HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRHSPSC PKT 06-17-1996 • •
"' Li�1: V1: L�fK ;��
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC FORUM
3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS
A. Parks and Recreation Commission Committee Reports
I. Revenue Recovery Rate Information /Direction
II. Partnerships Information /Direction
III. Survey Information /Direction
B. Wedgewood Retention Pond Action
C. Lakota Park Action
D. Final Acceptance of Elevator Installation Action
Klahanee Lake Community/Senior Center
E. King County Funding Initiative Information
4. NEXT MEETING - July 15, 1996
5. ADJOURNMENT
Committee Members: Staff:
Jack Dovey, Chair Jennifer Schroder, Director
Hope Elder David Wilbrecht, Deputy Director
Mary Gates Sue Floyd, Administrative Assistant
661 -4041
• • Z tee 3A
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 11, 1996
TO: Jack Dovey, Chair
Parks and Recreation Council Committee
FROM: David Wilbrecht, Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commission 1996 Work Program
As part of the 1996 work plan, the Park Commission was assigned to study the Recreation
Program Recovery Rate, Partnership and Recreation Survey and recommend their findings to
the Parks Committee of the City Council. Since that assignment, the Commission has met and
created committees to study the assigned areas and report back to the full Commission. At the
last regular Parks Commission meeting Thursday, June 6, 1996, the committees presented their
recommendation to the full Commission. The Commission reviewed and discussed the
recommendations including a review of the original assignment, discussion of the alternatives
and a final recommendation to the Parks Committee. The following is a brief summary of the
Commission's recommendations.
Recreation Recovery Rate:
As part of the City's budget balancing strategy, the Recreation Program recovery rate was
required to improve from approximately 32 percent in 1995 to 37 percent in 1996 to 40 percent
in 1997 up to 45 percent in 1999. Based on this requirement, the committee recommended a
43 percent recovery strategy. The Commission discussed and agreed that a 43 percent recovery
rate would lower the current level of service. Attached is a transmittal memo from Dean
McColgan, Chair of the Commission, to the Parks Committee that describes the final
recommendation to the Committee that includes a phased approach to achieve 43 percent.
The recommendation includes eight strategies with five significant areas. The first area is to
reduce the maintenance and operation expense of Klahanee Lake Community Center from
$176,856 to $42,856 in the recovery calculation. This is important because it creates equity
within the analysis between different cost and expense centers. It also changes the recovery
formula. Second is a decrease in Special Population funding by a reduction of the coordinator's
position by one -half or $25,000. Third is a reduction in recreation administration by 15 percent.
This is equal to a $64,377. The third is a decrease in Arts Commission Budget by $32,500 and
the fourth is the elimination of the youth sports fees $11,390 approved in the 1996 budget.
• •
Parks and Recreation Council Committee Page Two
June 11, 1996
Park staff agree with the Parks Commission that the recommendation will have a significant
impact on current levels of service and are currently analyzing the recommendation. We will
be providing additional information at the next Parks Committee meeting.
Partnerships:
The partnership committee presented their recommendation to the full Commission. Attached
is a copy of the memo to the Parks Commission.
Recreation Survey:
The survey committee completed its assignment and presented a final draft for review and
discussion. The Commission recommended a few minor changes and a revised draft is included
in this packet for your review. Cost to carry out the survey is included in the recommendation
but the 1996 budget does not include funds at this time.
DW:scf
•
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Parks and Recreation Commission
DATE: June 11, 1996
TO: Parks and Recreation Council Committee
FROM: Dean McColgan, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairperson
SUBJECT: Recovery Rate
Four months ago the Parks and Recreation Commission was asked by the City Council
to look into the issue of recovery rate and provide suggestions on how to meet recovery
rate goals for the next three years. The commission formed a sub - committee to look
into recovery rate and at the May commission meeting those findings were presented to
the full commission.
I personally met with Dave Wilbrect, Mary Faber, Kurt Reuter, and Brent Mason to
get a better understanding of their departments and how they operate. Through many
hours of meetings the commission encountered many questions as we studied the
revenue and expenditures figures for the services provided by the Parks, Recreation,
and Cultural Service Department. Some of those questions are outlined below.
Are there programs that we, as a city, are obligated to provide? If so, should they be
included in the recovery rate?
The City of Federal Way has adopted philosophies to provide services that address
segments of it's population i.e. Special Populations, Senior Services, Teen Program.
These programs return a minimum amount of revenue and have a lower recovery rate.
