The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 01-07-2000 & 01-08-2000 Retreat PUBLI C N OTI CE (REVISED) FED ERAL WAY CITY CO UN CIL SPECIAL MEETING ***** NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN for the following Federal Way City Council special meeting to be held at the Quality Inn, 773 Ocean Shores Blvd NW, Ocean Shores, W A: Friday, January 7, 2000 10:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Saturday, January 8,2000 8:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.- :. ~, Annual Planning Retreat/Year 2000 Ramifications of 1-695 on City Budget Entrepreneurial Government Downtown Development Public Safety Building Creating a City Power Utility Long-Range Capital Facilities Planning Miscellaneous Issues: Little League Ballfield Proposal Boards & Commissions Others that may have arisen during retreat Executive SessionlPotential- Pending Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) Council Committee Assignments Review Retreat Agreements/Context of Vision, Mission & Goals DATED this 5th day of January, 2000. /s/ N. Christine Green, CMC City Clerk POSTED AT CITY HALL 115/00 NEWSPAPERS NOTIFIED BY FAX 1/5/00 CIRCULATED TO COUNCIL & STAFF 1/5/00 PUBNOT30 PUBLI C N aTI CE FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ***** NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN for the following Federal Way City Council special meeting to be held at the Quality Inn, 773 Ocean Shores Blvd NW, Ocean Shores, WA: Friday, January 7,2000 10:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Saturday, January 8, 2000 8:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Annual Planning Retreat/Year 2000 DATED this 30th day of December, 1999. /s/ N. Christine Green, CMC City Clerk POSTED AT CITY HALL, WEBSITE & GOVT CH 12130199 NEWSPAPERS NOTIFIED BY FAX 12/30/99 CIRCULATED TO COUNCIL & STAFF 12/30/99 PUBNOT30 Special Meeting of the . FEDERAL WAY CTIY COUNCIL Annual Planning Retreat, Year 2000 Friday and Saturday, 7-8 January 2000 Quality Inn, Ocean Shores, Washington D R A F T AGENDA FRIDAY MORNING SESSIONS Note: Continental breakfast will be served beginning at 10 a.m. I. ll. IJI. IV. 10:30 a.m. 10:40 10:50 11:15 Welcome and Introductions Review and Agree on the Draft Agenda, Goals, Ground rules and Facilitation Techniques Introductory Discussion D What are 2-3 interests that will influence your actions as a Council member in 2000? Issue Discussion: Ramifications of Initiative 695 on the City's Budget D What are likely ramifications ofl-695 on the City's budget in the next 2-3 years? D In meeting the challenges it presents, what are the Council members' interests? D Are they a framework for the City's response and standards by which decisions will be evaluated? D What should be key elements of the process and timing for addressing 1-695? ~r Everyone Jim Reid, facilitator Council members Federal Way City Council A,.,,1UIl Planning Retreat Draft Agenda, Page 2 [J Expected Products: . Agreement on a set of interests/standards that budget decisions must achieve. . Council direction on the process and timing for addressing 1-695. 1 :00 p.m. lunch FRIDAY AFTERNOON SESSIONS v. 1 :45 p.m. Issue Discussion: Entrepreneurial Government D In light of 1-695, what are some issues and operations in which the City could be even more entrepreneurial? D What are the intentions and expectations? D With whom might the City form partnerships to achieve these goals? 0 Expected Products: . A list of issues and/or operations for which more entrepreneurial approaches could be tried as a strategy for addressing 1-695. . Agreement on 2-4 that should be further developed in 1000. 3:00 break VI. 3:15 Issue Discussion: Downtown Development D What has been completed since the Comprehensive Plan's adoption? D What is on the horizon for the next few years? D What are incentives and impediments to consider in accomplishing the downtown goal? Expected Product: . Council agreement on the direction of downtown development for the next 5 years. Federal Way City Council Â1UI"al Planning Retreat Draft Agenda, Page 3 Vll. vm. IX. 4:15 break 4:30 Issue Discussion: Public Safety Building D What is the status of the Public Safety Building? D What should be the process for making a decision? D What, if anything, does this discussion indicate for the long-term in addressing public safety? Q Expected Product: . Council direction on the public safety -building. 5:15 break 5:20 Issue Discussion: Creating a City Power Utility D Council Member Hellickson will present a perspective on creating a City power utility. D Questions and discussion. D Should the Council continue to assess the idea? If so, what should be the process? 5:50 Review Today' s Accomplishments and Preview Tomorrow's Discussions 6:00 adjourn for the day 7:00 dinner Michael Hellickson flDl Reid " r; Federal Way City Council Annual PlIIn";,,g Retreat Draft Agenda, Page 4 ". t. f', SA TURDA Y MORNING SESSIONS Note: Continental breakfast will be served beginning at 8 a.m. i 1 8:30 Review Yesterday's Accomplishments and Process and Today's Draft Agenda and Goals Everyone IT. 8:40 Discussion: Long-Range Capital Facilities Planning I. D How do we plan for capitalfacilities? D How do we jùnd them? ' D What are the Council's priorities for allocating available jùnds? [J Expected Products: . Agreement on the City's approach to capital facilities planning. . Council direction on how to fund capital facilities. '\ ~ :t ~ 10:15 break ill. 10:30 Miscellaneous Issues , D Little League Ballfield Proposal D Boards and Commissions D Others that may hàve arisen during retreat D Potential Executive Session pursuant to RCW 42.30.110 (i) - potential/pending litigation " ~ .. IV. 11:30 Council Committee Assignments The Mayor V. Noon Review Retreat Agreements in the Context of Our Vision, Mission and Goals D What do the decisions made during the retreat indicate about the City's jùture direction? D How does that direction fit with our vision, mission and goals? D What does the process for making decisions indicate about the Council's operations and relations? 12:30 lunch 2:00 adjourn 1-695 RAMIFICATIONS I. Status . MVET - estimated net budget shortfall: $1.4 million. . Local Option License Fee - if impacted, additional short fall of $670,000. II. Operating Assumptions a. No Legislative relief b. No Additional taxes c. No Judicial relief (Supreme court review anticipated later this year) Ability to raise taxes and fees . Property Tax: . New construction will be added automatically . Inflationary adjustments will need voter approval: has compounding impact of approximately $200,000 per year, i.e. first year $200,000, second year $400,000, third year $600,000, and so on. . Fees: . Proprietary user changes and utilities rates may increase w/o vote. . Park fees - To be determined by court. . Building/land use fee indexing to inflation - To be determined by court. Operating Budget Gap: $1.4 million k: \fin \biennial\council\bgtq. doc II. III. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS I. What are the Council Interests in Budget Reduction Approach? . Reduce Services Where The Lost Revenue Was Designated . Across The Board Reduction . Are there any services that should not be reduced? . ReviewIRevise Existing Fiscal Policy (e.g. use arterial street utility tax for street maintenance; eliminate reserve requirement on small equipment cost less than $20,000; allocate interest earning on strategic reserve to General Fund, etc.) . Other Framework for Evaluating/Prioritizing Services? . The 4 Basic Governmental Functions: a. Protection: Life and Safety b. Enforcement: Codes and Regulations c. Maintenance: Facility and Infrastructure d. Mandates: Legal or Contractual obligations. . Other Considerations? a. Cost/benefit b. External funding opportunities c. Quality of life (environmental and physical) d. Serving general public vs. special segment of population Expanding Key Elements of Budget Process? . Public Opinion Survey/Poll . Ad Hoc Committee Review And Recommend Service Reduction . Additional Council Public Process (Committee review with public comments) k: \fin \b ien nial\counc i I\bgtq .doc 2 Yr. 00 Bgt Operating Revenue 34,707,710 Expenditure Base Across the Board Exclude PS By Use of MVET 1. Base for allocating bgt shortfall includes General/Street operations only. Debt Svc, SWM, SNv, Arterial Street, Dumas Bay, and CDBG are excluded form the allocation. Estimated IS charges are deducted from departments' budget and shown under department responsible for IS operations. 2. MVET, except for equalization, is designated for public health and safety. Community Development . Economic Development . Land Use Management -Permit process ..Legislative . Bldg Permits & Inspections . Code Compliance . Human Services . Com, Devlp Block Grant . Neighborhood Devlp Prog 00 Bgt 3,451,327 Allocation Base 1 2,583,202 Across the Board (136,476) (245,806) , """""',....,... Exclude PS By Use ofMVET (63,132) . Civil legal svcs and litigation . Legislative support . Prosecution . Municipal Court (in CM) . Provide legal counsel . Draft ContractiOrdnances . Negotiate contracts and real estate transactions 00 Bgt 1,183,268 Allocation Base 1 1,079,140 Across the Board .._~!~,~~~! E~~ludePS_._.. _...~ -(1 02~!!! , . By Use of MVET k:\fin \bienn ial\counci I\bgtq ,doc (18,Z16) CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ORGANIZATION CHART MAYOR / CITY COUNCIL 00 Bgt 173,385 Allocation Base 1 158,127 ~cros..t~~..~oard . (~!~54) .~~c:IIIC!.e.~_~........".."",...,............<~~!O~!) By Use of MVET (2,669) . Admin City-wide Cpr & Budget . Coordinate Regional Affairs 00 Bgt .. .. - "-- Allocation Base 1 AtrontheBoard Ë~~~~!!::~" ' By'UseofMVET Management Services . Financial planning & admin. . City Clerk . Data Processing/ GIS . Telecommunications . Human Resources . Risk Management . Maii/Copier/FleetiEquipment . Hearing Examiner Coord. 00 Bgt 6,317,021 Allocation Base 1 3,616,056 Across the Board , (1~~,O44) (344,088) .."..--... "..,.. Exclude PS ~_..."".........," By Use ofMVET (26,246) 593,619 541,381 ---. (28,602) ,,".. '~(5!.~f~! (9,139) Parks & Recreation . Recreation & athletic progs . Park maintenance/operation & development . Community events . Public facility management & development . Dumas Bay Centre Cpr. . Open space management 00 Bgt 3,525,779 Allocation Base 1 3,034,468 Across the Board J16~,~17) _(~~,.!47) ExcludePS ...._-'..,,-.. By Use ofMVET (44,7117) 00 Bgt ,,'-. ... Allocation Base 1 Acrosa the Board E~;'udel;S"-"'--"'" """"-"'--' ~-.. ... By Use of MVET MUNICIPAL COURT 872,000 795,264 (42,015) (75,674) (13,424) Public Works . Development Services -Permitting -Inspection -Legislation . Maintenance, operating, & development of -Public Right-of-Way -Traffic Systems -Surface Water Mgmt . Solid Waste/Recycling 00 Bgt Allocation Base 1 Acros. the Board Exclude PS .--.-......,....,.. I3Y Use ofMVET 6,907,483 3,109,670 (164,290) ,~~5,~03! (52,492) Public Safety . Crime analysis/prevention . Traffic safety education & enforcement . Investigation . Patrol . Emergency communication . Community safety and education programs 00 Bgt 13,103,295 Allocation Base 1 11,950,205 Across the Board (631,354) Exclude PS By Use ofMVET (1,199,353) ..., 3 PROPOSED BUDGET PROCESS The City's budget process and the time lines under which the biennial budget must be prepared are defined by the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35A.34: Item , , Jan ¡ Feb ¡ Mar Apr i May ¡ Jun Jul I Aug ¡ Sep Oct' Nov I Dee - I I .. ¡ ! ! Council sets ~udget process Public Process Council Committee Review Recommended Budget Framework City Council Adopt Priority City Manager gives direction on budget parameters Management Services Department distributes budget instructions consistent with Council and City Manager directions ¡- -, Departments prepare base-line revenue and expenditure estimates and new program requests Management Services Department updates revenue estimates and compiles department submittals City Manager meets with Department staff to review their budget proposals City Manager makes specified adjustments to department submittals/establishes preliminary budget Preliminary budget document prepared, printed and file with City Clerk and presented to the City Council Preliminary budget filed with City Clerk and presented to the City Council (at least 60 days prior to the ensuing fiscal year) and conduct Public Hearing City Council review the preliminary budget recommended by City Manager City Council instructs City Manager to make modifications to the budget City Council adopts an ordinance to establish the amount of property taxes to be levied in the ensuing yea Final budget, as adopted, is published and distributed within the first three months of the following year I- I , . Bold type indicates changes from prior year. k:\fin \bienn ial\counc i I\bgtq .doc 4 ENTREPREN EU RIAL GOVERN M ENT DISCUSSION PAPER Backaround "Entrepreneurial government" is à term popularized by a 1992 book by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler entitled, Reinventina Government: How the Entrecreneurial Scirit Is Transfonnina the Public Sector. In their book, Osborne and Gaebler argue the current American governmental systems, at all levels of government, were more appropriate to the industrial era and times of economic and military crisis than the current post-industrial information age. To address the new age, they suggest a new approach to government called entrepreneurial government, which focuses on results, decentralizes authority, redu~ bureaucracy, and promotes competition both inside and outside government. A key component of entrepreneurial government is to move toward service delivery that generates additional revenues or reduces costs. In light of 1-695, this is a critical issue for Washington's local governments. . Cateaories of Entreøreneurial Government There are essentially three different categories of entrepreneurial government that merit further consideration: 1) combining or sharing services with other governments or organizations, 2) starting new revenue-generating business ventures, and 3) privatizing services. Within each category below are examples of current and possible entrepreneurial activities. As this paper demonstrates, Federal Wafs "contract city" philosophy and commitment to continuously reviewing the costs and benefits of contracting versus in-house service delivery have already yielded significant entrepreneurial ventures and cost-saving devices. Please note the range of options presented herein is simply that, and not necessarily a recommendation from staff. Combining/sharing sslVices There are already many activities on which the city partners with other governments and organizations to reduce costs. Not only does combining and/or sharing services reduce the city's costs, but can also reduce costs to our citizens who pay taxes and fees to other area governments such as the utility district, fire district, school district, county, and so forth. Examples of currently combined and/or shared services include: . The police contract with SeaTac Mall. (Fulfills the city's obligation to protect the public's safety in a key community facility, but splits costs with the mall.) 1 'it . Buying into Valley Communications for public safety dispatch. (Reduces the city's current and long terms costs for police dispatch, and dramatically reduces the fire district's current and long term costs due to an innovative city subcontract with the fire district.) .'. . Contracting with Auburn for use of its police shooting range rather than operating a Federal Way range. . Joint city/school district construction of Saghalie Junior High School and Saghalie Park. . Use of school district facilities for recreation programs \' . Sharing engineering and construction services for concurrent street projects (city) and utility projects (Lakehaven). . Shared city/school district/fire district emergency mahagement pOSition ii Options that could be considered for further research indude: . Consolidating administrative support functions with the utility district, fire district, or school district, such as financial management, human resources management, legal services, information technology services (induding GIS), fleet maintenance, graphic design, community relations, utility billing, and payroll. . Joint development of future public and governmental facilities Business ventures This category of entrepreneurial government is primarily user-fee based and relies on income from user fees to exceed the cost of providing services. A good current example is the Public Safety Department's traffic school. Some of the possibilities below could be limited by federal and/or state laws that restrict government to collecting only an amount necessary to cover expenses (e.g., a utility). It is not known at this point whether the examples listed would be revenue generators; all would require further research. . Selling existing services to other governments, such as police services (or portions thereof), recreation services, street maintenance, land use and engineering plans review, court, criminal prosecution, administrative support services (listed in previous section) or virtually any other city service. . Selling new services to other governments, such as constructing and operating a municipal jail. . Selling new services to the public, such as operating an electric and/or gas utility, operating a convention center or other public fadlity, operating a golf driving range, operating a cemetery, operating a parking garage, constructing a fiber-optic network and selling bandwidth, and selling advertising on the city's website or in its newsletter. 2 . Adjusting the fees of services now sold to the public (as allowable by market conditions) in order to generate a profit, such as Dumas Bay Centre. . Designing future fadlities with additional space that could be leased to other public or private organizations, especially those that work closely with the city. Privatization Uke revenue-generating ventures, privatized services are essentially user-fee based. When used herein, the term "privatization" refers to completely ceasing to provide a service, or contracting the service and the responsibility for collecting revenues, to the private sector (like a franchise). It does not refer to services funded with general revenues but delivered by contract rather than, by dty employees. Due to Federal Ways recent incorporation and focus on effidency, many services that are public in other dties have remained private in Federal Way. In addition, factors to keep In mind when discussing privatization Include redudng access to selVices for some segments of the population (e.g., may involve elimination of subsidies), reduced flexibility (e.g., harder to call out a contractor for immediate service), and possible reductions in the city's quality control function. Two examples of currently privatized selVices are: . The option for Community Development customers to expedite review of their plans by paying the full cost of a private consultant to conduct the review, essentially privatizing some reviews while still giving the city some quality control. . The Munidpal Court's new probation services contract, the first in the region to make a private company entirely responsible for probation, and which is expected to be a revenue generator. Services the city could consider for privatization Indude: . All plan reviews (land use and engineering) . Recreation services, or portions thereof . Dumas Bay Centre and/or the Knutzen Family Theatre . Information systems 3 ;, Questions for Council 1. In light of 1-695, are there some areas where the oty could be even more entrepreneurial? 2. What are the intentions and expectations? 3. With whom might the dty form partnerships to achieve these goals? "~' Attachments Material from Muniopal Research's 1993 publication entitled, Munidoal Service Delivery: A Survey of Washinatan ot/es and Towns. . Table 2 - Service Delivery Methods of Washington atles . Tables 3 & 4 - Services Provided In Washington at/es, Highest to Lowest Levels Within Each Service Category, and Overall Summary of Osborne and Gaebler's book: Introduction and Chapter 7 Prepared for Federa/ Way Oty Cound/ Retreat, January 7-8, 2000 4 Book Summary: Osborne and Gacblcr (1992) h Up:J /www.cço.cornell.cdu/community/govt...turingircinvootingisummarics!ommo 1992/ RESTRUCTURING LOCAL GOVIRNMENT Book Summary Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. The authors, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, argue that American governmental bureaucracy, ,,~. which was appropriate to the industrial era and times of economic and military crisis during which it was created, is not the best system of governance for the post-industrial information age. Since the 1960s, the American public increasingly wants quality and choice of goods and services, and efficiency of producers. However, quality and choice are not what bureaucratic systems are designed to provide, nor is efficiency possib!e in a system of complex rules and drawn-out decision-making. Moreover, since 1982, reductions in federal funds has made it more difficult for state and local governments to meet the continued citizen demand for services and increasing expectations for quality. The authors' prescription is entrepreneurial government, which focuses on results, decentralizes authority, reduces bureaucracy, and promotes competition both inside and outside government. Government's clients are redefined as customers who are empowered by being able to choose among providers of various services, including schools, health plans, and housing options. The authors discuss the various options for delivering public services, utilizing the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. And they provide 10 principles, based on numerous case studies, that guide the fundamental transformation of our industrial era public systems: . Catalytic Government . Community-Owned Government . Competitive Government . Mission-Driven Government . Result-Oriented Government . Customer-Driven Government . Enterprising Government . Anticipatory Government . Decentralized Government . Market-Oriented Government This book offers a vision and a road map, and it will intrigue and enlighten anyone interested in government. Introduction: An American Perestroika The authors argue the American public sector bureaucracy is no longer an appropriate system of governance for the post-industrial information age. To meet continued citizen demand for services -- and increasing expectations of quality, choice, and efficiency -- governments should change the ways they provide services from the bureaucratic model to a more entrepreneurial one characterized by flexibility and creativity as well as conscious efforts to improve public 10f3 12/30/99 10:58 AM Book Summary: Osborne and Gaebler (1992) h ttp:llwww. cce .cornell . edul community I go vt. . .turingl rein VCIl tingf summari cst osbo me 19921 ,- sector incentive systems. " Chapter 1: Catalytic Government: Steering Rather Than Rowing Catalytic governments separate steering, or providing guidance and direction, ftom rowing, or producing goods and services. Osborne and Gaebler give numerous examples such as contracts, vouchers, grants, and tax incentives. Chapter 2: Community-Owned Government: Empowering Rather Than Serving Community-owned governments push control of services out of the bureaucracy, into the community. Examples show how bringing communities into the picture empowers the people who are the intended recipients of services and results in better performance. 'Å Chapter 3: Competitive Government: Injecting Competition into Service Delivety Osborne and Gaebler believe that improving both the quality and cost-effectiveness of government services can be achieved through competition rather than regulation. Introducing competition does not necessarily mean that a service wiij be turned over to the private sector, rather the crucial function of competition is ending government monopolies. Chapter 4: Mission-Driven Government: Transforming Rule-Driven Organization Mission-driven governments deregulate intemally, eliminating many of their internal rules and radically simplifying their administrative systems such as budget, personnel, and procurement. They require each agency to get clear on its mission, then ftee managers to find the best way to accomplish that mission, within legal bounds. Chapter 5: Result-Oriented Government: Funding Outcomes. Not Inputs Result-oriented governments shift accountability ftom inputs to outputs, or results. They measure the performance and reward agencies, so they often' exceed their goals. Chapter 6: Customer-Driven Government: Meeting the Needs of tile Customer. Not the Bureaucracy Customer-driven governments are those that make an effort to perceive the needs of customers and to give customers a choice of producers. They use surveys and focus groups to listen to their customers, and put resources in the customers' hands. Chapter 7: Enteq>rising Government: Earning Rather Than Spending Enterprising governments stress earning rather than spending money. They charge user fees and impact fees, and use incentives such as enterprise funds, shared earnings, and innovation funds to encourage managers to earn money. Chapter 8: Anticipatory Government: Prevention Rather Than Cure Anticipatory governments seek to prevent problems rather than delivering services to correct them. They redesign budget systems, accounting systems, and reward systems to create the appropriate incentives. . Chapter 9: Decentralized Government: From Hierarchy to :participation and_Teamworl.ç Decentralized governments transfer decision-making authority to those individuals and organizations at the bottom of the organizational hierarchy. They restructure organizations and empower employees and create labor-management partnerships. Chapter 10: Market~Oriented Government: Leveraging Change through the Market 2 of3 12130/99 10:58 AM Book Summaty: Osborne and Gacbler (1992) http://www.ccc.comcU.cdu/commuoity/gort..turing/reinventing!summaries!osbornel992/ Market-oriented governments utilize a market mechanism instead of an administrative program to provide goods and services to the public. They reinvent themselves through the application of market-oriented incentives. Chapter 11: Putting It All Together Back to Home 3 on 12130/99 10:58 AM Chapter Summary: Osborne and Gacblcr (1992) http://www.occ.corncU.cdulcommUDity/govt...n1ÏD&'summarioslosbomcI9921osbomc7.html RESTRUCTURING LOCAL GOVERNMINT Chapter Summary Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Chapter 7: Enterprising Government: Earning Rather Than Spending \' Government is under constant pressure to keep local taxes down. In this chapter, Osborne and Gaebler describe how some state and local governments have used innovative methods to actually earn money that would otherwise need to be raised ftom taxes. These enterprising governments have learned to recognize their assets and generate revenue ftom them. They have done so in four main ways: . ,- 1. Making use of the profit motive. Government rarely thinks in tenns of raising money. But government often owns land and provides other services that can be turned into profit-making ventures. Sale of land for development or of public services that only benefit some individuals, such as golf courses or marinas, are examples of ways government can raise money. 2. Charging user fees. User fees are already fairly common, for services such as garbage collection and parking. However, in some cases public services that benefit aftluent individuals, such as golf courses and tennis courts, are subsidized by all taxpayers. A simple and fair alternative is to charge user fees to those who benefit ftom a service. D ser fees are appropriate as long as the services provided are private goods, not collective goods, which benefit society at large, such as police services. In addition, special arrangements may be necessary to ensure lower-income people have access to servIces. 3. Making investments based on expected returns. Government traditionally focuses on minimizing costs) but enterprising governments pay attention not only to cost but also to potential returns on expenditures. This requires thinking over a longer term, which can be politically difficult. But several examples illustrate how initial spending by government-such as to protect land under intense development pressure that will later require massive government investment-can pay off with savings later. 4. Turning managers into entrepreneurs. There are several techniques for allowing managers to operate in a more entrepreneurial fashion. By reforming traditional budget systems to allow departments to keep the funds they save or earn, government provides managers with incentives to save and make money. Introducing a loan pool against which managers could borrow automatically, up to a certain limit, would give managers access to capital that they could use for innovational purposes. Governments can, and often do, create enterprise funds to operate certain services. In contrast to agencies funded ftom general revenues, enterprise funds are self-supporting. While they are not appropriate for all services, they can be effective for those services that are expected to support themselves either fully or partially, such as water and sewer services. Because any . funds they earn or save are returned to the fund, enterprise fund managers are encouraged to spend less money and make more money than other managers. Amazingly, public 'managers are often unaware of the true costs of the services they provide. Budget figures often exclude indirect costs such as overhead, capital costs, and employee lof2 12/30/99 10:57 AM Chapter Summary: Osborne and Gacbler (1992) http://www.cc;c.corneU.cdulcommunity/gort..nûnglsummarieslosborneI992/osborne7 .html Budget figures often exclude indirect costs such as overhead, capital costs, and employee benefits; If they 'don't know how much they are spending, they cannot pursue profits. Determining their true costs helps entrepreneurial governments discover what services are being subsidized and make decisions about how to turn costs into earnings. Back to Home - :ì 20£2 12/30/99 10:58 AM , .., , Municipal Service Delivery r: Table 2 Service Delivery Methods of Washington Cities Contract Contract No. of City City Intergovern- with with In Use cities employees employees mental private nonprofit special vol un- reporting only in part agreement firm org. district teers Service service (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) , ~ Public Workll/Transportation Residential solid waste collection ... 155 23 4 4 75 0 0 0 Commercial solid waste collection 151 21 6 4 77 0 0 0 SolidwastedisposaJ............ 108 15 8 39 56 0 1 0 Recycling collection/disposal ...... 114 5 10 11 76 6 0 8 Street construction, . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 6 43 19 79 1 0 0 Street maintenance ............ 182 53 38 22 29 0 0 0 Streetlighting """""""" 174 20 16 20 48 4 4 0 Traffic signal installation/maint. . . . .. 108 27 34 45 31 1 3 0 Surveying ...,............... 84 11 37 10 85 0 0 1 Engineering.....,....,....,.. 124 8 43 8 .92 0 0 0 Building/grounds maintenance. . . .. 177 63 29 2 27 2 0 2 Bus system operation/main!. ...... 54 4 2 56 7 4 31 0 Parking lot operation """"'" 37 41 24 5 22 14 5 3 Airport operationJmaintenance ..... 31 39 13 26 13 3 13 6 Cemetery operation/maintenance. .. 77 65 12 9 10 3 5 4 Public Utility Services Electricity ................ 117 10 3 21 49 3 15 0 Gas ....................... 72 6 0 6 88 1 0 0 Water distribution.............. 177 84 6 6 1 1 3 0 Water treatment ............... 132 80 5 13 2 1 5 0 Sewage coIlection/treatment ...... 158 75 11 16 2 1 3 0 Sanitary sewer maintenance ...... 158 82 11 7 5 0 3 0 ., Water/sewer engineering. . . . . . . . . 141 11 38 5 73 1 2 0 Storm sewer collection/main!. ..... 126 81 15 6 13 0 2 0 SludgedisposaJ............... 94 63 14 9 23 0 3 0 Hazardous materials disposal 62 10 24 63 31 0 0 0 Utility meter reading ............ 162 90 4 2 2 1 3 1 Utility billing/collection. . . . . . . . . . . 176 92 5 4 2 0 2 0 Public Safety Services Fire ......,..... """'" 178 31 12 34 1 1 6 47 Police................. . ... . 176 73 10 23 0 0 0 11 Policellire communications ....... 155 19 15 75 3 4 1 4 Emergency medical services .. . . . . 161 24 14 50 5 2 9 31 Ambulance service. . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 16 10 38 23 4 10 19 Parking enforcement ........... 118 86 5 10 2 0 0 2 Jail service .................. 123 11 9 93 1 1 0 0 Vehicle towing/storage ........ 83 1 2 5 96 0 0 0 ,. .. Planning/Community Development .., ii, Long-range planning. . . . . . . . . . . 150 34 42 25 23 8 0 16 " Neigt-borhood planning ......... 107 52 31 17 21 1 0 16 ? Capital improvements plng./prog. . . . 151 51 36 9 26 3 0 7 Building inspection/code enforce. . .. 169 70 11 18 8 1 0 2 Hearing examiner. . . . .. ........ 58 29 9 9 41 0 0 14 Economic development . . . . . . . . . . 99 19 40 28 4 34 1 13 Development review/permit . . . . . . . 142 61 23 19 11 2 0 9 Geographic information system .... 50 46 30 34 24 8 0 2 Parks and Recreational Services Recreation services ............ 112 54 36 16 14 15 4 18 Recreation facilities operation/main!. 141 67 29 12 9 9 3 9 Concessions/food service 43 7 19 2 58 28 0 19 Park planning ........ """" 134 43 43 7 27 2 1 21 Park construction. . . . .. ........ 123 29 56 11 48 4 2 17 Park landscaping/maintenance. . . .. 167 68 26 5 14 6 2 14 CO.nvention center/auditorium 18 50 22 6 17 22 0 11 Golf course operation/main!. 30 43 3 3 40 3 0 0 Cultural Services Cultural/arts programs 39 26 36 8 21 56 0 51 7 Municipal Service Delivery g " Table 2 continued Service Delivery Methods of Washington Cities Contract Cortract No, 01 C~y C~y Intergovern- with with In Use cities employees employees mental private nonprofit special volun- reporting only i n part agreement firm org, district teers Service service (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) \' Museum operation ."",....... 64 9 14 9 2 42 5 56 Library operation .............. 140 17 10 69 0 4 11 6 Support Servlc.. Attorney.. , .. .. . .. . .. . . . .... 167 25 7 2 75 1 0 0 Prosectior .................. 134 24 1 31 45 1 0 0 Court services, .. .. . . . .. . .. ... 149 39 13 48 12 3 1 0 Laborretations.,.............. 94 44 38 2 51 2 0 1 Data processing equipment maint. .. 112 10 29 0 87 1 0 1 Tax bill processing .....,...,... 68 31 10 76 4 3 0 0 Delinquert tax collection. . . . . . . .. 69 25 14 70 16 3 0 0 Delinquert bin collection . . . . . . . .. 149 56 28 7 32 0 0 0 Preparation 01 financial docLments .. 175 96 5 1 4 0 0 0 Payroll "....,............., 177 98 2 1 2 0 0 0 Records management . . . . . . . , . .. 174 97 3 1 2 0 0 0 Risk management ............, 165 42 35 9 27 15 1 0 Printing. , . , . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . .. 105 18 31 4 79 1 0 1 Janitorial .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .., 159 50 16 0 45 4 0 0 C~y vehicle maintenance ........ 173 40 45 2 49 0 0 1 Hea"h and Human Servlc.. Animal control. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. 155 54 11 28 6 12 0 0 Animal shelter operation. . . . , . . . . 111 32 10 30 14 24 1 0 Sanitary inspection .. , . .. . . . . . .. 103 21 12 76 2 2 2 0 Emergency shelter. . . . . . . . , , . .. 51 6 4 20 2 59 0 27 Food bank ...........,...... 92 4 2 10 0 52 0 42 Senior services .......,....... 114 13 20 23 1 48 1 25 Public health services. . . . . . . . . .. 133 0 3 84 1 6 2 2 Note: (1) Percentages may add to move than 100 since respondents, in some cases, indicated use 01 more than one service delivery method; (2) percentages in bold indicate most frequently used service delivery methods. A key issue in evaluating municipal service deiivery is determining which of the available service delivery options will best serve the needs of the community. The four major options discussed in this report are: (1) using city employees; (2) contracting with another unit of government; (3) contracting with a private profit or nonprofit service provider; and (4) use of volunteers. Since these options are not mutually exclusive, combinations will be appropriate in many cases. The following general criteria may be useful when considering which type of service delivery method will be most appropriate for a particular service: 0 Cost 0 Service quality, level, and effectiveness 0 Impact on other local services 0 Potential for service disruption 0 Responsiveness to citizens' needs and expectations [Manchester, pp. 5-6] 8 Municipal Service Delivery Table 3 .~ Services Provided in Washington Cities - Highest to Lowest Levels Within Each Service Category ~ .~ ( Service Public WOfb/Tl1II18portatlon Street maintenance .......,....... Building/grounds maintenance. . . . . . . . Streetlighti~ ................... Street constnJction . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residertial solid waste collection. . . . . . Commercial solid waste collection ..... E~ineering.....,............... Recycling collection/disposal. . . . . . . . . Traffic signal installation/maint. , . . . . . . . SolidwastedisposaJ.............., Surveying ...................... Cemetery operaliorVmaintenance . . . . . . Bus system operatiorVmaintenanoe .... Parking lot operation .............. Airport operaIiorVmaintenance . . . . . . . . Public Utility Services Water distribution. . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . Utility billing/collection. . , . . , , . . . . . . . Utility meter reading ............... Sanitary sewer maintenance. . . . . . , . . Sewage coIlection/lreatment ......... Water/seNer engineering. , . . . . . . . . . . Water treatment .................. Storm sewer coIlectiorVmalnt. ........ Electricity. .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . Siudgedisposaf,................. Gas .......................... Hazardous materials disposal ....,... Public Safety Services Fire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Police. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . '.' . . . PoIice,1ire communications. . . . . . . . . . Emergency medical services. , . . . . . '. . Ambi.Aanceservice................ Parking enforcement .............. Jail service ..................... Vehicle towing/storage. . , , . . . . . . . . . Planning/Community Development Building inspectÎorVcode enforce. . . . . . . Capital improvements plng./prog. . . . . . . Long-range plaming .............. Development review permit. . , . . . . . . . 99 97 95 85 85 83 68 62 59 59 46 42 30 20 17 Note: Percentages are based on responses from 183 cities. 12 Cities reporting service No, (%) 182 177 174 155 155 151 124 114 108 108 84 77 54 37 31 177 176 162 158 158 141 132 126 117 94 72 62 178 176 155 161 134 118 123 82 169 151 150 142 Service Cities reporting service No. (%) Neighbolhood planning. . . . . . . . . . . . Economic developrr1«1t . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hearingexaminer..,.............. Geographic inÏormaIion system' : '. . . . . . PIIrks 8nd Recreational ServIc. Park landscaping/maintenance ;'. . . . . . . Recreation facilities operatiorVmalnt, .... Parkplaming ...........,....... Park construction...,..,.......... Recreation services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ConcessionsJlood service. , . . , . , . . . , Golf course operatioolmaintenance .... Convention center/auditorium. . . . . . . . 107 99 58 50 58 54 32 27 167 141 134 123 112 43 30 18 91 77 73 67 61 23 16 10 Cultural Services Ubratyoperation ................. Museum operation ... .. . .. . . . . . .. . Cultural/arts programs. . . . . . . , . , , , . 140 64 39 77 35 21 97 96 89 86 86 77 72 69 64 51 39 34 Support Services Payroll........................ Preparation of financial docll11ents . . . . , RecOlds management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . City vehicle maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney ....................... .Riskmanagement ..............,. Janitorial ....................... Delinquent bin collection. . . . . . . . . . . , Court services .....,............. ProseclAor ..................... Data processing equipment malnt. ..... Printing........................ Laborre1ations.................,. Delinquent tax collection . . . . . . . . . . . . Tax bill processing ................ 177 175 174 173 167 165 159 149 149 134 112 105 94 69 68 97 96 95 95 91 90 87 81 81 73 61 57 51 38 37 97 96 85 88 73 64 67 45 HeeJth and Human ServIces Animalcontrol................... Public health selVÍcæ . , . . . . . . . . . . . . Senior services .................. Animal shelter operation. . . . . . . . . . . . Sanitaryinspection................ Foodbank ..................... Emergency shelter ................ 155 133 114 111 103 92 51 85 73 62 61 56 50 28 92 83 62 78 Municipal Service Delivery ,';¡" ~ , Table 4 c, ;, Services Provided in Washington Cities - Highest to Lowest Levels Overall , ,~ Service ~ _,r I :$ f Cities reporting service No. (%) Service Cities reporting service No. (%) Street maintenance """"""'" Fire .......................... Building/grounds maintenance. . . . . . . . Payroll ........................ Walerdistributioi'l....,.........." Police......................... Utility billing/collection, . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preparation of financial docU'l'1eOts . . . . . Records management . . . . . . . .', . , . . . Streetlighting ..,.....,.......... City vehicle maintenance, . . . . . . . . . . Building inspectior\"code enforcement. . . Attorney.. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. Park landscaping/maintenance. . . . . . . . Risk management ................ Utility meter reading ............... Emergency medical services. . . . . . . . . Janitoriaf .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. Sewage coIlection/treatment .,....... Sanitary sewer maintenance. . . . . . . . . Anima/control.........,.,....... Residentiaf solid waste collection, . . . . . Streetconstruction......'.......,.. PoIiceJlire communications. . . . . . . . . . Capital improvements plng./prog. . . . . . . Commercial solid waste collection. . . . . Long-range plaming .............. Delinquent bill collection. . . . . . . . . . . . Court services .... .. .. . . . . . .. .. .. Development review/permit. . . . . . . . . . Recreation facilities operatior\"maint. . . , . Water/sewer engineering. , . . . . . . , . . . library operation. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. Ambufanceservice........,....... Prosecutor ..................... Park planning ......"........... Public healih services. . . . . . . . , . . . . . Water treatment .................. ii, ';' f ," ~. It ..' ~; 182 176 177 177 177 176 176 175 174 174 173 169 167 167 165 162 161 159 158 158 155 155 155 155 151 151 150 149 149 142 141 141 140 134 134 134 133 132 99 97 97 97 97 96 96 96 95 95 95 92 91' 91 90 89 88 67 66 66 65 65 65 65 63 63 62', 61 61 78 77. 77 77 73 73 73 73 72 Storm sewer collection/maintenance. . , . Engineering..,.................. Jail service. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . Parkconátruction................. Parking enforcement """"""" Electricity. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . RecycUng coIlection/älSposai . , . . . . . , . Senior services .................. Recreation services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data processing equipment maint. ..... Animal shelter operation. . . . . . . . . . . . Solidwastedisposal............... Traffic signal installation/maintenance. . . Neighborhood planning. . . . . . . . . . . . Printing.........,.............. Sanitaryinspection................ Economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studgedisposal............,..... Laborrelations................... Food bank """""""""'" Surveying. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . Vehicle towing/storage. . , . . . . . . . . . , Cemetery operatior\"maintenance . . . . . . Gas .......................... Delinquent tax collection. . . . . . . . . . . . Tax bill processing ................ Museum operation .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. Hazardous materials disposal. . . . . . . . Hearingexaminer................. Bus system operatior\"maintenance .... Emergency shelter. . .. .. .. . . .. .. .. Geographic information system. . . . . . . Concessionslfood service. . . . . . . . . . . Cultural/arts programs ............. Parking lot operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . , Airport operaliOf\lmaintenance . . . . . . . . Golf course operatior\"maintenance .... Convention center/auårtorium ........ 126 124 123 123 118 117 114 114 112 112 111 108 108 107 105 103 99 94 94 92 84 62 77 72 69 66 64 62 58 54 51 50 43 39 37 31 30 18 69 66 67 67 64 64 62 62 61 61 61 59 59 58 57 56 54 51 51 50 46 45 42 39 38 37 35 34 32 30 26 27 23 21 20 17 16 10 Note: Percentages are based on responses from 163 cities. 13 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON CITY CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER 1. PurDose .i The Federal Way City Center is transitioning into an "Urban Center" as envisioned by the Puget Sound Regional Council's "VISION 2020" and Federal Way Comprehensive Plans. Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan contains goals, policies, implementation strategies and a vision to guide and assist us during this transition. This discussion paper has been prepared to raise issues related to our adopted City Center vision, existing incentives for attracting development, obstacles to development; public vs. private investment, attracting housing development, etc. Additionally, are there opportunities the City has yet to explore which could accelerate tJ:1e type of urban center development envisioned by our comprehensive plan and desired by the community? 2. Backaround In 1995, The City of Federal Way adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The City Center Concept Plan is one of ten Chapters contained within the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the Introduction Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Center Chapter was prepared to serve as a subarea plan......which reflects the City's vision for the future and helps to implement the regional visions for a hierarchy of urban centers in the Puget Sound. 3. ComDrehensive Plan: Land Use ConceDts and Citv Center ChaDter Vision The creation of an identifiable and vibrant "downtown" is one of the primary goals identified by the community during the City-Shape planning process prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Participants in community workshops helped to develop a "vision" for Federal Way's future which included the creation of a City Center. This vision was used to form the basis of the Land Use chapter. The Land Use chapter serves as the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by providing a framework for Federal Way's' future development, and by setting forth policy direction for Federal Wafs current and future land uses. Federal Way's City Center Chapter presents concepts and strategies for creating a definable and vibrant "City Center" for Federal Way and an "urban center" for Southwest King County. The plan integrates the community's vision for a City Center with the puget Sound Regional Council's adopted VISION 2020 plan and King County's Countywide strategy for developing a network of centers. A keystone of the City Center plan is an attractive, multi-faceted center providing the setting for civic features and commercial activities. The Ci~'s current Land Use Map depicts two City Center land use designations, i.e., the City Center Core and Frame. The City Center Core and Frame areas were developed to direct the location and extent of growth in the City Center. The policies of the Land Use and City Center chapters envision a concentrated Center comprised of mixed-use developments, pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, transit oriented development, livable and affordable housing, a network of public spaces and parks, and development of superior design and quality. The City Center will provide a central gathering place for the community where civic and cultural activities and events take place. The City Center Core is intended to contain the highest density of ~ mixed uses in the City. The City Center Frame, which allows similar uses to those allowed in the Core, serves as a transition between the City Center Core and less dense surrounding development. The following 12 Goals, which can be found on pages VII-3 and 4 of the Comprehensive Plan, provide overall direction to policy makers and community members when making choices about growth and development within Federal Way's Oty Center. Additional goals and policies are located throughout the City Center chapter, providing specific direction on other matters such as open space, urban design, automobile, pedestrian and transit mobility, civic amenities and parking. CCG1 - Create an identifiable City Center that serves as the social and economic focus of the City. Define a City Center with distinct boundaries, unique building types, and special features. CCG2 - Attract a regional market for high quality office and retail uses which increases employment opportunities, adds to the City's tax base, and establishes Federa/ Waýs City center as an economic leader in the South King County region. CCG3 - Connect the City Center to a convenient regional transit system. Provide service between centers and nearby areas by an efficient, transit-oriented and multi-modal transportation system. CCG4 - Create distinct districts within the City Center, defining the roles and characteristics of each such district CCG5 - Encourage a mix of compatible uses to maintain a lively, attractive, and safe place to live, work, and visit CCG6 - Focus on improving the existing character and image of the City Center. CCG7 - Encourage housing opportunities in mixed residential/commercial settings. Promote housing opportunities close to employment CCGB - Deve/op land use patterns which will encourage less dependency on the single occupant automobile. CCGg - Create an environment oriented to pedestrians and bicyclists. CClO - Create an environment that attracts high quality housing, commercial and office uses. Deve/op requirements for buildings, streetscape, and site design. CCG11 - Create policies and regulations to reduce the amount of parking that is required. CCG12 - Protect and enhance natural features of the area. 5. Activitv Since AdoDtion of the ComDrehensive Plan , ,~ a. Zoning Code Amendments - In 1996, the City Council adopted a number of zoning code amendments which increased height limits, reduced structural setbacks, allowed for increased residential density and flexibility, and established specific uses allowed and community design guidelines specific to the City Center Core and Frame. b. City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines - In 1998, the City adopted new streetscape guidelines related to roadway profiles, street lights, sidewalk widths and street trees.' c. Infrastructure Improvements - Constructed improvements include: . South 312th Street - Widened roadway to 5 lanes, add new sidewalks, street lighting and street trees between Pacific Highway South and 23rd Avenue South (Completed in 1999). . South 312th Street @ 14th Avenue South - Added pedestrian crossing signal. d. New Private Development - Courtyard Marriott, Marie Callendars, Holiday Inn, Extended Stay, Comfort Inn, Walmart, and [Meridian Court, Willamette Court and Woodmark at Steel lake (senior housing projects)]. e. Renovated or Remodeled Projects - SeaTac Village, