       Time:     12:00 - 2:00 pm
                                       Location: Kirkland City Hall, Peter Kirk Room
                                                 123 5th Avenue, Kirkland [MAP]
                                       Dates:        January 17, 2006
                                                     April 18, 2006

                                       RS/SI
                                       Date:     4th Tuesday of each month
                                       Time:     10:00 – 12:00 pm
                                       Location: Mercer Island Fire Station #91
                                                 3030 78th Avenue SE, Mercer Island [MAP]


                                        Contact information



                                       Helen Chatalas, EMS Levy Planner
                                       Helen.Chatalas@metrokc.gov, or 206-296-4598

                                                                                                ^ back to top



Updated: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at 02:52 PM

All information is general in nature and is not intended to be used as a substitute for appropriate professional advice.
For more information please call 206-296-4600 (voice) or TTY Relay: 711. Mailing address: ATTN: Communications
Team, Public Health - Seattle & King County, 999 3rd Ave., Suite 1200, Seattle, WA 98104 or click here to email us.

                                       King County | Public Health | News | Services | Comments | Search

                                      Links to external sites do not constitute endorsements by King County.
                          By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms
                                                       and conditions of the site. The details.




                                                                         AB 4193
                                                                         Exhibit 11
                                                                         Page 52
  http://www.metrokc.gov/health/ems/levy/index.htm (5 of 5)
MAY, 2007



Sound Transit 2 Package
Pending final Board approval

Sound Transit 2 would expand the regional mass transit system by adding 50 miles of light rail,
improving commuter rail facilities and increasing express bus service. The result would almost double
Sound Transit system ridership, provide fast, reliable connections to more places for more people,
and cut through congestion in the region’s most heavily traveled corridors.
Sound Transit 2 is part of the Roads & Transit proposal that will                                                        Everett
go to voters in November 2007. The Roads & Transit plan
tackles the region’s most pressing road and transit needs                                                            5

for the next 20 years.                                          Mukilteo

                                                                                                                         164th SW/ Ash Way
    DETAILS
                                                                                                    Alderwood
■   Extends light rail north from the University
                                                                      Edmonds
    of Washington to S. 164th Street/Ash Way in                                            L
                                                                                           Lynnwood
    Snohomish County, with service to Northgate,                                                        Mountlake           Bothell
                                                                                                                                                Woodinville
    Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood.                                         Shoreline        Terrace

■   Extends light rail south from Sea-Tac Airport to                                                    Jackson Park                  405

    downtown Tacoma, adding service to the Des                                                           Northgate
                                                                                                                                              Downtown
    Moines, Federal Way and Fife areas.                                                                    Roosevelt                           Redmond
                                                                                                                                                              SE Redmond
                                                                                           Brooklyn         University of
■   Extends light rail east to Mercer Island, Bellevue                                                      Washington
                                                                                                            Washington              Hospital       Overlake Transit Center
                                                                                       Ballard                              520
    and Redmond’s Overlake Transit Center and                                                                                                      Overlake Village
                                                                                                           Capitol Downtown                 Bel-Red
    Microsoft campus, with service all the way to
    Downtown Redmond if sufficient funding is
                                                                                                            Hill
                                                                                                              First Hill
                                                                                                                         Bellevue
                                                                                                                                             8th
                                                                                                                                          SE 8t    Bellevue
    available. The plan identifies the extension to                             Seattle                   Rainier   Mercer
                                                                                                                             90
                                                                                                                                  South
    Downtown Redmond as a high priority and                                                                        Island         Bellevue
    provides up-front funding for planning, engineering                   West                                                                             Issaquah
                                                                        Seattle
    and some real estate acquisition.                                                                        Rainier
                                                                                                    5        V
                                                                                                             Valley                   405
■   Expands parking and enhances Sounder stations,
    increasing access to the regional transit system.                                                                                              MAP KEY                       N
    Sets aside funding for future service enhancements                                                                    Renton
    to the existing ST Express bus network during light                                                                                            Link Light Rail Underway
    rail construction.                                                   Burien
                                                                                                                                                   Sounder Commuter Rail
■   Funds several long term studies: extension of light                                                 Tukwila
                                                                                                          kwila                                    Underway
    rail to Everett; future high capacity transit lines to                  SeaTac /Airport
                                                                            SeaT
                                                                                    S 200th                                                        Light Rail Proposed
    Issaquah via I-90, from UW across SR520, from
                                                                                                                          Kent
    Ballard to UW, and in Seattle’s west corridor, from                  Des Moines /Kent
                                                                                                                                                   New Station, Facility or
    Ballard to West Seattle to Burien; additional bus                  Redondo/Star Lake                           167                             Enhancement
    rapid transit; and long-term use of the BNSF rail                          Federal Way
                                                                                                                          Auburn                   I-405 Bus Rapid Transit
    line in east King County.                                                         South                                                        (BRT) Enhancement
                                                                                     Federal
                                                                                       Way                                North Sumner             Priority light rail extension with
    BENEFITS                                                    T
                                                                Tacoma                                                    (provisional)            funding for planning, environmental
                                                                                                                                                   review, preliminary engineering
                                                                                                                                                   review
                                                                                                Tacoma/
                                                                                        Port of Tacoma/                   Sumner                   and right-of-way. Construction if
                                                                                          Fife
                                                                                          Fif
■   Provides fast, frequent and reliable light rail                                                                                                sufficient funds are available.

    service free of delays from congestion and                                                      Puyallup                                       Potential commuter rail extension
                                                               Lakewood                                                                            with partners and/or annexations
    weather, with trains running 20 hours a day
    and every few minutes at peak times.                                                                                                           Planning study for high-capacity
                                                                                                                                                   transit on existing rail
                                                                                                                                                   right-of-way
■   Moves more people through the region’s most
    congested corridors, taking cars off the road.           DuPont                                                                                Planning for future high-capacity
                                                                                                                                                   transit extensions
                                                                      Pierce/Thurston County line
                                    continued on back    AB 4193                                                                                   Planning study for future phase
                                                                                                                                                   BRT implementation
                                                         Exhibit 12
                                                         Page 53
■   Light rail stations serve as hubs that collect riders                       ■    Builds on the cost-estimating, engineering and
    from local bus routes.                                                           construction experience that Sound Transit acquired
■   Connects Snohomish, Pierce and East King counties                                over the last decade. Independent experts from
    with the almost 19 miles of first-phase light rail                                around the country also intensively reviewed Sound
    investments paid for by North King County and                                    Transit’s work, further increasing the level of
    South King County taxpayers.                                                     confidence that the proposed rail lines can be built
                                                                                     with available funds.
■   Makes strategic bus rapid transit (BRT)
    investments in the I-405 corridor, complementing                            ■    Reaches Northgate by 2018, and Downtown
    BRT investments already completed or under                                       Bellevue and Kent-Des Moines Road by 2021. Other
    construction.                                                                    extensions would be phased through 2027.


    ESTIMATED RIDERSHIP (2030)
                                                         ANNUAL                                                  WEEKDAY
    SERVICE                                Without Package      With Package                        Without Package      With Package

    Central Link                           37 million                  93 million                   118,000              305,000
    Tacoma Link                            1.1 million                 1.6 million                    3,800                5,400
    Sounder                                4 million                   4 million                     16,000               15,400
    ST Express                             15 million                  9 million                     51,000               33,000

    TOTAL SYSTEM RIDERSHIP                 58 million                  108 million                   189,000               359,000



    BY THE NUMBERS:                                                                  SAMPLE TRAVEL TIMES (APPROXIMATE)

                                                                                ■    Overlake/Microsoft to downtown Bellevue: 10 minutes
         168,000 More riders on the Sound Transit
                 system                                                         ■    Lynnwood to downtown Seattle: 28 minutes
                                                                                ■    SeaTac to the Tacoma Dome: 37 minutes
          11,200 New park-and-ride stalls
                                                                                ■    University of Washington to downtown Bellevue:
            50-53 Miles of new Link light rail                                       30 minutes
            25-27 New light rail stations                                       ■    Downtown Bellevue to Qwest Field: 20 minutes
                10 Additional cities connected by light rail
                                                                                     WHAT IT WILL COST
                 7 New/improved Sounder stations
                                                                                The funding for Sound Transit 2 would come from a
                 2 New I-405 BRT enhancements                                   sales tax increase of five-tenths of one percent, or 5
                 1 Mile of new/improved Sounder tracks                          cents for a $10 retail purchase.
                                                                                THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS (2006 DOLLARS)
                 1 New streetcar line
                                                                                Capital Costs                                 $10.9 billion
    F INANCIAL AND SCHEDULE INFORMATION IS                                      Operating & Maintenance Costs                  $1.5 billion
    P RELIMINARY Financial, budget and schedule information
    presented here and on-line is based on estimates as of May 2007.
                                                                                Total                                         $12.4 billion
    Figures may be updated periodically to reflect updated estimates
                                                                                THE BOTTOM LINE
    as deemed appropriate by the Sound Transit Board.
                                                                                $7.5 billion (2006 dollars) in estimated new tax
                                                                                collections from 2008 to 2027 (excludes revenues from
For more information visit www.soundtransit.org/ST2                             existing taxes and bonding).
or www.roadsandtransit.org.


Sound Transit plans, builds and operates regional transit systems and services to improve mobility for Central Puget Sound.
                                                            AB 4193
                                                                        Exhibit 12                                                      CS#04601

                                                                        Page 54
Luther Burbank Park
2004-2006 PARK OPERATIONS AND
MAINTENANCE
2004 highlights
Provided park maintenance staffing
from 6:30am to 7pm daily between
June and September
    • Conducted Park Checks
       (litter, restrooms, garbage
       collection, safety inspections,
       etc.) and responded to
       customer inquiries
    • Provided access for park
       rentals
    • Performed routine,
       preventative and special
       response maintenance
       activities, including mowing,
       trimming, pruning, hazard tree removal, invasive plant removal, replanting
       activities, trail repairs, installed soil stabilization materials, etc.
    • Scheduled over four park seasonal maintenance workers and 1 full-time park
       maintenance staff member to operate and maintain the park.

Provided lifeguards from 11am to 7pm
daily between June and September
    • Performed lifesaving services
    • Conducted minor beach
        maintenance

Performed tenant improvements to the
Administration Building for the
relocated Parks and Recreation and
Youth and Family Services
Departments.
    • Constructed new/removed
        select office walls and
        installed/moved electrical and lighting services
    • Added additional lighting
    • New interior painting
                                         AB 4193
                                         Exhibit 2
                                         Page 20
   •   Replaced portions of carpet
   •   Installed new air conditioning units
   •   Replaced select windows
   •   Repaired building heating system

Conducted wetland enhancement work
   • Completed the boardwalk in the north wetland w/YFS E-Team
   • Removed invasive plants and replanted vegetation in north wetland w/YFS E-
      Team

Coordinated soil stabilization and erosion control work in Upper LB Park

Restored “The Source” earthen mound art sculpture

Replaced wood chips and removed vegetation in the off-leash area

Removed invasive vegetation throughout the park

Conducted drainage improvements to south parking lot, amphitheatre and tennis courts

Performed major repairs on irrigation systems at swim beach area & amphitheatre

Replaced boards on over 30 picnic tables

Added 10 new picnic tables

Performed major maintenance activities on Caretaker’s Residence
    • Removed large volumes of vegetation from on and around the residence
    • Constructed new front porch
    • Constructed a new equipment storage area for park maintenance equipment
    • Prepared residence for temporary storage CCMV supplies and equipment

Installed new park signage
    • Park entry signs
    • Welcome signs
    • Wetland area signs
    • Pet owner info signs

Repaired broken pavers in plaza area

Maintained all flower bed and
landscaped areas, including hanging
baskets in plaza area


                                           AB 4193
                                           Exhibit 2
                                           Page 21
Constructed new trail from LB Park parking lot to Pea Patch

Performed building maintenance tasks
    • Painted interior walls and applied floor sealant to main and beach restrooms
    • Repaired the Boiler Room roof
    • Installed new lights and roll-up door to Boiler Room for temporary storage of
       CCMV equipment and supplies
    • Constructed/installed new shelving units for storage in Boiler Room and
       Caretaker’s Residence

Repaired all pathway lights

Planned, conducted and supported 12 volunteer projects
    • Wetland enhancement work
    • Signage installation
    • Trail construction/maintenance
    • Invasive plant removal
    • Replanting

   2004 Capital Maintenance Repairs/Investments
   • Capital Equipment- Park Vehicle
   • Plaza Entry Repair and Maintenance (2004-05)- remove and replace pavers,
      install new turf, re-grade area, install new plantings, install additional irrigation,




2005 highlights
Operations
   •   Maintenance staff on duty
       6:30am – 7:00pm June -
       September
   •   Lifeguard staff on duty
       11:00am – 7:00pm June –
       September
   •   Supported more than a dozen
       volunteer projects through
       VOICE, E-team,
                      Mountains to
       Sound Greenway Trust

