Resolution R-5514

A RESOLUTION OF THE

OF THE CITY OF

THE

TO INCLUDE THE

BALLOT

TO

BEFORE

1

WHEREAS, in 2011 and 2012 the City Council approved annual

2

City Work Programs, but determined that subsequent City Work

3

Programs be adopted as biennial initiatives to better align with the

4

biennial budget process; and

5

6

WHEREAS, City Work Program initiatives are of citywide

7

significance and involve substantial financial resources designed to

8

maintain community safety and quality of life in Kirkland, as well as an

9

effective and efficient City government; and

11

WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Council goals for the

12

City that articulate key policy and service priorities and guide the

13

allocation of resources for Kirkland through the budget and capital

14

improvement programs; and

16

WHEREAS, potential voter-approved ballot measures are

17

designed to help achieve the Council goals and meet the criteria for

18

inclusion on the City Work Program; and

19

20

WHEREAS, the Council adopted the 2021-2022 City Work

21

Program through Resolution R-5462 passed March 16, 2021 consisting

22

of eleven goals; and

23

24

WHEREAS, the Council amended the 2021-2022 City Work

25

Program through Resolution R-5502 on November 16, 2021 to include

26

a twelfth goal to activate the Kirkland Transportation Benefit District

27

in 2022 for the purpose of funding Safer Routes to School

28

Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan priority projects, and

29

other active transportation projects, as well as to further the goals

30

of community safety, inclusive and equitable community, vibrant

31

neighborhoods, balanced transportation, and dependable

32

infrastructure; and

34

WHEREAS, the addition of exploring comprehensive parks

35

ballot measure options to place before the voters in 2023 could help

36

implement the Council's goal of abundant parks, open spaces, and

37

recreational services; and

1

R-5514

39

WHEREAS, the Parks and Community Services Department

40

(''PCS'') is preparing the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (''PROS'')

41

Plan, which acts as a strategic guide and informs the Council of the

42

community's level of interest in capital and operating investments for

43

Kirkland's parks; and

45

WHEREAS, to respond to the community's interest in

46

expanding and enhancing Kirkland's parks and recreation programs,

47

the Council set aside funding to explore the possibility of Parks-related

48

ballot measure options during the City's mid-biennial budget process in

49

2021; and

so

s1

WHEREAS, at their January 28, 2022 retreat, the Council was

s2

presented with three tiered scenarios of capital and operating

53

investments derived from preliminary community survey results and

54

community feedback PCS has received in prior years; and

56

WHEREAS, at such retreat the Council expressed interest in

57

moving forward with exploring Scenario C, a comprehensive list of

58

improvements, enhancements, and large system expansions that

59

includes both capital and operating investments; and

60

61

WHEREAS, due to the size and scope of Scenario C, the Council

62

considered it important to focus on 2023 ballot measure dates to

63

ensure adequate time for project and program development, financial

64

analysis and community engagement regarding capital and operating

65

investment options, timing, and funding mechanisms; and

66

67

WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, the Council now wishes to

68

add a thirteenth work program item to the 2021-2022 City Work

69

Program.

70

71

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the

72

City of Kirkland as follows:

74

Section 1. The 2021-2022 City Work Program originally

75

adopted through Resolution R-5462 passed March 16, 2021, amended

76

by Resolution R-5502 passed November 16, 2021, is further amended

77

by adding a thirteenth work program item stating:

Explore potential comprehensive Parks ballot measure options

to be placed before Kirkland voters in 2023 for the purpose of

maintaining and expanding natural areas, open spaces, aquatic

and recreational facilities, and program opportunities that

enhance the health and wellbeing of the community to further

the goals of

2

-

R-5514

87

Section

2.

The

City Manager

is

authorized and directed to

88

establish an

initial fram

ewo

rk

outlining

project

and

program

89

development and community

e

ngagement

and

to

formalize

an

90

advisory

group

to

begin discussion

of size and scope of

the

potential

91

Parks ballot measure

options for

2023.

93

Passed by majority

vote of

the Kirkland

City Council

in open

94

meeting this 1 day

of March, 2022

95

96

Signed in authentication

thereof this

1 day of March,

2022.

~

pennyS

7e

;

Mayor

Attest:

rr:~t:r'

24.

?-)

d q

tJ

4

d

~

Kathi ~son,

City Clerk

3

Protecting and Enhancing Kirkland's

Quality of Life

1.

2.

3.

~

4.

5.

Implement R-5434 elements

such

as non-commissioned emergency

responders, police transparency and accountability measures, and

community-wide

equity and inclusion programs to create a safer and

more equitable Kirkland that increases the safety and respect of Black

people and reduces

systemic

racism

and

poverty.

&

Complete construction and

open

Fire Station 24 in Juanita with

a cross-staffed crew of three firefighter/emergency medical

technicians (EMTs) to implement the Fire Strategic Plan.

Adopt a

Fire

and Emergency Medical Services ballot measure

implementation plan, stockpile pandemic personal protective

equipment, initiate hiring of new and diverse firefighter/EMTs

,

complete design of the new Fire Station 27 in Totem Lake,

complete design of the renovation

of

Fire Station 22 in Houghton,

and locate and complete a temporary fire station.

Initiate a supportive housing project in Kirkland

,

implement significant

affordable housing projects at the Kingsgate Park and Ride and in the

Totem Lake Urban Center

,

develop affordable housing priorities for the

NE 85th Street Station Area Plan, and adopt and track affordable housing

targets for low-income and moderate income residents.

Complete actions and investments necessary to keep Kirkland residents,

City staff and City facilities safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, support

renewed economic activity, and prepare the City organization and the

Kirkland community for recovery to

implement

the Comprehensive

Emergency Management Plan (CEMP), Continuity of Government (COG)

Plan, and Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan

.

Complete design and initiate construction of the Juanita Drive

and 100th Avenue NE multi-modal transportation projects to

implement the Transportation Master Plan.

7.

~

Complete

the

Totem

Lake Connector, Totem Lake Park, 132nd

Square

Park and continue capital investments to

support

growth

throughout the City and the Totem Lake Urban Center to

implement the Parks, Recreation and Open

Space

(PROS) Plan,

the

Cross

Kirkland Corridor Master Plan.

Continue

to Partner with Sound Transit, the

State

Department

of Transportation and King County Metro Transit to

ensure

that

investments along 1-405 serve Kirkland's mobility needs to

implement the Transportation Master Plan and the Transit

Implementation Plan.

Complete work for designation of Greater Downtown Kirkland

as a Regional Center. Complete a vision statement and

placemaking name for the NE 85th St. Station Area Plan that

integrates with surrounding neighborhoods and connects with

downtown. Complete a Level of Service Benefit and Impact

Analysis to inform Council decisions regarding Station Area

Plan options and the Plan's potential environmental impacts to

implement the Comprehensive Plan

.

Initiate city-wide outreach and planning efforts to update the

Comprehensive Plan, the

Transportation

Master Plan, the Parks,

Recreation and Open Space Plan and related documents to

maintain the quality of life in

Develop an equitable, cost effectiv

e

2023

-

2024 balanced budget

that improves the City's future financial outlook while investing

in

community

priorities and retaining Kirkland's AAA credit

rating.

Activate the Kirkland Transportation Benefit District in 2022 for the

purpose of funding Safer Routes to School Action Plans priority

projects, Active Transportation Plan priority projects, Vision Zero

priority projects and other active transportation projects

.

7

2021-2022

Kirkland's Foundation for the Future

l4@

I

To provide a sustainable level of core services

I

that are funded from predictable revenue.

(425) 587-3021

JJohnston@ki rkla ndwa.gov

For more

about the

City local government and Legislative Agenda

,

go to

:

C

it

y

Council

Goa

l

s

articulate

k

ey

policy

and

service p

ri

orities for Kirklan

d

and

guide the

a

ll

ocat

i

on o

f

resources

.

The City's ability to

make

progress towards the achievement

of these long

-

t

e

r

m

goa

l

s is

based

on

the

avail

abili

ty

of

r

eso

ur

ces at a

n

y give

n t

ime a

nd

the

need to

balance

l

evels of taxation and

co

m

mu

ni

ty

imp

acts with se

r

v

i

ce de

m

ands

and

the

ac

hi

eveme

nt

of goa

ls

.

Ope

ra

tional va

lu

es

guide how the City

organization

works toward goa

l

achieveme

n

t:

-

Kirkland

encourages and partic

ip

ates in

r

egiona

l

approaches

to se

r

vice de

li

very

to

the

ex

t

ent

that a

r

egio

n

al

model produces

effic

i

encies and cost savings, impro

v

es

cus

t

o

m

er se

r

vice and f

ur

the

r

s

Kirkland's

int

erests beyond our bo

und

aries.

-

Kirkland

is comm

itt

ed

t

o

providing public

se

r

vices

in

the most

ef-

ficient

m

anner possible and maximizing

the public's return

on

their investment.

We believe that a cu

l

ture

of continuo

u

s

impr

ovement

i

s

fundamenta

l

to

ou

r

responsibility

as good stewards of

public

f

un

ds

.

- The

City

of

Kirkland

i

s accountable to

the

commun

it

y for

the

achievement of goa

l

s.

T

o that end,

meaningful performance

measures

w

ill

be developed

for each

goal

area

to

track

o

u

r progress

toward

the

stated

goals.

Performance

meas

ur

es wil

l

be

both quantitative

and

q

ualita

ti

ve w

ith

a focus on outcomes.

The

City will

continue to

conduct a statis

ti

ca

ll

y val

id

citizen

su

r

vey eve

r

y two years

to

gat

h

er

qualitat

i

ve data about the

citizen

'

s

level

of sat

i

sfact

i

on.

An

annua

l

Pe

r

fo

r

mance

Measu

r

e Repo

r

t will be prepared for the

public

to

report on

o

ur

progress.

Th

e C

it

y

of

K

irkland

is

one comm

uni

ty

composed of mu

ltipl

e

n

eighbor

h

oods.

Achievement

of Council goals w

ill

be

in

fo

rm

ed

b

y

civic

engagement a

n

d w

ill

be respectful of

neighborhood

identity

whi

l

e supporting

the needs

and va

lu

es

of

the community

as a who

l

e.

The

C

i

ty Co

un

c

il

Goa

l

s are

dynamic. They

sho

uld

be

r

eviewed

on

an annua

l

basis

and

updated or amended as needed to refle

c

t

com

munit

y

input

as we

ll

as

changes in

the

ex

t

ernal environment and

community

demographics.

Attachmen

t

C

Kirkland is

one

of the most livable cities in America. We are a

vibrant,

attractive

,

green and welcoming place

to

live,

work and play. Civic engagement, innovation

and

diversity are highly valued.

We are

respectful, fair, and inclusive.

We honor

our

rich heritage

while emb

r

acing

th

e

future. Kirkland

strives

to be

a

made/,

sustainable city

that values

preserving

and enhancing our natural

environment

for our enjoyment and future generations.

community's needs.

,

1

_

__

1

,

I

Kirkland has a diverse, business-friendly economy that supports the

~

Attract, retain and grow a diverse and stable economic base that supports city

revenues, needed

goods and services and jobs for community

members.

I

Kirkland

has

a well

-

maintained and sustainable infrastructure

~

that meets

the functional needs

of the

community

.

0

Maintain

levels

of service commensurate with growing community

requirements at opt

i

mum

life

-

cycle costs.

0

0

1. Revitalize Totem Lake Business District through continued

implementation

of the

lake

Action

Plan

.

0

Partner

with private sector to attract tenants to Kirkland's major

business dis

t

ricts

.

0

3.

Reenergize

neighborhoods through

p

artnerships on capital

project

implementation.

0

4.

Complete

Comprehensive

P

l

an update and incorporate

new

neighborhoods into

all

planning

documents.

0

Implement

Development Services

Organizational Review

re

commendations and

simplify

Zoning Code.

0

6.

Develop

Gty-wide

Multimodal Transportation

Master

Plan.

0

7.

Achieve Kirklands

adopted

legislative

agendas, with emphasis on securing transportation

revenues

and

funding for the

NE 132nd Street

r

amps to

1-40S.

(Now an annua

l

in

itiative

)

0

8. Comp

le

te

Cross

Ki

r

kland

Corridor

Master

Plan

and const

ru

ction of the

Interim Trail.

0

9

.

Develop

cost effective 2015-20

1

6

Budget that mainta

i

ns

Kirldand

's

AAA credit rating and

implements

an

i

mproved performance management

syste

m

.

0

10.

Continue

partnership

initiatives with

employees to

achieve

sunainabili

ty

of

wage

s

and benefits.

0

11. Comp

l

ete construction and occupy

Public

Safety

Building.

0

12

.

Continue to implement

Rre

Strategic

Plan

recommendations, induding evaluation of a Regional

fire Authority and

r

esolution of a consolidated Rnn Hill fire Station.

0

13.

Partner

with

Lake Washington

School

District

and

other

int

erested

public

and

private

organiza-

tions to explore options for rep

l

acing the Juanita Aquatic Center by 2017.

2017-2018 KIRKLAND WORK PLAN

0

1.

Renovate

Fire

Station 25

[!)

Construct new Station 24,

and

site

new Station 27

0

0

2.

E

xplore potential

ba

llot

measures for Fire Station

modernization and publ

i

c

s

afety

operations.

0

3.

Fa

cilita

t

e

Community Policing

t

hrough

implementation o

f

Police Stra

t

egic

Plan.

0

4. Fund

c

apital

investments to

support

growth

in

Totem

lake

Urban

Center.

[!)

Partn

er w

ith

Sound Transit, the State Department ofTransportation

and King

Co

u

nty

Metro

Tran

sit

to ensure that investments along

1

-

405 serve Kirklan

d

's

mobility needs.

0

6.

P

artner with ARegiona

l

Coalition

for

Ho

u

sing

,

churches and

non

-profits to

construct a permanent women and family shelter in Ki

r

klan

d

.

0

7.

Im

plement the Cross Kirkland Corridor Master

Pla

n

fo

cu

sed

on

t

he

Tot

em

lak

e

Connector and South Kirkland

Park

and Ride

connection.

0

8.

Expand Maintenance

Center capacity

to

meet

the

service

needs

of the la

r

ger City.

0

9.

Pro

c

ure

a new

soli

d

waste

con

t

ract and

engage

King County

a

nd

K

i

rk

land

residents

to determine the future of the Houghton Transfer Station

and

H

oughton

landfill

.

0

10. Replace

the

City

'

s core financial and human

resources

software.

0

11. Enhance

resi

d

en

t

and

business

engagement in

Kirkland through

com

m

uni-

ty-based

initiat

i

ves that

foster

a

s

afe,

inclusive and welcoming City and a love of

Kirkland.

2015-2016

KIRKLAND WORK PLAN

0

T

askCom

pl

eted

0

1.

Continue to

im

plement

Cross

Kirkland Corrido

r

Master

Plan.

0

Complete Comprehensive Plan

U

pdate

and

Transpor

tat

ion

Master Plan

.

0

3.

Complete comprehensive update

of the

Capi

t

al

Impr

ovement

Program

.

0

4

. I

nvest F

ir

e D

i

strict

#4

1

funds and City

rev

e

nues

to

i

mprove

fir

e

and emergency

medi

ca

l

services

to

F

i

nn Hill, Juanita, and

Kingsgate,

site new

north

end fire

stat

i

ons and improve existin

g

sta

ti

ons

and

operatio

n

s.

0

S. Conti

n

ue annexation-related facility investments by

renovating

City

H

all,

enhanci

ng

cus

to

mer service and identifying expansion for

Par

ks and

Public

Works

Maintenance Centers.

0

6.

I

mplement capital,

financial,

l

eg

i

s

lative

and organizationa

l

actions fo

r

redevel-

opmen

t

of Parkplace

an

d

Totem

l

ake Mall.

0

7.

Provide Kirkland residents an

opportun

i

ty to vote on a ba

ll

ot

measure

in 201S

or

20

1

6

to fund an Aquatics, Recrea

t

ion

,

and Commun

it

y

Ce

n

ter replacing

the

J

uanita

Aqua

t

ic Center.

0

8.

Engage

Sound

Transit

Boa

rd

to ensure

any ballo

t

measure connects Totem

Lake

to

High

Capac

i

ty T

r

ansit.

0

9. Co

n

vert all employees of the City to an

email

archiving system improving City

responsiveness and

t

ran

spare

n

cy

while reducing

the cost

and complex

i

ty

o

f

storing

email

data.

0

10.

Partne

r

with A

Re

g

iona

l

Coalition for

Hou

sing

and

non

-

profit

organizations

to

site a

permanent Eastside women

's

she

l

te

r

in

Kirkla

nd.

0

11.

Implement the

Hea

lthy Ki

r

kland

Plan,

includi

n

g

estab

li

shing an emp

l

oyee

clin

ic.

2019-2020

KIRKLAND

WORK PLAN

0

fi!

0

l.

Improve Fire and

Emergency Medical

Services by constructing

a

n

ew

Station

24,

securing

a

site

fo

r

a

new

S

t

ation

27

,

and exploring a potent

i

a

l

ballot measure

in 2020 to

fund

fire station

modernization

and

enhanced opera

t

ions

.

0

2.

Implement "Enhance

d

Police Services

and

Community Safety'

ballot measure fund

i

ng

to facilitate Community

P

olicing, improve school safety,

reduce gun

violence, and foster

a safe,

i

nclusive

and

welcoming city.

0

3.

Construct the

Totem Lake Connecto

r

and continue capital investments t

o

support

growth

throughout the City to ensure

that

Kirkland

i

s

a city

where

growth

occurs by

design.

0

4.

Ensure

that

investments along 1-405 serve Kirkland

'

s

mobility

needs

a

nd

maxim

i

ze

the benefit of

Sound Transit's NE

8Sth

S

tr

eet

Bus Rapid Trans

i

t

i

nterchange project by

completing land use,

zoning an

d

eco

n

omic

deve

l

opment

plans for

areas adjacent

to

t

he

project.

0

Support

construction

and ope

r

ation

of a

permanen

t

shelter

i

n Kirk

la

nd

for

women

and families with children experiencing homelessness.

0

6.

Implement

strategies from the

H

ousing Strategy

P

l

an,

prior

i

tizing affordable

hous

i

ng

and

"

mi

ssi

ng

m

id

d

le"

housing.

0

7. Renovate the new Parks

Maintenance

Center building to meet the service needs of

the

la

rg

er

city.

@

8.

Complete major

park improvement projects to preserve and enhance quality of

li

fe

in

Kirklan

d

,

i

ncluding

Juanita

Beach

Park,

Tot

em

Lake

Park,

and 132nd

Squa

r

e Pa

r

k

0

9 .Develop and adopt a Sustainability

Master Plan

K

i

rkland

0

1

0. Develo

p

a

'Safe

r

Routes

to School Action

Plan

'

for each schoo

l i

n Kirk

land.

0

1

1.

Prio

r

i

t

ize Information

Technology

stabilization an

d

migrate

appropr

i

a

t

e C

i

ty a

p

plica-

tions

and

infor

mation

to the Cloud

to

improve resiliency and disaster preparedness.

0

1

2.

Prepare for the 2021 Annexation Sales

Tax

Credit

expi

r

a

t

ion

by deve

l

opi

ng

specific

strategies

to

sustain

prio

ritized

programs dur

i

ng

developm

e

nt

of the

b

ien

nial

budget.

Attachment D -

Potential Capital and Operating Investments Presented at

January 28, 2022 Council Retreat

Base Scenario of Modest Parks and Recreation Improvements and Enhancements

Annual capital

•

Improve parks maintenance, winterize restrooms

•

Add park amenities (1 set of pickleball courts, 1 sports court, 1 off leash dog park)

•

Add community gardens

•

Add restrooms

•

Improved field playability

•

Parks wayfinding

•

& security

•

ADA accessibility projects

Annual Operating

•

Improve parks maintenance, maintain year-round restrooms

•

Maintain new park amenities & gardens

•

Manage park security & lighting systems

•

Communications & outreach

•

Expanded programming and community events

•

Planning & administration

Comprehensive Scenario of Improvements, Enhancements and Moderate Expansion

Annual capital (Scenarios A&B)

•

Base scenario A with improvements & enhancements

•

New 4-acre park

•

Convert 1 grass field to synthetic turf

•

Recreation & aauatics center

Annual Operating (Scenarios A&B)

•

Base scenario A with improvements & enhancements

•

Maintain new park

•

Maintain new synthetic field

•

Recreation & aauatics center operations

$90,930,643

Comprehensive Scenario of Improvements, Enhancements and Large Expansion

Annual capital (Scenarios A&C)

$163,189,571

•

Base scenario A with improvements & enhancements

•

New 4-acre park

•

Convert 2 grass fields to synthetic turf

•

Recreation & aquatics center

•

2 local recreation centers

Annual Operating (Scenarios A&C)

•

Base scenario A with improvements & enhancements

•

Maintain new park

•

Maintain new synthetic fields

•

Recreation & aauatics center ooerations

Kurt

Triplett,

City Manager

Beth Goldberg, Deputy City Manager

Lynn

Zwaagstra, Director, Parks & Community Services

Alice Ostdiek, Attorney, Stradling

Yocca

Carlson & Rauth

January 28, 2022

P

oten

tial

Parks Ballot Measure

Attachme

n

t

E

Th

e

City Council

recei

ves a

presentation about

explor

ing

potential options for a Parks-related

ballot m

eas

ur

e

in

2022 or 2023

.

