Docstoc

Resolution to Accept Nonprofit Assets

Document Sample
Resolution to Accept Nonprofit Assets Powered By Docstoc
					Summary of King County Parks and
  Recreation Division Progress on
 Implementing Metropolitan Parks
   Task Force Recommendations

          January 8, 2003
    Key Task Force Recommendations
•   Focus on regional park system assets
•   Transfer or mothball local facilities inside cities
•   Increase user fees based on cost and demand
•   Pursue other sources of revenue, including
    entrepreneurial ventures and parks foundation
•   Pursue state legislation authorizing new revenue
•   Community outreach
•   Reduce Current Expense subsidy and total budget
•   Levy Lid Lift or new taxing district or sell assets
    in 2004.
                   Highlights
• County Executive proposed and County Council
  adopted a $16.4M parks operating budget for 2003
• 8 of 10 in-city pools transferred or under new
  operating agreements
• 13 Parks transferred to cities; 10-12 more pending
• Omnibus Parks Ordinance passed changing
  procedures, granting new authorization
• New user fees effective 1/2/03
• RFP for public-private ventures issued
• Public-private ventures under way
• Outreach strategy developed
• Parks Foundation created
    Key Recommendations: Transfer or
           Mothball Facilities

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

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

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

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

                 Parks Transfers
• 10 in–city parks transferred
• Three unincorporated urban area parks transferred
• 2 community centers leased to Boys and Girls
  Clubs
• Negotiations ongoing; expect 10-12 additional
  parks to transfer in the first quarter of 2003
        Omnibus Parks Ordinance

• Recognizes and endorses new parks mission as
  envisioned by Task Force
• Authorizes Division to directly set user fees after
  public process
• Authorizes advertising, sponsorship and naming
  rights agreements
• Provides broader authority for entering into leases
  and concession agreements
• Provides more flexibility to Division to seek and
  accept donations
    Key Recommendation: Increase User
                Fees
•   New user fees took effect 1/2/03
•   Public notice process
•   Across-the-board increases
•   30% cost recovery from fees at fields; 50% cost
    recovery from fees at pools
•   $1 parking fee at Marymoor
•   Fee structure simplified
•   Scholarships provided
•   New accounting system in place to track costs and
    revenues
  Key Recommendations: Additional
          Revenue Sources

• RFP for public-private ventures issued in October
• 30 responses received
• Contract negotiations will commence with 6-8
  proposers in the first quarter of 2003
• New RFPs to be issued in 2003
    Key Recommendations: Additional
            Revenue Sources
             Overview of RFP Responses:
•   Pet-related concessions (e.g., self-service dog
    wash at Marymoor)
•   Cross-country running race series
•   Volunteer groups to take over maintenance
•   Food, clothing concessions
•   Billboards
•   Naming rights/sponsorship sales and support
    Key Recommendations: Additional
            Revenue Sources

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

• Friends of King County Parks, Created Fall 2002
      Key Recommendations: State
              Legislation

• County adopted legislative agenda includes
  general language supporting new revenues for
  park and recreation facilities and services
 Key Recommendations: Community
           Outreach
• Worked with Lee Springgate to develop
  comprehensive outreach strategy to better connect
  with parks users, cities, elected officials, and other
  stakeholders; completed December 2002
• Continue to attend user group meetings
• Created parks feedback e-mail address to receive
  and respond easily to input on parks transition
  issues
• Develop comment box on web page
• Regularly e-mail transition updates to 400+ list-
  serve subscribers
Community Outreach – Key Messages

• King County faces a continuing budget crisis.
• The County must focus on being a regional service
  provider, and a provider of local facilities only in
  rural areas.
• The County must transition out of its local service
  role in cities and in other urban areas.
• Entrepreneurial ventures are necessary to
  supplement user fee and tax revenue.
• County is actively seeking to partner with the
  community to develop creative solutions to
  funding issues.
Key Recommendations: Levy Lid Lift
or New Taxing District or Sell assets in
               2004
• Evaluating needs and options; details provided
  later in presentation
        Summary of 2002 Effort


• Task Force Recommendations largely
  implemented.

• 2003 Budget: $16.4M, including $7.6M
  from revenue generation, $8.8M from CX.

• 3-year Transition in process.
     MPTF June Recommendations

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


• Countywide property tax levy lid lift of 3-5
  years.

• Create a special purpose district and transfer
  parks responsibility to a new entity.

• As a last resort, sell some park assets.
 King County Budget Outlook: 2004
           and Beyond

• Year 2004 CX gap: $25 Million
• Year 2005 CX gap: $23 Million

• And on into the future…
    Existing and Potential Funding
           Sources for Parks
• Park System Revenues – $7.6M in 2003;
  includes REET (capital program staff),
  Road Fund, SWM Fees, user fees, lease and
  concession agreements, advertising,
  sponsorships, etc
• Other Revenue Sources being explored
  include: affinity cards, foundation
  contributions, grants, etc.
    Existing and Potential Funding
    Sources for Parks - Continued
• Current Expense - $8.8M in 2003,
  decreasing to $3M or less in 2004, and
  beyond

• New Property Tax Levy?

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

MPTF projected 2003 subsidy: $8.6M
Actual 2003 budget: $8.8M CX subsidy

MPTF projected 2004 subsidy: $6.8M

MPTF projected 2005 subsidy: $5M
            Budget Reconciliation
• MPTF 2004 CX Subsidy:             • Projected 2004 CX
  $6.8M                               Subsidy: $11.9M
Assumes:                            Assumes:
-- $1.6M in Road Fund and SWM
    Fund contributions that would   -- no contribution from either Road
    continue                            Fund or SWM Fund
-- ongoing reduced central and      -- restoration of the actual central
    Departmental overhead for           and departmental overhead for
    Parks                               Parks, adding $1M+
-- extremely aggressive revenue     -- assumes more conservative
    growth and continued cost           revenue growth and cost cutting
    cutting
                                    --inflation
-- no inflation
CX Subsidy Levels Before and After
      Transfers (in millions)

$8
$7
$6
$5
                                        2002 Costs
$4
                                        2003 Costs
$3                                      2004 Costs
$2
$1
$0
     Regional   Rural   UGA   In-City
        Options for Addressing
         Parks Funding Gap

• Further major cuts in park system
• Reallocate more CX funds away from other
county functions (Human Services, Health,
criminal Justice)
• Levy of some sort
• New taxing district(s) for parks
• Sale of assets
King County Park System Components

 80%
 70%
 60%
 50%
 40%                                  Acreage
 30%                                  Cost

 20%
 10%
  0%
       Regional   Rural   Local UGA
KC Parks and Trails - Regional




      KC Parks and Trails - Regional
         KC - Managed Regional T rails
         KC - Proposed Regional Tr ails
         Park - Regional
                                                                N

                                1   0     1   2   3   4 Miles
KC Parks - Local Rural




  KC Parks - Local Rural

     Park - Local Rural                             N

                     1    0   1   2   3   4 Miles
KC Parks - Local UGA




  KC Parks - Local UGA

     Park - Local UGA                             N

                  1     0   1   2   3   4 Miles
                 City Parks




City Parks

    City Parks                                 N

                 1   0   1   2   3   4 Miles
                No New Funding
• Scenario A: Maximum               • Scenario B: Minimal
  Transfer of Existing                Transfer of Existing
  Revenues to Parks                   Revenue
   – SWM Fund supports                 – SWM Fund supports
     ecological and resource             ecological and resource
     lands                               lands
   – Unincorporated Road Fund          – Unincorporated Road Fund
     supports all trails                 supports uninc. trails
   – Unincorporated Road Fund          – Self-supporting parks stay
     also supports local parks un        open
     unincorporated area ($4M)         – Close remainder of system,
     w/corresp. cuts to road             incl. All local parks, most
     projects                            active recreation facilities
   – CX supports remaining               closed
     regional assets to extent
     possible w/corresp. cuts to
     HS, Health, CJ.
   – Additional parks closures
     Create a new taxing district:
         Metropolitan Park District,
    Park and Recreation Service Area, or
    Park and Recreation Service District