                                          AB 4193
                                          Exhibit 2
                                          Page 22
Projects and Improvements
  •   Bench installation (from donation)
  •   Boardwalk at North Wetland completed
  •   New beach sand added
  •   Milfoil removal
  •   New swim lines installed
  •   Off Leash Area entrance trail
      improved
  •   Entrance road utility
      undergrounding
  •   Plaza improvements
  •   Amphitheatre closet
      constructed
  •   Amphitheatre backdrop
      painted
  •   Parking lots re-striped
  •   Paver replaced at boiler
      building plaza
  •   ‘you are here’ sign design stage
  •   Trash can replacement
  •   South entrance invasive removal
  •   Table and bench maintenance
  •   Invasive removal
  •   Meadow sinkhole excavated and repaired




2006 highlights
Operations
  •   Maintenance staff on duty
      6:30am – 7:00pm June -
      September
  •   Lifeguard staff on duty
      11:00am – 7:00pm June –
      September
  •   Supported more than a dozen
      volunteer projects through
      VOICE, E-team, Mountains
      to Sound, MIDOG


                                    AB 4193
                                    Exhibit 2
                                    Page 23
Projects and Improvements
Plaza – Admin
    • entrance walkway lighting
    • entrance path lighting

Area A
   • BBQ replacements and
   additions

Area B and Meadow
   • turf rehab
   • BBQ replacements

Area C and Beach
   • sand
   • milfoil removal
   • RR lighting improvements
   • RR plaza improvements
   • RR/guardshack area painting
   • BBQ replacements and additions
   • replaced lifeguard shack door with steel rollup
   • replaced lifeguard chair
   • asphalt path repair

OLA/Wetland/Northend
   • Dairy Barn cleanup
   • north wetland fence extension
   • OLA fence repairs
   • Wetland shore stabilization
      w/KCD
   • Kiosk

South parking lot
   • entrance view corridor
   • moved Colt sculpture to
       CCMV

North parking lot
   • parking lot planter cleanup
   • lighting improvements
   • CCMV connection stairs and trail

CCMV/Pea Patch
  • invasive plant removal
                                       AB 4193
                                       Exhibit 2
                                       Page 24
   •   Pea patch/hillside drainage improvements
   •   CCMV irrigation startup
   •   Pea patch trail/road improvements

Parkwide
   • regravel waterfront trail north of admin building
   • road/trail regrading
   • Cleanup and reorganization of caretaker/maintenance area
   • Leash law signage
   • Annual painting of gates and posts
   • Install of donated bench
   • Bench pad improvements




                                      AB 4193
                                      Exhibit 2
                                      Page 25
                                                                            Budget Policies

Luther Burbank Park
Operation, Maintenance and Park Master Planning
Transition and Start-Up Under City Ownership
Control of Luther Burbank Park passed to the City on January 1, 2003. Initial City operation has
mirrored the final years of King County operation. The City’s intention has been to protect public
safety, and maintain general security.

During the initial period of transition and start up, covering 2003, $240,000 in maintenance and
operation (M&O) costs were funded from the Capital Reserve Fund, a “one-time” revenue source. The
City tightly controlled costs and resisted expanding programs or maintenance until capital reserves
could be replaced by a stable, ongoing revenue source. Through the first year of City operation
management options and operating costs were carefully assessed under different level-of-service
scenarios.

Direct experience during the first year of City operation enabled staff to more accurately estimate the
costs of improvements and ongoing maintenance. Certain areas of the park required a higher level of
maintenance than others and use patterns varied throughout the facility. Based on this information,
Council selected modes of operation and levels of service considering Island residents’ interests, the
City’s Park Management and Budget Policies, and other opportunities / demands on the City budget.

Upon receiving this direction from Council, staff prepared a multi-year capital improvement plan and an
estimate of annual operating costs. These budget projections were used to prepare proposals for
funding ongoing Luther Burbank costs into the long term future – a property tax levy proposition. Past
guidance and policy action embraces the notion that when the City has taken on a major new asset,
stable ongoing revenue sources are needed to support them. Staff estimated ongoing operations and
maintenance at $300,000 with an additional $100,000 needed each year in minor capital repairs and
replacements. Upon further discussion, an additional $15,000 per year for Upper Luther Burbank Park
was added for operations and maintenance. In September 2003, the City Council directed that the
question of new revenue in the annual amount of $415,000 for the specific purpose of paying for existing
and future expenses for a period of six years to maintain and operate upper and lower Luther Burbank
Park at prescribed levels of service be placed before Mercer Island voters. In November 2003, voters
approved this property tax levy increase and in 2004 staff increased their maintenance frequencies to
high impact areas of the park and pursued the implementation of the capital maintenance and repair
plan.

Public Involvement Planning
In addressing the long-term plan for the park, Council directed that a sequential and thoughtful process
be undertaken. Future funding for substantial capital investment in new facilities and the question of
generating ongoing revenue for park maintenance and operations was to be sought only after a thorough
review of private and public funding alternatives and only after Mercer Island citizens have had an
opportunity to comment on a vision for the future of the park.

During its 2004 Retreat, Council considered how best to undertake planning for the future of Luther
Burbank Park. Council agreed to employ the services of an outside expert to design and implement a
thorough public involvement process. The goal was to engage a public involvement expert in 2004 and
conduct the public process before 2006. These accomplishments would then allow the subsequent
“master planning” of any desired improvements to the park to be completed in time to design, permit

_________________________________
City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget         AB 4193                                               D-71
                                               Exhibit 3
                                               Page 26
Budget Policies
and potentially construct by 2009 (when the current Luther Burbank Operations and Maintenance Levy
expires).

Planning for Luther Burbank Park began in November 2004 with a Community Visioning Process which
was used to gather input on the public’s visions and priorities for Luther Burbank Park. To set the stage
for this community effort, the City Council established a number of planning parameters that served as
firm guidelines throughout the process, including:

1) New housing will not be considered for the entire park.
   Several years ago there was a proposal considered to construct new housing units in the southern
   portion of the park. The City Council rejected the idea at that time and will continue to reinforce
   that decision; housing will not be considered in either the north or south portions of the park.

2) The city is exploring opportunities for revenue generation.
   Although Mercer Island residents approved a bond levy in 2003 to fund the park for the next six
   years, longer-term funding for Luther Burbank remains in question. The City Council wants to
   explore possible opportunities for revenue generation at the park. The park will remain under city
   ownership, but public-private partnerships could be useful in generating park funding.