During

the

mid

-

bi budget

process, the City Council requested a

r

etreat

discussion about

explori

ng

a potential

Park

s-related

ballot

measure

for 2022 or

2023. T

h

e

Council

a

l

so

appropriated significant

re

so

urce

s

for community engagement and project and program

development

sho

uld

the decision be made to proceed, as

s

ho

w

n in

the table

below:

Peter Kirk Park Feasibility

Assessment

100,000

Commun

it

y Educat

i

on a

nd

Out

r

each

100,000

Community Survey

40,000

L

ega

l

Services

25,000

O

n

e-Time Ma

n

agemen

t

Ana

l

yst

-

12 mon

th

s*

136,410

*Costing tool estimate

;

does

not include 2022 COLA

:

As the City

Counci

l

reviews the materials presented

in

this memo,

staff is seeki

ng

direction from

the Council on

t

h

e

following questions

:

1. Is

t

he

Co

uncil

interested in

exp

l

oring a

Parks-related ballot measure?

C

hoo

s

ing

to

exp

l

ore a

m

easure

is not

a

deci

sion

to place

a

measure

on

the ballot.

If yes:

Page2

1. What is the Council interested in funding through a ballot measure?

2. What revenue mechanism(s) is the City Council interested in considering?

3. How would the Council like to involve the community in the decisions?

4. When might the City Council want to put this issue to the voters? Fall of 2022? Spring

of 2023? Fall of 2023?

To facilitate the discussion, this memo will provide information on several relevant topics:

•

Parks and Community Services Department Overview

•

Highlights of the Parks Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan Community Survey

•

Parks Investment Needs

•

Overview of Potential Funding Mechanisms

•

History of Kirkland Levies

•

Ballot measure options

•

Timing

•

Next Steps

The mission of the Parks and Community Services Department (PCS) is to:

Support a healthy and sustainable community by providing high quality parks and

recreation services, ensuring a collaborative community response to basic human needs,

and protecting our natural areas.

There are 4 overarching goals that provide direction on both a strategic and operational level.

•

Preserve and maintain park lands and open spaces to create safe places for people to

visit.

•

Conserve and sustain natural areas for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future

generations.

•

Provide comprehensive year-round recreation opportunities to enhance physical, mental

and social well-being.

•

Establish partnerships to ensure a comprehensive system of programs, facilities and

services are available to meet the recreation and human service needs of the Kirkland

community.

The PCS Department is currently organized into 5 divisions: administration

&

planning, special

events, recreation, parks and human services. For Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021, there were 59.5

total benefitted positions; 3 of these positions were limited term. Please refer to Appendix A for

details about each division. Also, the most recent Parks maps is shown in Appendix B.

For the purpose of this memo, financial data excludes the portion of the Parks and Community

Services Department budget dedicated to human services.

Pa

ge

3

Kirkland

is

allocating

more

than $12

.

8 million for PCS e

x

penditures in

2022,

up

nearly $4

million, or

44%,

from 2013, including support from the General

Fund,

levy re

v

enues

and

other

parks

revenues,

such

as those from

fees for service

.

1

As

the table

below

demonstrates

,

the

largest

portion of PCS e

x

penditures are dedicated to

maintenance ($6.6 million),

followed

by recreation serv

i

ce

s

($3.7

million).

&

......

"

989,829

206,729

s.111

,101

33"

2,

176,

292

77"

17

,800

1

2,800

6,900

-70%

333,604

276

,

860

788,687

..

,.

Financial

support for Kirkland

'

s parks and

recreation

programs

has long

been a priority for

Kirkland

'

s

residents

and elected offi

c

ials alike

.

Since 2013, the City

has dedicated

an average of

7

.

1

%

of

General

Fund e

x

penditures to Parks.

2

$

in

mi

l

lio

n

s

Tot

al

Ge

nera

l

Fund

Exp

end

i

t

u

r

es

84

.

8

8

3.2

92.0

91.5

104

.

3

101.9

109

.

6

122

.

8

1

28.0

12

1

.0

Total Porks General Fund Expenditures•

Pa

r

ks

as

a

%

of General

Fund

•

E

xcludes

h

uman

serv

i

ces

fund

i

ng,

t

ransfers and

reserv

es

Further

,

Kirkland voters have appro

v

ed two pe

r

manent

par

k

s

property

ta

x

lev

i

es ove

r

the past

two

decades to

support operating costs:

•

2002 Parks Maintenance

Levy

(forecast

to

generate

$

1,339

,

968 in revenue in 2022)

•

2012 Parks

Levy

(forecast to generate $2,493,860

in

revenue in 2022)

Kirkland voters

have

also approved several bond

measures

over the decades for capital

in

v

estments:

•

1989 &

1990

Parks

Bonds

(retired)

•

1995

Forbes

Creek

Bonds (retired)

•

2002 Park Bonds -

included

fi

v

e playfield

projects

,

land

a

c

quisition and developmen

t

of

Houghton

Park (e

x

pires

December

31, 2022)

While Kirkland

'

s commitment to parks and rec

r

eation funding

ha

s

remained

f

airly consis

t

ent

over the years, the community

has

expressed an

interest

in add

i

tional services

beyond

what is

currently funded, a

s

evidenced by feedback

received

from the

Pa

r

ks

,

Recreat

i

on and Open

Space (PROS) plan community survey which will

be

discussed later

in

the

memo. These desires

ar

e

beyond

w

hat

the City can afford through existing

r

evenue streams.

If

th

e

City wishes to

expand

its

support for parks and

recreation

services,

it

will either

need to rep

r

ioritize funding

from other departments or pur

s

ue

additional

revenues

sources

.

1

Exclu

d

es

hum

a

n

se

r

v

ice

s

in

vest

men

t

s

,

r

e

se

r

v

es

a

n

d

tra

n

sfe

r

s a

nd

cap

i

t

a

l

e

xpe

n

dit

u

r

es.

2

Exc

lud

es

co

mmun

it

y

s

erv

i

ces

i

n

ves

tm

ents and

re

serv

e

s

and

tran

s

fer

s.

Page4

The Parks & Community Services Department (PCS) is in the process of preparing the 2022

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. As part of this effort, PCS engaged the

services of GreenPlay LLC to conduct a statistically-valid community survey and an outreach and

engagement process to solicit community input on the future of Kirkland's parks programs.

While GreenPlay LLC is still evaluating the overall results of the survey and community

engagement sessions,

3

the preliminary survey results suggest the following:

Top-three area for improvement that would increase parks participation:

•

Year-round restrooms

•

Recreation center or indoor aquatics centers

•

Better lighting (parks, trails, facilities)

Parks amenities:

Top-three "high importance" choices:

•

Parks and open space

•

Trails in parks and/or city trail systems

•

Restrooms in parks

Top-three areas where "needs not being met":

•

Synthetic turf fields

•

Pickleball courts

•

Off-leash dog areas

Amenities rated as both "high importance" and "needs not being met"

•

Restrooms in parks

•

Community gardens

•

Outdoor pool

Recreation programs:

Top-three "high importance" choices

•

Special events

•

Environmental and outdoor programs

•

Fitness programs

Top-three areas where "needs not being met":

•

Adaptive/special needs programs

•

Culturally-specific programming for seniors

•

Environmental and outdoor programs

Recreation programs rated as both "high importance" and "needs not being met"

•

Aquatics programs

•

Fitness programs

•

Arts, crafts and dance programs

•

Health and wellness programs

3

A final report with the complete survey and outreach results is expected in February.

PageS

When parks, amenities and recreation evaluated together:

Top-three "high importance choices:

•

Parks and open space

•

Trails in parks and/or city trail system

•

Restroom in parks

The survey also asked for opinions regarding future funding of parks. Specifically, the survey

asked:

The recommendations from this su,vey could possibly require financial support Current

funding sources for Kirkland Parks and Community Se,vices are property taxes, sales

state aid, grants, donations, and fees. Please indicate how strongly you support

each of the following potential funding sources.

The table below shows the percentage of survey participants who said they would "definitely"

or "probably support" each option listed on the survey. Each option is shown exactly as it was

worded on the survey.

Bond referendum for specific projects

Bond referendum for indoor aquatic facility

Bond referendum for indoor recreation center

Increased user fees

New tax body such as a metropolitan park district

Increased property tax

New dedicated sales tax

%

60%

60%

57%

56%

26%

24%

It

is important to note that there are some incongruities in the results above. "Bond

referendums" have high support, while taxes have weak support. Bond referendums are

typically supported by a tax increase. Based on this, it seems that survey participants may not

have fully understood the options presented to them. This suggests that if the City were to

decide to proceed with a ballot measure that additional education and outreach would

be

required.

For a more complete discussion of the survey results, please refer to Appendix C. For a copy of

the survey questionnaire, please refer to Appendix D.

Based on the survey results above, as well as community feedback PCS has received over the

past five years, the community's desires for future parks investments generally fall into the

following categories:

Page6

•

to current offerings and services, including parks

maintenance, expanded levels of service for parks amenities and programs, customer

service, and accessibility and inclusivity. Other needs in this area include

communication, outreach, data, reporting and policies and procedures.

•

opportunities beyond what is currently offered.

The table below lists potential investment opportunities to address each of the categories listed

above. The table delineates estimated capital and operating costs, where known, using 2021

dollars. The table does not attempt to factor in inflationary or soft costs. If the City Council

were to decide to proceed with any of these options, staff would work to further refine the

costs estimates.

*2021 dollars with no

soft costs added

*2021 dollars with no

(e.g., design,

inflationary factor,

permits, construction

includes labor,

manaaement. etc.)

materials. utilities. etc.

Added amenities in parks to allow for

$338,194 (1 of each)

expanded use and accommodation of

population growth

•

Pickleball (each)

•

Sports court (each)

•

Off leash dog park (in-house)

•

Communitv aardens

Continuation of pilot special events and

$301,532 (after

programs:

revenue offset)

•

Events: Harvest Festival, Taste of

Kirkland, Light Up Kirkland, See Spot

Splash, Polar Bear Plunge, Movies in

Parks, Dfa De Los Muertos, etc.

•

Programs: Teen programs, fitness in

the parks, alternative sports

tournaments, health & wellness

oroarams. soecialtv camos. etc.

Consistent communication, improved

$139,321

website, social media presence,

communications in multiple languages,

outreach

&

engagement

Consistent customer service at all service

$402,490

counters (1 FT staff at each of 3 service

centers)

Updates in planning and administration:

$293,809

•

Planning position to keep up with

current and increasing planning &

capital projects, project partnerships,

easements/acauisitions

Page7

•

Customer feedback processes, data

collection

&

analysis, dashboards,

annual reporting, policies

&

procedures, staff training

&

retention

Improve parks maintenance standards,

$215,609 (after

enhance "green practices", increase water

&

revenue offset)

irrigation, improve field playability, add

planter baskets

Open all park restrooms vear-round

Make parks more accessible (ADA transition

Unknown

plan identified top priorities)

Improve park safety and security (additional

lighting, security cameras, more park ranger

coverage, automated gates)

Update and add park wayfinding, rules, and

$700,000

educational siqnaae

Add restrooms (McAuliffe, Terrace, North

Up to $1.2M (stick.

&

$75,450

Rose Hill Parks)

build, size deoendent)

Grow parks, recreation &

community services

*2021 dollars with no

*2021 dollars with no

soft costs added (e.g.,

inflationary factor,

design, permits,

includes labor,

construction

materials, utilities, etc.

management, etc.)

Park acquisitions focusing on N. Kirkland

$675,000 per acre

$26,750 (varies if

based upon a recent

several amenities

aooraisal

added)

New trails in parks

$550,000 for a 1 mile,

$2500 per mile

10 ft wide asphalt path

New synthetic turf fields and/or

$840,000 (replace grass

$20,250

conversion of current fields to synthetic

w/synthetic)

turf

Indoor recreation and/or aquatics

$75,000,000 (85,000 sq

$3,000,000

center(s)

ft,

based on 2019

regional analysis report,

no land acauisition)

Local recreation center

$38,000,000 (40,000 sq

$1,500,000

ft,

based on 2019

regional analysis report,

no land acauisition)

When considering these potential investments, it is important to note that some of these items

may

be

accommodated within existing capital and operating revenue streams. The larger the

scope of the investment(s), the more likely it will be that the City would need to identify a new

revenue source(s), including potentially a ballot measure(s).

Page8

The table below provides a sample of items that the City Council may wish to consider bundling

as ballot measure packages, with estimated costs.

The menu of options for each package includes a capital element and an operating element.

When considering capital investments, it is critical that the City also consider operating costs in

order to sustain the capital investments. These packages are not formal proposals. Rather,

they are provided to give the City Council a sense of scope.

An immediate threshold question for the City Council is whether it wants to pursue a more

modest set of investments (something along the lines package A) or something more expansive

in scope (something along the lines of packages B or

C).