However, the elimination of these programs would not be conducive to providing a
balanced program for all citizens. If these programs are deemed essential at any cost
should they be considered in the overall recovery rate formula?
What services are required to provide for public safety?
Lifeguards at Steel Lake are necessary to provide a for safe swimming. The budget for
lifeguards does not provide a lot of revenue generation. Reducing the dollars spent on
lifeguards was not an option because of the difficulty to get lifeguards to work full -time
let alone part -time. Eliminating lifeguard services in our opinion was not an option
due to the need for public safety. Again, should this service be considered as part of
the overall recovery rate?
Are budgets of the three different departments compared equally?
We found that certain items such as maintenance is not included in Cultural Services or
Leisure Services, but is included in the budget for Specialized Services (Community Center).
Maintenance and operations budgets need to be looked at equally across all departments.
This may require a change in budgeting procedures.
Should the Arts Commission budget be included in recovery rate study?
Although the Commission made some recommendations on the Arts Commission budget, we
did not feel comfortable doing so. We felt that the Arts Commission should be responsible
for its own budget process. The Arts Commission budget has a major impact on the overall
recovery rate because of its high expenditures with no revenue. However, this is another
issue that the City Council must decide on. Is providing arts- related projects essential to the
make -up of this city? If so, at what degree?
What effect will raising of the recovery rate have on levels of service?
The reduction of certain budget items will have a direct effect on the level of service that can
be provided. Reducing headcount will increase the work load of current employees and may
effect the creation of new programs. Reducing the Arts Commission budget may have an
effect on their sponsorship of other events such as the Red, White and Blues Festival. A
program can only be cut so much before it becomes a question of whether to provide the
program at all.
As you can see, there are some tough questions to be addressed. Attached you will find a
three year plan outlining our findings and recommended changes. Most changes occur in the
first year of the plan and require a different method of budgeting in certain cases. This does
not mean, however, that these changes cannot be spread out over the three years. We felt
that the maximum recovery rate we can attain without drastic cuts in programs is 43 % by the
year 1999. I would be happy to discuss these findings further at your convenience.
Thank you.
•
• .
Recovery Rate - Explanation of changes
1 Community Center $176,856 Old Expense
($74,000) Maintenance & Operation *
($60.000) Salaries moved to Administration **
$42,856 New Expense
* Maintenance & Operation monies are removed to allow consistant
comparison between departments.
** Salaries moved to administration budget to match other departments.
2 Senior Services
$47,747 Old Revenue
$97,398 Old Expense ($38,000) King County monies **
($20.000) Discontinue kitchen staff for lunches* $13,000 KC funds for Korean activites
$77,398 New Expense $15,000 Revenue from lunches * **
$37,747 New Revenue
* Partner with local restaraunts to provide meals for seniors thus eliminating the need for kitchen staff.
** This provides for the discontinutation of King County funding which will possibly end
in 1998. 1997 funding would continue but is not included in this figure.
* ** Revenue collected from seniors for lunches.
3 Special Pops $62,324 Old Expense
($25.000) Reduce Special Pops Coordinator to .5
$37,324 New Expense
4 Administration 15% reduction applies to all administration line items(5% per year).
5 Arts Commission $134,932 Old Expense
($52,432)Carry over funds *
($32,500) Budget Reduction
$50,000 New Expense
* Carry over funds should not be included in current year recovery rate.
6 Red, White, & Blues Start event later in the day thus reducing expense and revenue
7 Adult Athletics $125,704 Old Revenue
$5.000 Additional Softball League *
$130,704 New Revenue
* This would require study of current youth athletic field use to gain extra day at Saghalie
PLAN B - would be to increase players fee to $20 per player
8 Youth Athletics $66,782 Old Revenue
($11.390) Field rental *
$55,392 New Revenue
* Adopt philosophy of supporting youth athletics by eliminating field rental fees for youth.
• •
at — N M eh O CO eh CO et
o
Q'
W 01 \° ° \° \° \° \° 0. \° e \° \° \° at o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *°
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1- co O) , co Lf) O 0o O) O M 0 0 40 (0 0 40 N Cl 0) CO O 40 O) O e•
t... !1 t� !h (0 O 11 0 M (O N. 4) 40 M M O) O) 47 CO eh
W
Z
03 h N 0 N O eh co O M 0) O eh O M O co eh N 0 0 10 O (o N 0 N
00 eh ti - . CO EA '- O) to O) eh EA O O O EA O O O) O EA O) EA O) !h EA e!
