Get documents about "BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERCER ISLAND_ WA
Document Sample
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