The City Council would also need to

ultimately decide which investment to include the package. The bigger the size and the more

complex the package, the longer the lead time the City will likely need to prepare for the ballot

measure. For example, if the City Council were to decide it wanted to include a recreation and

aquatics center in a ballot measure, staff would need to develop more refined design and costs

estimates (capital and operating) and identify a potential site(s) for the facility. Ballot measure

timing is discussed in more detail later in this memo.

Base Package of Modest Parks and Recreation Improvements and Enhancements

Total Capital

$7,809,571

•

Improve parks maintenance, winterize restrooms

•

Add park amenities (1 set of pickleball courts, 1 sports court, 1 off leash dog park)

•

Add community gardens

•

Add restrooms

•

Improved field playability

•

Parks wayflnding

•

Park safety & security

•

ADA accessibilitv oroiects

Total Operating

$1,535,072

•

Improve parks maintenance, maintain year-round restrooms

•

Maintain new park amenities & gardens

•

Manage park security & lighting systems

•

Communications & outreach

•

Expanded programming and community events

•

Plannina & administration

Comprehensive Package of Improvements, Enhancements and Moderate Expansion

Total Capital (Package A&B)

$86,349,571

•

Base package A with improvements & enhancements

•

New 4-acre park

•

Convert 1 grass field to synthetic turf

•

Recreation & aauatics center

Total Operating (Package A&B)

$4,581,072

•

Base package A with improvements & enhancements

•

Maintain new park

•

Maintain new synthetic field

•

Recreation & aauatics center ooerations

Total

$90,930,643

Pag

e

9

Compr

e

hen

s

i

v

e Pa

c

kag

e o

f

Improvements, Enhancements

and

Large Expansion

Total Capital (Package A&C)

$163

,

189

,

571

•

Base package A with improvements &

e

nhancements

.

•

Convert

2

Recreation

New

local

4-acre

recreation

2 grass

&

park

aquatics

fields

centers

to

center

synthetic turf

Total

Operating (Package A&C)

$

7,581

,

072

.

Ba

s

e package A with improvements &

e

nhancement

s

.

Maintain new park

Maintain new synthet

i

c fi

e

lds

•

Recreation

&

aauatics c

e

nter OnPrat

i

on

s

Based

on 2022 assessed valuation (AV)

in

Kirkland, every $1 million the

City hopes to

generate

from an operating

levy

would require a

levy rate

of $0.027048

per

thousand dollars of AV. As

the median assessed home

value

in

Kirkland

is

$728,000, a $1

million

operating

levy

would cost

the

average

home owner

$19.69

per

year. At

the higher estimate

of $7.6 million in operating

dollars

(package

C),

the median homeowner

would

pay

appro

x

imately

$150

per

year.

A capital

levy

of $7.8

million

(package A) would require around

$

505,000 in annual

debt

service

for

twenty years,

based

on information received from

the

City's financial advisors.

This

would

cost the average

homeowner

around $10 per year. At the

higher

end, an issuance of $163.2

million

would require $10.4 million and

cost

$205

per

year

to the

owner

of a median home.

The table below

summarizes

how

each of the

funding

packages

described

above would

impact

the

average

homeowner if

all the costs were covered

by revenues

generated from

a

ballot

measure(s).

Pa

c

kage A

Package B

Pa

c

kag

e

C

Annual Debt Service

$

505,104

$

5

,

499,943

$

10

,

392

,

017

Levy

Rate to Repay

Prop

o

sed Debt

0.013662

0.148764

0.281086

Annual

Impact

on Homeo

w

ner

$

9.95

$

108

.

30

$

204.63

Annual

Levy

Amount

$

1

,

500

,

000

$

4,600,000

$

7

,

600

,

000

Annual L

e

vy Rate

0

.

040572

0.124422

0.205567

Annual

Impact

on

Homeo

w

ner

$

29.54

$

90

.

58

$

149

.

65

Total

Annual

Impact to

Homeown

e

r

$

39.48

$

198

.

88

$

354.28

State

law

provides several

revenue

tools that

the City

may choose to

use

to generate additional

funding to support

parks.

These

include:

•

Lift-Authorized by

RON 84

.

55

.

050(1),

revenue from a property

ta

x

levy lid lift

can

be used

for

any

purpose (capital and/or

operating) as

defined by

the ballot measure language and can be

used

for a finite

period

of time or permanent

in duration. The

initial "lift" occurs

in the first

years of

the

tax,

Pa

ge

1

0

with annual increases

in

subsequent years

limited to

the

lesser

of one

percent or

the

implicit price deflator

(IPD).

If levy proceeds

are used to

re

pay l

i

mited

tax general

obligation (Councilmanic) bonds, the

lid lift

is

l

i

mited to

a nine-year

duration

.

The

City

has

two existing permanent levy

lid lifts to fund park

s:

o

2002 Parks Maintenance Levy

o

2012

Parks Levy

If

the

City

Council

were

interested in

pursuing a

new

levy lid

lift to

support additional

parks investments, it

could pursue a

new lid lift that

could be:

o

in

addition

to the

two current parks levy

lid lifts,

and/or

o

consolidate/replace

the

existing

levy lid

lifts, plus add additional funding

A

levy lid lift

requires a simple

majority

(50%

+

1 approval) vote.

•

-

Authorized by

Article VIL section 2(b) of the Washington State Constitution

,

revenue

from

an

ex

cess

levy can

be us

e

d

for capital

pur

poses

and

the term is

determined

by

the life of

the

proposed

bonds

,

not to

exceed

the useful life

of

the facility

paid for by the bonds. An

excess

levy requires

a supermajority vote (60% approval)

plus

a

minimum 40%

turnout

based

on

the last

general election.

The City

has one

excess

levy on the

books. Th

e

City

is currently

in the

final year of the 20-year-debt

iss

ued as part

of

the 2002

parks ballot

measure

(a companion of

the p

e

rmanent 2002

maintenance

levy

re

ferenced

above).

After

the

se

debt service

payments are

completed

in D

ece

mber

2022 the City will

have

no voter approved excess

le

vies

on

the

books

.

•

-As author

i

zed

by

RCW 35.61.

a metropolitan parks

district (MPD)

may be

created for the

management

,

control,

im

provement

, ma

intena

nce,

and acquisition of parks,

parkways, boul

eva

rds

and

recreat

ion

facilities. An

MPD

is an

independent governing body

4

and

ta

x

ing autho

r

ity.

Creation of

an

MPDs requires voter

approval (simple majority)

.

Once created,

the

MPD Board (or

the

City Council acting as

the Board) would

have

the

authority

to

impose an add

it

ional regular property ta

x

tha

t

is

outside

of and in

addition

to

the

City's e

x

isting levies

to cover capital and/or operating

costs

.

5

The

statutory maximum

i

s $

0.

7

5

/$

1,000 of ass

es

s

e

d property ta

x

valuation,

but

this

may be

set at a

l

owe

r le

ve

l

in

the

i

nitial

formation

ballot m

eas

u

re.

MRSC

provides

a

comprehensive summary of

MPDs

.

According

to

MRSC,

there

are currently

23 MPDs in Wash

i

ngton State

, including

the

Sea

ttle Metropolitan Parks District and Metro Tacoma Parks.

Unlike levy lid lifts

and

exc

ess levies,

which

lend themselves t

o

more

narrowly defined

investments, MPD

are an

important tool for

addressing a

broader set

of

capital

and

operating

need

s

under a single ballot

measure.

For example,

if the

City

Council

were

interested in

funding an

aquati

cs

and recreation

c

e

nt

e

r

and

d

e

t

ermined t

hat

it would

need

revenues to

support

both capital

and operating

costs

.

Using

a

levy lid lift

or an

4

While an MPD

i

s

a separate governing

body

,

s

imil

a

r t

o

a Transp

o

rtatio

n

Benefit

D

i

s

trict

,

a ci

t

y

co

un

ci

l

can

,

through

se

parate legi

s

lation

,

assume

th

e

respon

s

ib

i

liti

es

of t

h

e

MPD

and

serve as

the

g

o

v

ern

i

ng

b

od

y

"

the

B

oard"

for the MPD pro

v

ided the MPD

's

boundaries

a

r

e

co

-

terminus

w

i

t

h

the

city

's

bo

und

a

ri

es

.

Beca

u

s

e

o

f t

hi

s,

pr

ope

r

ty

t

axes

l

ev

i

ed

under

a

n

MPD do not

co

unt

aga

in

s

t

a ci

t

y's

property

t

ax

limit

s,

allo

w

in

g

the

c

it

y

to pr

eserv

e property

ta

x

capac

it

y

fo

r

other purposes.

Page

11

excess levy as the funding mechanism would require two separate (yet contingent)

ballot items - one asking for capital dollars and one asking for operating dollars. Under

an MPD, however, the City could fund both costs with one measure.

If Kirkland decided that it wants to pursue an MPD, it could also use the MPD as a

vehicle to consolidate the two existing permanent parks levy lid lifts and repeal those

stand-alone levies. This concept could offer the City several advantages. By having all

parks-related property taxes consolidated under one taxing mechanism

,

there could be

greater

transparency

around what taxpayers are contributing and how those dollars are

invested, making the City more

accountable

for the commitments made to ta

x

payers.

It

could also result in greater financial

sustainability

in that

it

would establish a dedicated

on-going revenue source for parks, while also making room within the City's core

property tax capacity.

•

- The Washington State Legislature is considering

new legislation -

HB 1025

- that would authorize an add

i

tional voter-approved 0.1

%

sales tax for parks purposes; this legislation did not pass in the 2021 session but could

be revived in 2022 or future legislative sessions. If

enacted,

it would likely function

similar

to other current

sales

ta

x

tools, such as the 0.1

%

sales tax authorized for

criminal justice or the 0.1

%

sales ta

x

authorized under transportation benefit districts

.

Each of these

sales

ta

x

options

r

equire

voter

approval and are allowed for a duration of

10-years unless the revenue for from the sales tax supports debt service

costs,

in

which

case the tax can remain in place for the duration of the debt up to

a

ma

xi

mum of 20-

years.

In addition to the General Fund dollars that the City

allocates

to

support

the Parks and

Community Services Department, the City has

come to

rely on

two

permanent

voter-approved

property tax levies to

support

the Parks department

,

including:

•

2002 Parks Maintenance Levy (forecast to generate

$1,339,968

in revenue in 2022)

6

•

2012 Parks Levy

(forecast

to generate

$

2,493,860

in revenue

in 2022)

The table below shows Kirkland

'

s current property ta

x

levies, including the base General Fund

property tax levy and those approved for non-parks purposes

,

and how they stack up against

Kirkland's ma

x

imum property ta

x

levy capacity.

6

In

add

i

tion

, v

oter

s

approved an

excess cap

ital

l

evy in 2002

,

which

i

s

se

t to exp

ir

e at the e

nd

of 2022.

P

age

12

{$ in

M)

Base

Levy

(General Fund)

n/a

perman

e

nt

0

.7

1663

25.1

Parks M

ai

ntenance Levy

*

2002

p

e

rman

e

nt

0

.

03308

1.6

Road Lev

y

2012

permanent

0.08820

3

.

8

Parks

L

e

vy

2012

permanent

0.0

6

615

3.0

Fire

& EMS

Le

v

y

2020

perman

e

nt

0.19845

7.3

40.8

Exce

ss

Levy for 2013 Refinanced Bond

s**

0.01010

0.3

3.5326~

1

• no

t i

nclud

in

g 20-yea

r

p

ar

ks

ca

p

ita

l

levy tha

t

is set

to ex

p

i

r

e

in

2022

•

•

thi

s

i

s

th

e

final

yea

r o

f

d

e

bt

se

rvi

c

e

o

n the 2

00

2

ca

p

i

t

a

l l

evy

t

hat

exp

ir

es

a

t t

h

e

e

nd of

2

0

22

The

City's

last major

attempt at a parks-r

e

lated

ballot

measure

sought voter approva

l

in

2015

for

the

formation of a

metropolitan

park district (MPD) for an aquatics and recreat

i

on cente

r

.

This ballot

measure failed primarily

because voters were concerned that approving the MPD

would give

the

City a "blank check" to raise property ta

x

es

up

to the $0.75

/

$1,000 statutory

maximum even though

the funding need

for

the

aquatics and recreation center was far

lo

w

er

than this

amount. Hearing

this

concern from the voters

,

Kirkland advocat

e

d to

the

Stat

e

Legislature

to change the statute. The

l

aw

now

allows ju

r

isdictions

see

k

ing approval for an

M

PD

to limit

the

authorized ta

x

ing

authority

and

purpose

in

the ballot language seeking author

i

zation

to

create

an

MPD.

If

Kirkland were

to decide it

wanted

to

seek approval for an MPD, the City

should consider

the lessons learned from

the last attempt.

It

is important to

also

note

that the

City of Kirkland has successfully secured approval

from

voters for sales

ta

x

increase to support basic

s

ervices.

In

2018,

K

irkland

vote

r

s approved a

permanent 0.1

%

increase

in the

Kirkland sales

tax

rate

i

n

support of public safety

investments.

The City is forecasting roughly

$2.5 million in

r

evenues from

the

sales

ta

x

inc

r

ease

i

n

2022

.

This

experience

may

also

be instructive

as

the

City Council considers parks revenu

e

strategies

If

the

State Legislature

enacts

HB 1025

, as

described

above

,

this could

be

ano

t

her

rev

enue

tool

that the City Council

may

wish to consider.