3) New recreational facilities will be considered, but Luther Burbank will remain a multi-use area, and will not
   be developed for a single exclusive use.
   The park will remain a place that accommodates a range of both active and passive recreational
   opportunities. While a sports field may ultimately become a part of the master plan, for example,
   the City Council does not envision a sports field complex at Luther Burbank. The park will be
   developed in a way that allows users of all ages and inclinations to enjoy the park.

4) The new plan will not be “pie in the sky”.
   This community planning effort will undoubtedly generate a number of great ideas, and these will
   eventually be melded into a cohesive master plan. However, the City Council is committed to
   making sure that the final plan is both reasonable and feasible. Funding mechanisms must be fully
   identified before any new development in the park will be allowed.

5) The city will strive for a balance of interests at the park.
   A range of ideas will be considered during community visioning and master plan efforts. Decisions
   about final actions will not be decided by “vote.” Rather, ideas will be implemented based on their
   ability to represent a balance at the park.

6) Significant new development will be concentrated in the central campus area.
   During this planning process, ideas will be generated about new activities – and potentially new
   buildings – at the park. The City Council will consider all of these ideas, but any significant new
   development will be concentrated only in the existing central campus area.

Public Involvement
A public involvement plan was developed to serve as a road map for how the Mercer Island community
would be involved in the visioning process. The public involvement goals, included:
• Provide a wide range of opportunities for diverse interests to be informed about and involved in the
   development of community design guidelines for Luther Burbank Park.
• Provide the Mercer Island City Council with a comprehensive understanding of the community’s
   visions, values and priorities for Luther Burbank Park.


                                                                      _________________________________
D-72                                                AB 4193              City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget
                                                    Exhibit 3
                                                    Page 27
                                                                               Budget Policies
•   Create a sense of community cohesiveness and ownership in Luther Burbank Park, making the
    transition from a County Park that just happens to be located on Mercer Island to a park that all
    Mercer Island residents can feel truly proud of.

The result of the community visioning process was the development of a set of 15 community design
guidelines that were then used to set the stage for the longer-term master plan process:
    1)     Preserve the existing serenity of the park.
    2)     Protect and enhance the shoreline experience.
    3)     Protect and enhance wetland areas.
    4)     Preserve existing historical and cultural resources.
    5)     Rehabilitate the swimming beach.
    6)     Expand court usage.
    7)     Maintain and improve the existing meadow.
    8)     Provide for an off-leash dog area.
    9)     Revitalize the dock area.
    10) Expand and enhance activities for children.
    11) Consider new picnic facilities.
    12) Explore opportunities for new seasonal food vendors and special events.
    14) Create a greater ease of connection with Upper Luther Burbank.
    15) Create a greater ease of connection with the new community center.

These guidelines were developed over a three month period from November 2004 – January 2005 and
included three public workshops as well as numerous written and emailed responses. The City Council
approved the Guidelines on February 7, 2005.

Park Master Planning
The City Council then initiated a Master Planning Process for Luther Burbank Park on September 6,
2005. Guided by the results of the Community Visioning Process, three discrete planning phases were
developed: 1) Information Gathering/Concept Design Development; 2) Review of Concept Designs; and,
3) Review of Preferred Concept Design.

A public involvement program was developed to provide for multiple and varied opportunities for public
involvement and input. The eight-month long master planning process included 15 opportunities for
public involvement including one in-park public workshop, seven small group work sessions, two town
hall-style meetings and five City Council meetings (four of which had public hearings). Throughout the
entire process, citizens were also encouraged to submit their comments by mail, email or fax.

The first phase, an inventory and analysis, assessed physical conditions of the site, as well as existing and
future program opportunities. A kick-off to the master planning process occurred with a public
workshop in the park where participants were asked to provide input on how the community design
guidelines might be implemented. Information gathering included first hand observation, input from Park
representatives, and site review with shoreline and wetlands ecologists. Included in this phase were a
wetland reconnaissance, shoreline assessment, and permitting review. A series of five small group
sessions were conducted regarding the Off-Leash Dog area; the Dock Area/Small Boat Facility; Shoreline
Restoration; Connections to Upper Luther Burbank and Children’s Opportunities in the Park. Based on
this inventory and analysis, three preliminary master plan concepts were developed for the site and
presented at a City Council meeting and community Town Hall for review and comment. Two
additional meetings with Mercer Island teens were conducted to seek greater involvement from youth.



_________________________________
City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget           AB 4193                                                D-73
                                                 Exhibit 3
                                                 Page 28
Budget Policies
In the next phase, these plans were consolidated into a preferred Master Plan concept based on
feedback received during the initial presentation. This preferred plan was again presented in a second
Town Hall meeting and presentation to the City Council. The design was honed again to reflect these
comments, resulting in a final master plan design. This master plan report includes plan graphics,
description of the design elements and cost allowances for its implementation.

The master plan design has been completed to an adequate level of detail to identify proposed
improvements and assign costs and priorities. More specific design remains as elements of the master
plan are pursued, during which more cost details can be generated.

Budget Polices for 2007 - 2008
•   Continue to fund Luther Burbank Park maintenance and operations, including minor capital repairs
    from the approved property tax increase.
•   Pursue approved Capital Improvement Plan projects for Luther Burbank Park.
•   Funding for substantial capital investment in new facilities (those designed to generate ongoing
    revenue for park M&O) will come after a thorough review of private and public funding alternatives.
•   Begin implementation of high priority capital improvements during 2007-2008 biennium including
    shoreline restoration activities.
•   Develop detailed project packages for Luther Burbank Park and other park improvements for
    funding consideration in 2008-2009; including potential voter-approved measures.
•   Continue routine, preventative, special response and capital maintenance activities to ensure
    grounds, buildings and infrastructure will remain serviceable, functional, and safe for park users and
    neighbors.
•   Pursue vegetation management activities, including wetlands restoration, invasive plant species
    removal, and re-vegetation and re-planting activities.
•   Prevent and mitigate hazards to public safety and security through active and passive measures such
    as improved lighting, routine inspections, police vehicle, bike, boat and foot patrols and park checks.
•   Park grounds will remain available to individual and group users at a scope and scale similar to that
    under County management in 2000-02.
•   Insure the public’s life safety by providing beach lifeguards through the summer swim season.

2007 - 2008 Budget Impact
                                                     2005          2006           2007          2008
      Operations and Maintenance                    Actual       Forecast        Budget        Budget
Revenues ($1,000’s)
Property Tax levy                                    $ 325          $ 327         $ 352          $ 369
            Total Revenue                            $ 325         $ 327          $ 352         $ 369
Expenditures ($1,000’s)
M&O Luther Burbank                                   $ 325          $ 327         $ 352          $ 369
             Total Expenditures                      $ 325         $ 327          $ 352         $ 369




                                                                 _________________________________
D-74                                            AB 4193             City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget
                                                Exhibit 3
                                                Page 29
Luther Burbank Park
Probable Cost of Construction
April 2006

Preface:

This master plan is intended to serve as a decision-making guide for the City. It
documents physical improvements that can be undertaken in the park to better
meet the program needs of park users and the City. “Decision-making” frequently
implies spending money; as a result this plan includes preliminary cost estimates
for specific items in the park. It is important to note that these costs are intended to
be used as budgeting figures and do not reflect a guaranteed construction cost, as
the elements are not yet fully designed to ensure that level of accuracy.

Most park projects lend themselves to phasing, and this is the case with the Luther
Burbank Park Improvements. This Probable Cost of Construction (PCC) has been
broken down into geographic sections, within which specific construction items and
tasks have been itemized. The cost estimate is intended to provide enough detail
to allow cost information to be extracted in order to define project scope and set
budgets for possible future phases.

This estimate has been prepared on the assumption that a general contractor will
complete the work

The PCC is completed based on a master plan level of design, allowing for an
adequate level of detail to identify proposed improvements and assign costs and
priorities. Typically the next stages of design (after master plan) are more refined
and specific design and engineering will be developed for selected park elements
as they are prepared to be implemented (i.e. through a typical process of design
development and construction documents). This evolution of design allows greater
certainty over costs. In reviewing this PCC, be aware that significant design remains
during which more cost details can be generated. It is important to note that
proposed design improvements are based on aerial photography and a very limited
site survey and have been completed to a degree of detail appropriate to these
sources.

    Assumptions:

    A list of assumptions related to the estimate has been included. Given that the
    project is at an early level of development, much of the cost work must be
    based on assumptions of construction type, project scope, and allowances
    used to estimate quantities. Additionally, area square footages used to
    calculate some of the costs are based on the site aerial photo and GIS data,
    leading to a reasonable but not exact level of accuracy. An awareness of these
    assumptions is critical in using this cost estimate as an effective tool.


                                               AB 4193
                                               Exhibit 4
                                               Page 30
Luther Burbank Park
Probable Cost of Construction
April 2006

    Mark-up Definitions:

    There are numerous mark-ups that are generally applied to the direct
    construction costs, and the range of these mark-ups can vary greatly. Included
    in these mark-ups are contingencies for both design and construction. As
    portions of the master plan are pursued for further design development, the
    evolution of design allows greater certainty over costs and as a result,
    diminishes the amount of design and construction contingency necessary as
    more certainty is realized. Regardless of the design detail, retaining
    contingencies is customary and prudent for projects of this nature.
    Furthermore, some of the noted elements of the master plan could be pursued
    by Parks staff, reducing or eliminating some of these mark-ups. For this
    reason, we have not included mark-ups on the direct construction cost, but are
    including these possible mark-ups for your consideration in later budgeting.

    Mark-ups are generally required to allocate prime contractor costs beyond
    those that can be quantified under Direct Costs. Additional post-bid mark-ups
    may also be included to reflect additional costs to the project beyond those of
    the general contractor including sales tax, design fees and administrative
    costs. A typical percentage assigned to each of these mark-ups is noted
    below, and is typical for similar projects but may vary based on a variety of
    factors.

    Construction Contract Mark-Ups:

        •      Direct Construction Costs: The sum of line item costs in the estimate.
               These are the direct costs to the prime contractor.

        •      Design Contingency: Design contingency is a reflection of the level of
               design on which the PCC is based. This contingency is an allowance
               to reflect unforeseen or non-quantifiable elements of the project that
               will be incorporated during subsequent design development work.
               This contingency is higher in the early phases of design and gets lower
               as the design approaches completion. This is not a bid contingency or
               an owner construction contingency. For this project, we would
               recommend a design contingency of 20%.

        •      General Conditions: Direct field costs to the general contractor, which
               cannot be charged to any particular item of work. These items include,
               but are not limited to: mobilization, job shack, phone and fax, storage
               shed, temporary work, demobilization etc. General conditions are
               generally assumed to be 5- 8%.
                                                AB 4193
                                                Exhibit 4
                                                Page 31
Luther Burbank Park
Probable Cost of Construction
April 2006

        •    Contractor Overhead: Home office costs to the general contractor
             including, but not limited to: accounting, billing, estimating, project
             management, etc. Contractor overhead is generally assumed to be
             5%.

        •    Contractor Profit: This fee is a percentage of gross project costs.
             Contractor profit is generally assumed to be 6%.

        •    Escalation: Escalation is a provision for inflation increasing the cost of
             labor, material and equipment over time. Escalation is typically applied
             from the date of the estimate projecting to the midpoint of future
             construction. For the purposes of this cost estimate, given no firm
             timeline, no escalation has been included in this cost estimate. While a
             rate of escalation is highly dependent on existing economic conditions,
             a “ballpark” rate of .26% per month could be used in calculating
             various timing options.

    POST-BID COSTS (Soft Costs)

        •    Sales Tax: This PCC assumes no Sales Tax. However, the local sales
             tax rate will ultimately be applied to the costs.

        •    Estimated Design Fees: Design costs to the consultant team to
             develop the design, apply for permits and produce Construction
             Documents to put the project out to bid. Design fees are generally
             assumed to be 10%-13% of the total cost of construction.

        •    Administrative Costs: Administrative costs are generally assumed to be
             10%, and include budgeting of city department staff time in realizing a
             project. For this PCC, no such costs are included.

    PROBABLE COST OF CONSTRUCTION QUALIFICATIONS

    This Probable Cost of Construction is prepared as a guide only. The Berger
    Partnership makes no warranty that actual costs will not vary from the amounts
    indicated and assumes no liability for such variance.

    This PCC is based on master plan level design.

    Fees such as permits, inspections, and utility connections are not included in
    this PCC.

    No maintenance costs are included in this PCC.

    End of Report

                                                AB 4193
                                                Exhibit 4
                                                Page 32
Probable Cost of Construction
Project: Luther Burbank Master Plan                Date: March 2006

Luther Burbank Park               Quantity       Unit      Unit Cost               Total

 Upper L.B. Total                                                                 $1,125,181.00

 Downtown Entry Total                                                               $182,570.00

 Burbank Lid Total                                                                  $131,845.00

 Burbank Lid Connector Total                                                        $148,200.00

 South Entry Total                                                                  $174,126.50

 Source Area Total                                                                  $191,500.00

 Swim Beach Total                                                                   $427,500.00

 Great Meadow Total                                                                 $515,000.00

 Main Entry Total                                                                   $377,697.50

 Campus Area Total                                                                  $513,600.00

 Dock/ Boiler Building Area Total                                                   $870,250.00

 Shoreline Total                                                                  $1,653,000.00

 Amphitheater Total                                                                 $124,570.00

  Off Leash Area Total                                                              $403,950.00

 Calkins Point Area Total                                                           $218,275.00

  The Ponds Total                                                                   $309,700.00

  West Hill Total                                                                   $685,130.00

                                      Luther Burbank Grand Total                 $8,052,095.00

 *The above total is intended to reflect costs for the full master plan. It is important to note a
  master plan outlines a vision for what could be, but rarely are all components of the plan implemented.
 *Cost does not include construction mark-ups, soft costs and contingencies
 as described elsewhere in this document.

 *The cost of the following buildings are not included in this document as building program/ size is not
 finalized: new beach facility, shell house, and boiler building improvements.


                                                              AB 4193
                                                              Exhibit 4
                                                              Page 33
AB 4193
Exhibit 5
Page 34
AB 4193
Exhibit 5
Page 35
AB 4193
Exhibit 5
Page 36
                                                                                 Action Plan
With a defined geographic boundary and relatively little vacant land remaining, Mercer Island is
unlike other cities which need to plan for expanded park and open space facilities to serve
annexed areas and rapid growth. Instead, the direction for the Island is to be prepared to respond
efficiently to issues as they arise (shifting demand, population spikes, school enrollment peaks,
new trends, etc.) and to maintain existing facilities and open space. Since 2000, dramatic changes
have occurred to the parks and recreation system on Mercer Island (new property acquisitions,
ballfield upgrades, new community center, vegetation management and park master plans, leash
law changes, etc.). The following action items are prioritized in two categories: policy issues and
capital improvements.

Policy Issues
          1. Secure maintenance funding that sustains and enhances parks, trails and
             open space. Continue to fund the City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards
             for ongoing park maintenance and open space vegetation initiatives. Pursue
             renewal or replacement of the 6 year Luther Burbank Park maintenance and
             operations levy. Continue to maintain and make small capital improvements to the
             park while considering strategies to more rapidly implement larger capital
             improvements cited in the Luther Burbank Park Master Plan. As the I-90 Park on
             the Lid facility ages, costs to maintain the facility at its current level will continue to
             exceed the revenue from the Washington State Department of Transportation.
             Explore options for recovering a greater percentage of maintenance costs
             associated with the I-90 Park on the Lid. As a number of parks and open space
             areas require greater maintenance and improvements, pursue comprehensive
             financing strategies to support the broader Mercer Island’s parks and open space
             system.

           2. Continue to forge partnerships with community organizations to improve
              access to and use of indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. The City is
              currently scheduling all publicly owned outdoor venues (High School campus fields;
              elementary and middle school fields) on Mercer Island. Continued collaboration in
              scheduling protocols with ballfield users and the School District will insure efficient
              and equitable access to ballfields. A ballfield use analysis is currently underway
              (November 2006-March 2007) to inventory and evaluate all fields, evaluate Ballfield
              User Group policies and scheduling procedures and assess current and future
              demand. Recommendations from the ballfield use study should be implemented
              and a similar process for evaluating indoor facility use (i.e. gymnasiums) is
              recommended to be undertaken.

           3. Promptly investigate open space acquisition opportunities as they become
              available. The City of Mercer Island enjoys a significantly high per capita ratio of
              parks and open space (22 acres per 1000), with over 64% of all parkland in
              undeveloped open space. While preserving ravines, watercourse corridors and
              other critical lands continues to be a high priority, emphasis should be placed on
              developing trails within and between existing open space properties and parks.
              Trails enable passive recreation opportunities, provide safe travel routes between
              neighborhoods and schools and provide needed maintenance access for vegetation
              improvements (invasive species removal, re-planting activities, etc.). To meet

                                               AB 4193
                                               Exhibit 6
                                               Page 37
City of Mercer Island Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Plan                                                           Page 38 of 3


                  burgeoning active recreation needs, future acquisitions that provide developed
                  recreation opportunities should also be a priority (i.e. gymnasiums, all-weather multi-
                  use ballfields).

             4. Develop, implement and update park master and management plans for major
                park and recreation facilities. Park master plans currently exist for Luther
                Burbank Park, Mercerdale Park, Homestead Field and Pioneer Park. A Forest
                Management Plan continues to guide annual improvements in Pioneer Park while
                an Open Space Vegetation Plan has been developed that prioritizes invasive
                species removal and replanting activities across the park system. Continued
                funding of these efforts are imperative to preserve tree understory and canopy in the
                park system. Proposed improvements that arise out of a 2007 park master planning
                process at Island Crest Park are recommended to be approved. City funding is
                necessary to initiate, implement and periodically update such plans.

             5. Initiate a park and recreation fee study and implement recommendations.
                Implement recommendations from a system-wide review of park and community
                center rental, special event, special use and other fees and charges. Benchmark
                fees with local and surrounding agencies/service providers and evaluate cost of
                delivering services. Implement recommendations.




                                                 AB 4193
                                                 Exhibit 6
                                                 Page 38
City of Mercer Island Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Plan                                                       Page 39 of 3


Capital Facilities and Improvements
       1. Luther Burbank Park
          Implement the Luther Burbank Park Master Plan, with emphasis on shoreline
          restoration activities, off-leash enhancements, connections to the Community Center,
          dock/boiler building area improvements, upper LB Park trail connections and swim
          beach enhancements.

         2. Ballfield Improvements
            Implement improvements to ballfields that enhance safety, playability and durability
            including the conversion of the South Mercer Playfields all-weather (sand) field to
            artificial turf and replacement of ballfield lighting.

         3. Boat Launch
            Improve boat launching and retrieval by expanding launch lanes and repositioning
            floats.

         4. Ongoing Park Improvements
            Continue to replace playgrounds, park furniture, signage and other amenities as part of
            the City’s ongoing capital maintenance program.

         5. Vegetation Management
            Continue investments in removing invasive species and replanting native vegetation in
            parks and open space areas consistent with the Open Space Vegetation Plan.

         6. Trails Development
            Pursue trail development within current parks and open space properties and make
            connections to existing trail systems in other parks and public facilities. Enhance
            amenities at water trailhead locations.




                                              AB 4193
                                              Exhibit 6
                                              Page 39
                                             PARKS FUNDING PACKAGES AND FINANCING STRATEGIES                       For Illustrative Purposes Only


                                                      Adopted Plan or      Non-Plan              TOTAL            Added O&M            TOTAL
         ADOPTED PLAN OR PROPOSED                       Proposed         2009-2012 CIP          CAPITAL                              O&M & CAP
Luther Burbank Park
   LB Master Plan                                 $          8,052,095   $            -     $     6,890,095   $        126,108
       Main Entry (Area 9)- 2007                  $             80,000   $            -     $           -
   OLA planning                                   $                -     $            -     $           -
       OLA improvements 2007-08                   $            188,000   $            -     $           -
   Shoreline restoration planning (Phase 1)       $                -     $            -     $           -
       Shoreline restoration (Phase 1) 2007-08    $            894,000   $            -     $           -
   Shoreline restoration planning (Phase 2)       $                -     $         40,000   $        40,000
   Replace playground equipment                   $                -     $        100,000   $       100,000
       Implement park master plan                 $                -     $      2,250,000   $           -
   Minor capital repairs                                                 $        107,500   $       107,500   $        336,000
                                                  $          6,890,095   $        247,500   $     7,137,595   $        462,108   $       7,599,703


Engstrom Open Space                               $             50,000   $              -   $       50,000    $         10,181   $           60,181

Homestead Field Master Plan                       $           412,000                                         $         81,855
   Playground Replacement                         $               -      $         50,000
       Portable bleachers                         $             2,500
       Paths on westside of parking lot           $             5,000
                                                  $           404,500    $         50,000   $      454,500    $         81,855   $         536,355


Island Crest Park Master Plan                     $          3,605,000   $            -     $     3,605,000   $         14,308   $       3,619,308
    Playground Replacement                        $                -     $         50,000   $        50,000   $            -     $          50,000
                                                  $          3,605,000   $         50,000   $     3,655,000   $         14,308   $       3,669,308

Parks Trail Development
   Pioneer SE quad                                $             30,000   $              -   $        30,000   $             -    $              -
   Hollerback                                     $             50,000   $              -   $        50,000   $             -    $              -
   Gallagher Hill                                 $             42,000   $              -   $        42,000   $             -    $              -
   SE 20th street end                             $             20,000   $              -   $        20,000   $             -    $              -
   Salem Woods to Pioneer Park trail              $            150,000   $              -   $       150,000   $             -    $              -
   Island Crest Park Connector to 84th            $            120,000   $              -   $       120,000
   Future trail connections                       $          1,000,000   $              -   $     1,000,000   $            -     $             -
   Future water trail improvements                $            250,000   $              -   $       250,000   $            -     $             -
                                                  $          1,662,000   $              -   $     1,662,000   $          6,250   $       1,668,250


South Mercer Playfield                            $          4,300,000   $              -   $     4,300,000   $          3,125   $       4,303,125
   Implement park master plan                     $                -     $              -   $           -     $            -     $             -
   Install all-weather field sports turf          $                -     $              -   $           -     $            -     $             -
   Install all-weather field lighting             $                -     $              -   $           -     $            -     $             -
   South Mercer Playfields Improvements           $          4,300,000   $              -   $     4,300,000   $          3,125   $       4,303,125

New Acquisitions (est. $2 mill/acre)
   Parcel B (.2735 acres) (#5315100160)           $                -     $              -   $             -   $          3,500   $            3,500
   Parcel C (2.87 acres)
   Parcel D (6.77 acres)                          $         13,354,000                      $    13,354,000   $        325,000   $      13,679,000
   Parcel E (4.90 acres)                          $          9,800,000                      $     9,800,000   $        100,000   $       9,900,000
   Other/Undisclosed                              $          1,000,000                      $     1,000,000   $         50,000   $       1,050,000
                                                  $         24,154,000   $              -   $    24,154,000   $        478,500   $      24,632,500

Mary Wayte Pool
   Replace pool liner                             $           100,000    $              -
   Renovate locker rooms                          $            25,000    $              -
   Upgrade heating and ventilation                $            25,000    $              -
                                                  $           150,000    $              -   $      150,000    $             -    $         150,000

Other Ballfield Improvements
   Improve modified fields at schools             $           225,000
                                                  $           225,000    $              -   $      225,000    $             -    $              -

GRAND TOTALS                                      $       41,370,595 $          347,500 $ 41,788,095 $ 1,281,327 $ 42,619,422

                                                                  AB 4193 - Exhibit 7
                                                                      Page 40
BUDGET POLICES
Capital Improvement Program




            AB 4193
            Exhibit 8
            Page 41
                                                                                Budget Policies

Capital Improvement Program
Background
The City of Mercer Island separates the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) into two parts: the Capital
Reinvestment Plan (CRP) and the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The CRP contains all major maintenance
projects for existing public assets. The CFP consists of proposed new capital facilities.

Capital Reinvestment Program (CRP)
The CRP's purpose is to organize and schedule repair, replacement and refurbishment of public
improvements for the City of Mercer Island. The CRP is established as a six-year program setting forth
each of the proposed maintenance projects, including the cost and funding source. The individual six-
year plans for capital reinvestment serve as the City's capital planning documents as required by the
City's Comprehensive Plan (Capital Facilities Element) and the State Growth Management Act. CRP
projects are generally paid from existing City resources, in other words “pay as you go”.

The program emphasis in a reinvestment plan is timely repair and maintenance of existing facilities. To
this effect, while new equipment and improvements are made to some older fixed assets, the intent is to
design a program, which will preserve and maintain the City's existing infrastructure. The maintenance
and enhancement of the taxpayer's investment in fixed assets remains the City's best defense against the
enormous cost of the replacement of older but still very valuable public improvements.

The CIP is intended to be a public document. For this purpose, it is organized by functional area.
Hence, any individual who wishes to gain knowledge about a project need not know the funding source
or any other technical information but only need to know the general type of improvement in order to
find the relevant information. The Capital Reinvestment Program is divided into four functional
programmatic areas: streets -- including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, park and recreational facilities -
- including open space, general government – including building repairs, technology and equipment, and
utilities -- sewer, storm water, and water.

CRP projects are typically "pay as you go", -- funded from the current operations of the City Street
Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, Technology and Equipment and the Utility Funds (Water, Sewer, and
Stormwater).

Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
The CFP is also a six-year plan to outline proposed new capital projects. The CFP is divided into the
same four component parts: streets - including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, parks/recreation and
open space facilities, general government, and utilities - water, sewer and storm drainage. Like the CRP,
the CFP plan for new facilities is intended to provide easy reading. Each project in the plan is described
briefly and the total cost and appropriation for a six-year period is stated. Like the CRP, the CFP serves
the capital planning requirements for six-year plans as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and State
Growth Management Act.

As it is with the CRP, the CFP is organized by category of project.

Funding for CFP will generally be decided simultaneously with the approval of the project. This may
involve a bond issue, special grant or a source of revenue that is outside the available cash resources of
the City.


_________________________________
City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget            AB 4193                                                D-39
                                                  Exhibit 8
                                                  Page 42
Budget Policies
Nomination Process
As a part of each biennial budget process, the CIP Committee receives proposals for needed capital
projects submitted by the affected department managers, team leaders, advisory bodies, City Council,
and others. The CIP Committee compiles and reviews the project proposals, their associated costs and
funding sources. Based upon Council priorities of government and staff-developed project evaluation
criteria, the Committee makes a recommendation on project funding priorities to the City Manager.
Council-appointed boards and commissions, such as the Utility Board, also provide input to project
funding requests.

Priorities of Government
Building on the success of using local Priorities of Government to plan the 2005-2006 operating budget,
the City Council asked that a similar prioritization scheme be developed for the City’s CIP. For the
2007-2008 CIP, proposed projects have been evaluated based on six important purposes for capital
maintenance and building projects on Mercer Island. These are specifically projects that promote:
    1. Community safety
    2. Efficient/effective delivery of service
    3. Reliable public infrastructure
    4. Protection of the community character of the island
    5. Enhancement of the general well being of the island
    6. Open and informed public involvement processes

Routinely CIP projects have been sorted and presented by category, year of construction and revenue
source. In this budget we have added an additional matrix showing projects by priority of government.

Conclusion
Together the CRP and the CFP provide a planning tool for the maintenance of existing public
improvements and the construction of new public facilities. While all capital plans require annual
updating this process will provide a solid foundation for Council planning and decision-making.

Management Policies for 2007-2008
•   Increase public involvement in the planning and design of capital projects.
•   Improve public information about pending construction projects and their impacts (detours, delays,
    and effects on neighborhoods).
•   Use signage and the City’s website to highlight certain projects.

Budget Policies for 2007-2008
•   CRP projects take priority over CFP projects in recognition of the desire to maintain and improve
    existing assets before acquiring new assets. Acquisition of major new capital assets should generally
    be funded with new revenues.
•   For “macro-financial” issues, staff should use at least a 10-year time frame and extend the financing
    period out to as much as 20 years for some capital items.
•   Use debt financing only when the following conditions exist:
    1. Object of the expenditure is a major new capital asset.
    2. Object of expenditure can be used by residents/taxpayers in the future.
    3. There are insufficient existing capital revenues available.
    4. All the revenue is needed at the same time (i.e. the project cannot be phased over time.)


                                                                 _________________________________
D-40                                            AB 4193             City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget
                                                Exhibit 8
                                                Page 43
                                                                           Budget Policies
•   Major impacts on the City’s operating funds will be identified and budgeted before projects are
    approved.
•   The CIP is a dynamic plan subject to changes in City Council policy, financial environment, design
    information, emergencies, and unique opportunities that can arise over a multi-year planning period.
•   The CIP will be developed in accordance with requirements of the State Growth Management Act
    and will be consistent with Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
•   Within the context of a biennial budget, the City will develop a six-year plan for capital
    improvements. The six-year plans contained in the CIP fulfill the City's six-year planning
    requirements outlined in the Growth Management Act and Comprehensive Plan.
•   The City will enact a two-year capital budget based on the CIP.
•   The City will attempt to maintain its assets at a level adequate to protect capital investment and
    minimize future maintenance and replacement costs.
•   The City will identify the estimated costs and potential funding sources for each capital project
    proposal before it is submitted to the City Council for approval.
•   Capital projects are budgeted and funds allocated in the year that the project is acquired or
    constructed.
•   Whenever possible, capital improvements will be scheduled and completed in the same year.
•   Prior to City Council funding commitments on major capital projects, the City will conduct detailed
    and professional cost estimating analyses.
•   In general, the City will plan and implement capital improvement projects so that the spring-
    summer-fall construction season is used to the community's greatest advantage.
•   Technology projects will be budgeted and accounted for in the Technology Fund.
•   When the City receives unanticipated or extraordinary capital revenue, the City Council will
    consider transferring it to the Capital Reserve Fund, or:
    1. Complete a previously identified, unfunded project;
    2. Add funds to a capital program category (such as parks) for a specific desired project;
    3. Advance an already programmed and budgeted capital project (such as pedestrian and bicycle
        facilities); or
    4. Complete a project that will decrease maintenance and operating costs.




_________________________________
City of Mercer Island 2007-2008 Budget         AB 4193                                              D-41
                                               Exhibit 8
                                               Page 44
                                                  REVENUE TOOL KIT
                                         (Presented at January 2007 Council Retreat)

                    Revenue                             Use Restrictions              Authorization          Special Considerations
                                                                                      Requirement
Existing Revenues
• Reallocate general funds – base budget       none                               Council approval
• Year End Cash Carry-forward (General Fund)   none                               Council approval
• Available Cash Balances in Other Funds:
                                                                                  Council approval
     o Beautification Fund                     fund purpose
     o Contingency Fund                        none
     o Capital Improvement Fund                REET
     o Technology & Equipment Fund             none
     o Capital Reserve Fund                    none

New Property Taxes
• regular levy                                 none                               Council approval
• banked capacity                              none                               Council approval
                                               debt paid with existing revenues   Council approval
• non-voted bond issue
                                               stated purpose and/or time limit   Voter approval          Can add inflation factor
• voted levy lid lift                          stated purpose                     Voter approval          Raises capital funds
• voted bond issue
New Sales Taxes
• Streamline Sales Tax                         none                               legislature approval;   Potential long term growth
                                                                                  council approval        source
New Business & Occupation Taxes
• City Utilities (water, sewer, storm)         None                               Council approval
• All other businesses                         none                               Council approval        Increasing rate from .10% to
                                                                                                          .15% would correspond to
                                                                                                          regional tax rate average
Real Estate Taxes
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)                certain capital improvements       Council approval        Approx $1.5M budgeted per
                                                                                                          yr in existing 05-06 CIP
New Fees

• Recreation                                   none                               Council approval        Reduces GF subsidy
New Grant Funds
• Federal                                      for grant purpose only             Congress/Exec Dept.     Parks improvements
• State                                        for grant purpose only             State agency




                                                              AB 4193
                                                              Exhibit 9
                                                              Page 45

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:12
posted:6/23/2011
language:English
pages:55