– All require consent from each city to be
  included.
– MPD has “springing” 75 cent levy authority
  w/o further vote. 50%+1 to create.
– PRSA, PRSD levies limited to 6 years, must be
  voted. 60 cent maximum. 60% to create, levy.
                  Parks Levy
• “Lid-lift”:
   – Raise regular property tax levy by specific
     amount or not-to-exceed rate, for specific
     purpose (or not), for term of years (or
     permanent).
   – Single subject -- can mix city and county
     projects
   – Lid-lift revenues can be used for maintenance
     or for capital or both
   – Lid-lift requires 50% +1 voter approval
                     Levy Lid Lift

•   Fund only Regional Park Assets
•   Fund Entire System (regional and local parks)
•   Fund only Local Park Assets (uninc. area tax)
•   Add funding for:
    –   System Growth increment?
    –   Cities park funding?
    –   Non-County owned regional assets?
    –   Partnership funding?
   Fund only County Regional/Rural
               Parks
• $9M (net of generated revenues) to maintain and
  operate current County Regional and Rural Parks
  in 2004.

• $0.04 cent levy (forecasted)

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

• County local parks (in UGA) will cost $3M (net of
  generated revenues) to maintain in 2004

• Multiply by about 6 or 7 to identify “equity” for
  cities in a regional levy (= $15 - 18M/year) (based
  on comparing population/A.V. of unincorporated
  urban area to incorporated areas (Cities))
• Levy annual amount rises from $12M to $27-30M
  – from 5 cents to 12 cents
   Fund Entire County System with
    match for incorporated areas

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

• Issues:
   – City Regional Parks?
   – Voter Support?
   – City Support?
   – Allocation of City dollars?
      • School districts? Non-profits?
      • Dollar-in-dollar out? Sub-regional pots?
      • Timing?
Fund only Unincorporated Area Local
               Parks
• An unincorporated area levy of $3M (net of
  generated revenues) in 2004 would support
  existing urban unincorporated area local parks.
• Rate in unincorporated area would be: 12 cents
• To fund all local unincorporated area parks (rural
  and urban): $4M/16 cents
• Issues:
   – How to fund regional and rural parks?
   – Voter support?
   – Incentives for annexation/transfer?
               2 ballots

• Regional Ballot   • Local Uninc.
                      Area Ballot
     Scan of Levy Options: When?
          2004 Election Dates

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

• MPTF June Report recommended 3-5 year levy.

• Permanent levies not “permanent” in effect given
  budget uncertainty and I-747 limits.

• Cost/effort of campaign/election

• Value to park system of funding certainty

• EMS, AFIS levies – 6 years
                   Summary
• On track in implementing transition.
• General Fund Revenue picture for County
  continues to deteriorate.
• June Recommendation: parks levy or parks district
  or sell parks to fund system after 2003
• Levy or New Taxing District or neither?
• What? When? How Long?
                       Next Steps

Meeting 2: Thurs., January 16    Meeting 3: Wed., January 22
•Presentation of Poll results   •Results of Focus Groups
•Discussion of Various Future   •Legislative and Community
Funding Options                 Update
•Direction to Focus Group       •Discussion with stakeholders
consultant                      •Discussion of preliminary
                                recommendations
Meeting 4: Wed., January 29     February 15: Executive to Report
                                to County Council on Proposal for
•Discuss Recommendations        Parks Levy/Future Funding
•Finalize Recommendations
Criteria for Successful Levies

        7 important factors
               Affordable
• Poll results
• Ballot competition
• $30 rule
                 Credible
• Track record
• Believable?
• Consistent?
                  Focused
• Vision/Mission
• Public priorities
                 Balanced
•   Geographically
•   Functionally
•   Politically
•   Phasing
               Supported
• Constituent support
• Minimal organized opposition
• Political consensus
              Achievable
• Reliable cost estimates
• Reasonable time lines
• Organizational competence
          Comprehensible

• Clear message
• Easy to communicate
• Minimal complexity

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:7/15/2011
language:English
pages:57
Description: Resolution to Accept Nonprofit Assets document sample