If

the City Council were

to decide

that

it

wishes to

put

a

parks ballot

measure

before

K

i

rkland

voters,

it has

se

v

eral

options. The

options pr

e

sented

here

may be

used

singly o

r

i

n

any

combination:

■

Lev

y

Lid

Lift

■

Voted

E

x

cess

Levy

Bond Ballot Measure

■

Metropolitan Park

District

In

considering which of

these

options to

present

to the voters

,

consideration

s

may include

:

•

Page 13

The parks investment options described earlier in this memo include both capital and

operating needs. For example, if the City were to decide it wanted to fund a new

recreation and aquatics center, it would need capital dollars to build the facility(s) as

well as operating dollars to run the facility once it opens.

A levy lid lift is generally better suited for operating funds and minor capital. If used to

repay bonds, nine years is the limit and the revenue stream will not precisely match the

debt service. It is less-well suited as an option for debt-financed capital needs.

An excess levy bond measure will provide capital funding but may not be used to

replace equipment. It also may not be used for ongoing operating or maintenance.

A metropolitan park district offers the most flexibility to cover operating and capital

costs. Once formed, an MPD may use its levy dollars for both capital and operating

purposes as deemed necessary. This can be directed or restricted by limitations in an

interlocal contract or (to a lesser extent) in the formation ballot measure.

•

Any of the three options may be tailored to a targeted project or may be crafted to

provide broader support for a variety of purposes and programs. A levy lid lift can be

drafted narrowly or broadly. A bond ballot measure may support a single or multiple

capital projects. A metropolitan park district may have all the statutory powers available

to it or may

be

limited by the formation ballot measure.

•

A bond ballot measure will provide one-time funding for capital improvements.

A levy lid lift and a metropolitan park district are both tools that can provide ongoing

levels of funding support. A levy lid lift will restrict a portion of the City's regular levy

capacity; a metropolitan park district will provide new property taxing authority and will

not restrict the City's levy capacity for other purposes.

The tools can be used in combination. If multiple ballot measures are presented to the voters,

they can be made contingent on passage of one another. For example:

•

The City could propose a bond ballot measure for construction of a single discrete

capital project, such as a new aquatic center or indoor recreation facility. It could be

made contingent on the passage of a levy lid lift for ongoing maintenance and

operations of that facility. A similar bond measure strategy could be employed funding

capital projects, with a companion levy lid lift to fund maintenance or programming.

•

The City could propose formation of a metropolitan park district, contingent on passage

of a levy lid lift that would either roll back or eliminate the 2002 and/or 2012 levy lid

lifts. If both measures were to pass, the City would eliminate the incremental property

taxes associated with those prior levy lid lifts, offsetting a portion of any increase due to

the property tax levied by the metropolitan park district. If either measure failed, the

existing levy lid lifts would remain in place.

Page 14

The 2015 proposal to

establish a metropolitan parks district is still fresh in many memories. That proposal was an

effort to fund a discrete project (aquatic and recreation center) and to restrict the metropolitan

park district to serving that purpose. But state law and the ballot title did not prevent a future

Council from increasing the levy rate without a public vote. This uncertainty was a key reason

the measure failed. State law now allows the MPD ballot title to "cap" the tax rate and prevent

future Councils from exceeding the approved rate without returning to the voters.

A new metropolitan park district proposal could

be

presented as primarily a funding mechanism

to supplement the City's support for its parks. Under this scenario, the Oty could ask voters for

funding to support expanded services and also consolidate the two existing parks levies under

the MPD umbrella and repealing the stand-alone levies. By consolidating all parks-related

property taxes under one taxing mechanism, the City could offer taxpayers greater

transparency

around what they are contributing in support of parks and how those dollars are

invested, making the Oty more

accountable

for the commitments made to taxpayers.

It

could

also result in greater financial

sustainability

in that it would establish a dedicated on-going

revenue source for parks, while also making room within the City's core property tax capacity.

Rather than creating an entity with separate interests dedicated to only an aquatic and

recreation center for a portion of the City's recreational users, a new MPD proposal could

provide financial support to the entire system of Oty's parks and recreational users .. Ultimately,

the MPD tool is quite flexible and can

be

designed very differently than the 2015 proposal.

However, communicating the differences to the voters would

be

critical in overcoming any

potentially negative impression from that MPD history.

If the City Council were to decide to explore a parks ballot measure, it would need to consider

several variables that could influence the potential timing of the ballot measure.

The first variable that could influence timing is the amount of time required to develop the

ballot measure package. The more complex the package, the more time staff would need to

pull together the details. For example, if the City Council decided it wanted to pursue funding

for an aquatics and/or recreation center, staff would need significant time to solicit community

feedback and to develop cost proposals and identify potential sites.

Similarly, if the aty Council decided it was interested in exploring a metropolitan parks district,

it would need to engage in an extensive public engagement and education effort to counter

perceptions that linger following the City's 2015 attempt to create an MPD.

The second variable that could influence the timing of a future ballot measure is the deadlines

set in State law for placing an item on the ballot. The table below shows the date by which the

City Council would need to approve ballot language for various upcoming election dates.

August 2, 2022

May 13, 2022

November 8, 2022

August 2, 2022

February 14, 2023

December 16, 2022

April 25, 2023

February 24, 2023

August 1, 2023

May 12, 2023

November 7, 2023

August 1, 2023

Page 15

It

is important to note that once the City Council approves any ballot measure language, it

cannot advocate for the measure. As a result, many jurisdictions use the period leading up to

the finalization of the ballot language to engage the community.

In addition to these election-related deadlines, certain other considerations are worth noting:

•

A levy lid lift proposal will

be

effective for the following calendar year.

•

A bond ballot measure will permit bonds to

be

issued any time after the election is

certified. Property taxes would

be

collected only after the bonds are issued. If bonds are

approved at a November election, some issuers prefer to issue bonds before the end of

the calendar year in order to get the levy onto the rolls for the following year.

•

A metropolitan park district would be legally formed once the election results are

certified. However, under state law (RON 84.09.030), new taxing district boundaries

must be established as of August 1 in order to levy taxes for the following calendar year.

So, a new MPD would need to be approved in February or April 2023 in order to begin

collecting taxes in 2024. If approved at the August or November 2023 elections, it would

not begin to levy and collect taxes until 2025.

Based on the information presented above, staff is seeking direction from the City Council on a

several questions:

1. Is the Council interested in exploring a Parks ballot measure?

If yes:

1. What is the Council interested in funding through a ballot measure?

•

A specific or narrowly defined set of needs?

•

A broader set of priorities?

•

capital and/or operating needs?

2. What revenue mechanism(s) is the City Council interested in considering?

•

A levy lid lift?

•

Excess levy? and/or

•

A metropolitan parks district?

•

Is additional information needed?

3. How would the Council like to involve the community in the decisions?

4. When might the City Council want to put this issue to the voters?

•

Fall of 2022?

•

Spring of 2023?

•

Fall of 2023?

Based on the direction provided following today's presentation, staff will return at a later Qty

Council meeting with a framework for exploring a ballot measure, including plans for community

outreach and engagement, to allow the City Council to continue its deliberative process. The

framework would likely include capital and operating costing and feasibility analysis, community

surveys, stakeholder outreach and involvement, and a community advisory committee process

to make recommendations to the Council.