W CO N. U) O CO Lf) eP ep U) O 40 40 ti M 0 O O N N
W O 1• N eh O M M) 4e eh eh NI N 01 O 10 M O/ O) eF V
N M '- ' r- ti, e• .. co e- 10 1 0 M 4! EA 00 00 40 0
EA 69 EA EA EA t9 6 to E9 43 49 43
W
Z.
Z
Z
O 40 00 4) el' CO U) 0 eP t-- !• Lo co (o O !• O T► O N O O r h 00 (o 'e O
CL 10 O) eh N N - eh U ) 0) M 10 C O O L O O V C O O Co Lf) EA M O M CO N O)
CO X 00 M M M CO N N N M CO O O N O M (o O CO N N r- co N. 1\ eP
Cl) W N N h` N 6' r M 47 (N e: M O .41 O I..: e! N ao O .� M (") (N b eP O
EA M N EA EA O) O 4! in 41 (0 N CO 40 e• 0) (o M 0) In e! t■- 40 eh
lis
W 89 (9 EA V. V.
M EA E9 T- E9 N v.- el' EA ER EA e- V. 01 (o e V.
E9 EA t9 E!9 69 69 E9 EA b9 '3 69. (9
O Z
V CO .- ti eh eh Lt) d' A - CO t` COO/040000 _ L) O 0 L) N- N (o M 0)
N CO 0 N O N N CO 0 LO f) 03 CO O L O f) N co O co co ' N M N Tt (0'- O
W OC Co cr U) t= o r- tl 00 eF M co NI: o .4): 00 fV T- ti •- N T- O) eh CA M
U j •ct 'Ct EA eh EA EA eh O 141 1- M eh r- CO CO N M EA CO O CO N O
EA `-' EA N M EA - EA EA N •- M EA " H4 `' ' eh eh 03
• v EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 6% `' EA EA EA EA EA
W o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ti O eh '4) O O O CO eF O O '4) M O O O r- O Lf) .- 0 corn
-) W L .- et I- N CO O M N CO N- 1.0 eh M N T O LA LA M
i- 0o ts N O N O eh Cr) O Cr) CO 0 eh 0 M O M eh N O O CO 0 Co N O N
m 0o eh .- CO EA .- O EA O eF EA O CO EA CO O CO O EA ao to a0 eh EA eh
J 0 ,v W 00 In CO LA eF eh to CO_ N N N . t` O eh N N
t— N eh Co M L LA eh eh N. (fl (0 4) (D M U) U)
V W C Z N d' •— to N N M .— r- (o (o N (0 EA 0) O 0o 0o
W EA EA EA EA E A EA EA 46 d9 d9 0 43
Z I— d W
Q )d Q'
Z } m CO 00 Lf) eh (0 U) O eh Co O '4) N co O M O M O N O O ao 00 Cr)
LA •
O eh N eh LO 0) aD 03 03 M 1.0 O O ti (0 r- U) EA M 0) N 0) CO 00
O W E W 0o co co co 00 N N N Lf) 00 0 0) N N 0o N CO N N '- ti CO 00 . O
.— in (o h h N u M eh eh OC) M 4 eF N eh CV N O O eh M eh T- O .-
Z r- 0 EA (p N EA EA N O Lo M O M CO CO eh O (p M O CO 14) LO N 00
I Q V W r- EA Ei4 EA co r- EA x- .- EA M .- 1.0 EA EA EA .- .- M O M
d EA EA EA EA EA EA ER EA EA EA EA EA EA
( W RI X '3
W cc 0 En
W
re 0
0
v) m
re ci
a o 2
H
G
10 CD o w ,2 2 0
m a, c
It I- c (o a) CD a) 70- C y C w
c 3 N i a W `= 0- a) a Co 0) N CCs ai (0 o m N Z h y Ili
a) 2 CD
'c a) a s o c` a ` ) y (I' a E 'c s -S t : cn N - . m et
o
( n o U Y w .6 4 0 o w .N () Q W 4.1 .N
o` o 'U C o !S U $ C ►' 06 O a C -. Q t ...= !Z' $ C + h ¢ Q
O 'c a) a) a) •O E . E v .Q E .t a a 41 E ..0 . r3 F
n- U o
(n O ( F- <C ii N Q I— Q Q O W y Q I -. Q>- Q • 0 Q I -- I -- .-
I .
Parks & Recreation Commin • Jerry Bollen
Partnerships Committee
Dave Kaplan
June 6, 1996 Bobby Roach
CURRENT PARTNERSHIPS ANALYSIS AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
At the Commissions April 4, 1996 meeting, our committee presented a report
identifying broad areas for partnerships in parks and recreation activities. We also
identified four major partnership entities (school district, sports groups, local
businesses and non - profit organizations) that are already participating to some degree in
supporting city- sponsored programs.
Since that meeting, our committee attended the Commission's April 30 Recovery Rate
meeting and met with. Department Director Jennifer Schroder May 29 to assess current
partnership activities of the city's Arts and Youth Commissions.
Our committee has evaluated materials from these two meetings and makes the following
observations:
1. Recreation managers and their staff have obtained partnerships on a random
basis when time permitted. These efforts have been'in addition to their regular
duties. Input from citizens have also helped line up partners. A few have committed
to on -going support, but the majority are one -shot event sponsorships.
2. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department staff coordinates
partnerships to avoid overlapping of projects of interest to the Parks and Recreation,
Arts, and Youth Commissions. The sponsorships are generated by activity, rather than
by consideration of which Commission is responsible for a particular activity.
3. In reviewing the quarterly Recreation Brochure, there are many opportunities
for potential partnerships. However, it is a time - consuming activity and one that
cannot be pursued effectively strictly as a staff responsibility. The city serves
such a wide public (tots, children, teens, seniors, special populations) that a narrower
focus is needed in which to concentrate our efforts.
In light of the above observations, and of the goals set by the City Council, our
committee recommends the following:
1. Partnership efforts should be focussed on the two areas that would produce
the most widespread benefit: YOUTH and CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT.
YOUTH: All children are potentially "at risk" unless the community gives
sufficient attention to providing a wholesome work and play environment for our youngsters.
Coordination with public safety programs and neighborhood development programs can
bring several areas of the community (and their funding sources) together. Besides those
activities in the Recreation Brochure other programs by Scouts, Camp Fire, Boys and
Girls Clubs, Apartment Recreation Room Managers, PTA's and service clubs can help make
children productive and positive members of the community.
-2-
Several city youth programs should be selected as prime recipients of partnership
efforts. A marketing and sales campaign would then be developed to bring in the needed
support.
Ed Swan, the city's Neighborhood Development Specialist, has been working with
Scout groups and PTA's to start developing such grass roots efforts. Our Commission
should coordinate its efforts with those of Mr. Swan and the Recreation Managers, as
well as the Neighborhood Policing plans soon to be implemented by the city's Department
of Public Safety.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: We need an across- the -board marketing campaign to reach
people of all ages, gender and ethnicity. More people need to be actively involved
in community programs. Either a single program /activity or a particular theme of
personal identification with a local project is needed to generate individual commitment
by our citizens in the community.
2. The Partnerships Committee should meet with the aforementioned Mr. Swan to
become acquainted with his partnership efforts to date on behalf of the city. We should
expand the parks and recreation aspect of neighborhood development so that at least one
d in the Parks Comp. Plan.
_ segment f the city as define i
each se m o
'c exists in ea P
on going project s g Y
3. The Partnerships Committee should meet with Department of Public Safety
Director Ron Wood to explore areas of inter - departmental partnership support that
could be developed once the city's police department is activated this fall.
4. The Partnerships Committee should examine the four inch -thick 1996 edition of
U.S. Foundations and recommend to the Commission and staff which organizations would
be a match for our interests. Staff and city council could make a selection of organizations
and projects and then initiate negotiations.
5. The city needs a full -time staff person for developing partnerships - -- not only
for Parks and Recreation programs, but for all activities of city responsibility (police,
public works, human services, community development). All city commission members
would be expected to help develop, research and organize the enormous amount of information
needed for this endeavor. Efforts would focus on both grants and individual /corporate
donations.
SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Commission selects YOUTH and CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT as focus areas for partnerships.
2. Committee meets with Ed Swan.
3. Committee meets with Ron Wood.
4. Committee reviews Foundation Guide and selects potential partners.
5. City considers adding a fundraising /marketing specialist/grantwriter.
to 1997 budget staffing proposal.
•
COST RES *RCH FOR THE 1996 P & •SURVEY
Information sources :
City Staff: Dena Laurent, Senior Management Assistant
Deb Murphy, Purchasing Coordinator
Terri Mendenhall, Graphics Coordinator
Print Shops: All -Nite Printery 839 -1755 , Kinko's Printing 946 -2679
Address Labels: Labels & Lists Inc., 2500 - 116th Ave. NE, Bellevue, 98004 822 -1984
Bulk mail Permits: Roberta Lantworthy, Twin Lakes Post Office, 952 -9480
Business Reply
Permits: Chris Bailey, Seattle Post Office, 1 -800- 364 -3815
ASSUMPTIONS:
The information
e cost on Page 2 is based on the following assumptions:
(a) There are three alternatives (approaches) for accomplishing this survey:
(I) to make a separate mailing to 30,000 households within the City of Federal Way limits with no
return postage required
(II) to include the survey form with the next quarterly mailing of the Parks & Recreation Brochure to
30,000 households in September 1996 with no return postage required
(III) to mail the survey form to 6,000 registered (4 x 4) voters with no return postage required
(b) The estimated return rate is 70% ( i.e. 20, 000 forms for alt. I & II, 4,200 forms for alt. III)
(c) The City's bulk mail permit # 227 can be used to mail out the survey forms for alternatives I & III
(d) A business reply permit be purchased from the post office to assure return of the forms (see the
necessary procedure below) for all alternatives
(e) No professional survey firm will be contracted, form design & handling to be done in house by staff
New Delivery Method for alternative #11:
In place of a costly bulk mail permit for the P &R brochure, TDI, a subsidiary of the Seattle Times, will deliver the
brochure to FW households in the future, starting with the June '96 issue. This new delivery method is expected
to save the City $ 1,500. - each quarter for an annual savings of $ 6,000. -.
Business Reply Permit:
The City of Federal Way currently has no permit to allow recipients of City mail to return such mail with no
postage necessary. By making advance payments of $ 205. - /year accounting fee & $ 85. - /year carrier rate, the
post office handling charge will drop from 44 cents to 10 cents per mail piece. For an estimated return of 20,000
forms for alternatives I and 11, the handling fee would amount to $ 2,000.- and for an estimated return of 4,200
forms for alternative III, the handling fee would be $ 420. -. In addition, for each returned form, the Post Office
will charge 32 cents postage which could amount to $ 6,400.- for alternatives I & II, and $ 1,344.- for
alternative III. This Business Reply Permit will have to be applied for through the Auburn Post Office, and when
issued, the Seattle Post Office will provide the artwork for the bar code to be printed on the survey form.
Page 1 June 7, 1996
10
Cost Estimates for the 1996 P & R Survey
Alternative I (to make a separate mailing to 30,000 households, Price(incl. tax)
with "no return postage required" bar code affixed to form)
• Printing of 30,000 survey forms (one 8 1/2 x 11 page, printed
back -to -back, white paper, black ink) $ 1,080. --
• Purchase 30,000 address labels (@ $ 15.90 per 1000) $ 520. --
• Bulk mail permit (use existing permit # 227) $ 0
• Business Reply Permit ($2,000.- handling fee and$6,400.- postage) $ 8.400.- -
Total cost estimate $ 10,000.- -
Alternative II (to include the survey form with the next quarterly mailing of the Parks &
Recreation brochure in September 1996,
with "no return postage required" bar code affixed to form)
• Printing of 30,000 survey forms (one 8 1/2 x 11 page, printed
back -to -back, white paper, black ink)
Included with P &R Brochure printing no add'l $
• No address labels required $ 0
• New delivery method for brochure by TDI no add'l $
• Business Reply Permit($2,000.- handling fee and $6,400. - postage) $ 8.400.--
Total cost estimate $ 8,400.- -
Alternative III (to make a separate mailing to 6,000 (4 x 4) voters,
with "no return postage required" bar code affixed to form)
• Printing of 6,000 survey forms (one 8 1/2 x 11 page, printed
back -to -back, white paper, black ink) $ 250. - --
• Purchase 6,000 address labels for 4 x 4 voters $ 96. --
(@ $ 15.90 per 1000)
• Bulk mail permit (use existing permit # 227) $ 0
• Business Reply Permit ($420.- handling fee and $1,344.- postage) $ 1.764.- -
Total cost estimate $ 2,110.- -
For each of the above alternatives the estimated handling and postage costs of the returned forms will be
proportionately less as the estimated 70 % return rate decreases.
Page 2 June 7, 1996
t
1996 City of Fera1 Way Parks and Reation Survey
Y
Dear Citizen,
The City of Federal Way invites you to express your interest, needs, preferences and desires as we establish our
short & long range goals, work plans and budget to ensure responsive/effective leisure services and recreational
facilities for your community.
Would you please help us by taking a few minutes to answer the following questions. If you have any questions,
please call the City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department at 661 -4041.
Thank you very much for your help and time !
Skip Priest, Mayor
City of Federal Way
I 1 List the age of all of the people in your household
Male Female
i 1
Total Household Income: Less than $ 20,000 $ 20- 30,000 $ 30- 40,000 $ 40- 50,000
$ 50- 60,000 $ 60,000 +
Home owner Condo owner Renter of Home, Condo or Apartment
1 I ACTIVITIES 1 PROGRAMS
From the following list of recreational activities and programs currently offered by the City of Federal Way please
prioritize the (6) six most important ones used by your family (either adults or children).
Usage by:
Activities/Programs Adults Children Mark Top (6) by Provide More Programs
(mark with "f") priority 1,2,3,etc. (mark with "V")
Organized Adult Sports
Organized Youth Sports
Organized After - School Activities
General Recreational Classes
Senior Citizen Activities
Performing /Cultural Arts Programs
Pre- School Programs
Teen Programs/Activities
Adult & Youth Athletic Programs
Special Population Programs
What other activities or special programs would you like to see offered ? •
3
If you seldom use the City of Federal Way Parks and Recreation activities/programs, why ?
Don't have the facilities for my interests Program costs too much
Not aware or can't find the parks Member of private club /association
Too crowded Not enough free time
Feel unsafe Did not know program existed
other(s)(please list)
Page 1 June 7, 1996
•
4 FACILITIES
From the following list of existing and future City of Federal Way Parks & Recreation facilities, please prioritize
the most important ones that are being or would be used by your family :
Usage by:
Existing Parks/Recreation Facilities Adults Children Prioritize by Provide More Facilities
(mark with " ✓ ") marking 1,2.3.etc. (mark with"/")
Small Neighborhood Parks (Play area)
Saghalie & Steel Lake Parks
Trail Systems
Baseball/Softball Fields
Soccer Fields
Basketball Courts
Tennis Courts
Community /Senior Center
Wetlands/Lakes/Streams
Wooded areas and Greenbelts
Future Parks/Recreation Facilities
Outdoor Swimming Pool
Indoor Swimming Pool
Cultural Arts Facility
Skate Board Facility
Teen Center
other (please list):
f
If you seldom use the City of federal Way Parks and Recreation facilities, why ?
Don't have the facilities for my interests Feel unsafe
Not aware or can't find the parks Member of private club /association
Too crowded Not enough free time
others: (please list)
1 6 Usually, parks & recreation programs and park acquisition & improvements are financed by property tax
and utility tax increases or by bond issues and levies. Do you feel that user fees should be increased for
cost recovery and to offset these general tax increases ? yes no
Page 2 June 7, 1996
7 CELEBRATION PARK
"no" development bond issue, you voted no on the November 5, 1995 ballot for the Celebration Park deve op , p lease
indicate your reason(s) why:
[1 GENERAL QUESTIONS OF INTEREST
In which areas do you feel the City of Federal Way should spend most of its effort ? Please prioritize the
following listed items by indicating your preferences: ("1" for most important, "6" for least important)
Acquiring land for more parks, sports fields, trails, etc
Developing new parks, recreation facilities, sports fields, trails, etc. on City-owned
property
Maintaining the existing park system, recreation facilities, sports fields, trails, etc
Upgrading/renovating existing park systems, recreation facilities, fields, trails, etc
Rehabilitation of lakes and streams
Rehabilitation of Federal Way school fields & playgrounds (Partnership with School District
or sports /citizen groups)
other(s) (please list) :
Page 3 June 7, 1996
i
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Item 3B
CITY COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Date: June 12, 1996
From: Jon Jainga, Parks Development Planne 42
Matt Caesar, Intern
Subject: Wedgewood Retention Pond
Background:
The 1990 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan identified that Federal Way was deficient in
providing neighborhood parks. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
researched alternatives in developing neighborhood parks to fulfill the community's need.
During the park inventory process, Park and Surface Water staff identified a number of retention
ponds that had the potential to be developed into future neighborhood parks. Those sites were
Alderdale, 312th, Wedgewood and Alderbrook. As a result, Alderdale Neighborhood Park and
312th Sports Court were developed. The Alderbrook and Wedgewood retention ponds still have
the potential for future neighborhood parks
November 9, 1994, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public meeting to find out if
the neighborhoods of Wedgewood and Alderbrook would support a neighborhood park. A
questionnaire was sent out to the neighborhoods for public comments on supporting the
neighborhood park proposals. The public comments from the questionnaire and public meeting
supported a park for both neighborhoods.
In 1995, the Parks and Recreation Committee gave staff direction to move forward with the
design process for Alderbrook and Wedgewood retention sites and present the options to the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
August 3, 1995, at the Parks and Recreation Commission regular meeting, staff presented three
neighborhood park design proposals for Alderbrook and Wedgewood retention ponds. The Parks
and Recreation Commission recommended that staff host a public meeting on August 23, 1995,
and present the neighborhood park designs.
August 23, 1995 public hearing, neighbors from Wedgewood and Alderbrook supported the
proposed park plans.
September 7, 1995, Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that staff monitor the two
retention sites and recommended the Wedgewood's conceptual design, park option - I.
Parks staff monitored each retention site from October 1995 to May 1996. Parks staff found
that the Wedgewood site remained dry throughout the period and the Alderbrook site had areas
that stayed wet and soggy. During the 1996 February floods (2/8 -2/9) the Alderbrook retention
system was full of water, ranging from two to four feet in depth.
(over)
• •
May 2, 1996, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that no future plans be made
for the Alderbrook site and the Wedgewood site could move forward to the second public
meeting process.
On June 6, 1996, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that Wedgewood
Neighborhood Park Master Plan Option I -A with the cost estimate of $44, 714 be added as a
1997/1998 CIP project, during the budget process and forwarded to the Parks and Recreation
Committee for approval. This park plan would fulfill the need in the Wedgewood neighborhood
as reflected in the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and is supported by
the neighborhood.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends the Wedgewood Neighborhood Park Plan,
option I -A and recommends it to be funded in the 1997/1998 budget.
Committee Recommendation:
Options:
Option # 1, The Parks and Recreation Committee has reviewed the Wedgewood Neighbor Park
Plan, Option I -A and forwards to full Council for approval.
Option # 2, The Parks and Recreation Committee recommends the consideration of one time
funding through the 1997/1998 budget process.
Option # 3, The Parks and Recreation Committee recommends staff to research funding
opportunities from grants, new fee -in -lieu of, and other possible sources.
Option # 4, The Parks and Recreation Committee recommends staff to research private and
public cooperative funding opportunities.
•
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Item 3C
CITY COUNCIL PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Date: June 12, 1996
From: Barbara Simpson, Parks Landscape Architect
Subject: Lakota Park Master Plan
Background:
In April of 1993 a final budget and plan was prepared by the School District for the Lakota
Junior High school football field. The School District budget for construction of the field was
$235,000. The estimate for construction came to $441,377. On June 16, 1993 the District met
with the City and expressed a desire to locate the projects required wetland mitigation area on
Park property in the location of the south easternmost Little League field. The School District
request was declined due to the continued high scheduled use of the Little League field.
In recognition of the need for cooperation in siting future school and park improvements in a
mutually beneficial configuration, the discussion was begun to identify current park and school
site deficiencies and needs. On December 19, 1995 the City Council voted to approve a match
of $25,000 to complement the $25,000 approved by the School District for cooperative master
planning and interlocal agreement. The work was awarded to Marty Lyon Landscape Architects.
The work began in February of 1996 to analyze and survey the site, prepare a wetland delineation
and report and prepare alternative site plans for review. The first public meeting to present the
site analysis and findings and to gather public input on the needs and desires of the community
was on March 14. The second public meeting to present four alternative layout plans was held
on May 16. Alternative "C" was voted "preferred" and Alternatives C and B were selected to be
sent on for cost estimates by the citizens in attendance at the meeting. The four plans and two
cost estimates were then reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 6, 1996.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation
The Parks and Recreation Commission passed a motion on June 6, 1996 to recommend
Alternative "C" and move the project forward to the next design phase.
Committee Recommendation:
The Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services requests action to approve Plan C as
preferred and to proceed with further refinement of the design and cost estimate. The final cost
estimate and plan will be presented to the full Council in a joint meeting with the School Board
in July.
:::::: iiii:::i::::::::i::::i::i' �::i:.i:.i:•: ii:::f:::i':i:. �:::::':': :::' ist: i:: i ::::::::: :::::i::i::::::::::i::::':.�::i :. .. ... .: :::.::::�i::iii;:i;: ;:;; �:: . :..: ... ...:F.: ��' �.i:: .: ...: .. ..: .::.:!•::.::: is
::: >::: >::: >:> < >:..... Chat .... ............................... mml M <: >:::: >:: > :: »:::
:::::::::::: � :: tree ::::: ±��e�::::::::
G: \CLERK\CMTKREC 3/11/96
• Item 3D
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Date: June 17, 1996
f n c- 4
From: Jennifer Schroder, Director
Parks, Recreation and Cultural ervices Department
Subject: Klahanee Lake Community /Senior Center
Final Acceptance of CDBG Elevator Installation
Background:
The Klahanee Lake Community /Senior Center CDBG elevator installation project, which was
contracted by Baltic Design, Inc., is complete. The City Council awarded the contract on
August 1, 1995 for $78,248.84. The City Manager also approved an additional $6,705.32 for
code requirements from the state elevator inspectors and the fire department. The final
project amount is $84, 954.16 and is under the budgeted amount of $84,955.
The final completion date is May 28, 1996 and within the estimated date of completion of
December 31, 1996.
Committee Recommendation:
The Parks and Recreation Committee accepts the Klahanee Lake Community /Senior Center
CDBG elevator project as complete.
APP tOV , Obi, >C01� E I PO T . .
�� ... t�e� : � �. C+�mm Member Commt#t�e Member
• •
Item 3E
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 11, 1996
TO: Jack Dovey, Chair
Parks and Recreation Council Committee
FROM: Jenny Schroder, Director I921°42
SUBJECT: King County Future Funding Initiative
The funding allocation for Local Programs for Active Recreation and Open Space will be based
on one -half population and one -half assessed valuation. The City of Federal Way would receive
an estimated amount of $5,264,810 for the Celebration Park project. In addition, the King
County Citizens Oversight Committee has also forwarded to the Metropolitan King County a
recommended funding level of $750,000 for the West Hylebos Stream Corridor Acquisition and
Restoration project under the Urban Waterways Project category.
If the $215 million initiative passes in September, Federal Way would receive $6,014,810.
Federal Way property owners would be contributing approximately $16,65,016 of the $215
million bond. This is based on .1433 cents per $1,000 assessed valuation for 30 years.
The stewardship and maintenance levy was recommended by the Steering Committee and to the
Metropolitan King County Council. The levy recommendation is based on $ .05 per $1,000
assessed valuation. Therefore, on a $150,000 home, the levy would be $7.50. Term of the levy
recommended is 30 years. The distribution of levy funds to the City of Federal Way for the
Celebration Park project is estimated to be $162,179. This is based on one -half population and
one -half assessed valuation.
The next step is for the Metropolitan King County Council to pass a bond ordinance authorizing
the bond and maintenance levy to go before the voters in September. This action is anticipated
to take place in July.
Attached is the funding analysis impact to City of Federal property owners. This analysis was
completed by our MIS Department.
JLS:scf
• •
Future Funding Initiative Analysis
11- Jun -96
Assumptions:
Bond Rate per $1,000 AV $ 0.1433
M & 0 Rate per $1,000 AV $ 0.05
1996 Assessed Valuation in FW $ 3,875,091,033
Avg Home Vaue - 150,000 Bond Issue 21.50
M & 0 7.50
Payment
Year Bond M & 0 Total
1 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
2 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
3 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
4 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
5 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
6 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
7 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
8 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
9 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
10 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
11 555, 300.55 193, 754.55 749, 055.10
12 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
13 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
14 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
15 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
16 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
17 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
18 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
19 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
20 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
21 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
22 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
23 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
24 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
25 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
26 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
27 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
28 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
29 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
30 555,300.55 193,754.55 749,055.10
Tt tai < > > > > 16;66 O 6` > > > < > 5 ! ....:8 50 > < >' " `8 r3 Od
OPNSPC.XLS Sheetl 6/12/96 9:50 AM
•
RECEIVED
JUN 1 1 1996
PARKS & RECREATION
0
Dear Director,
I am writing to draw attention to the
wonderful staff of Federal Way Parks and
Recreation and the volunters of the Sal-
mon Derby held at Steel Lake.
A parents worst nightmare unfolded for
me as my son and daughter were waiting
for our numbers to come up.
Nathan was in the jungle gym within
sight and contact of me. However, when it
was time to go, he was nowhere to be
found.
As "Tiki" and I searched, we sought the
help of a staff member in the parking lot.
Within minutes of giving a description of
him, fifteen wonderful people went into
action combing the lot roads and park
area
How Nathan was able to avoid detection
and wind up playing on the beach where he
was found is now not a concern.
All I can think of is the intervention
and participation of everyone involved in
a potentially tragic situation.
Today I thank God for sending us some
angels today,I'm so very thankful to all.
Sincerly,
Arthur R. Hoffa
and Family
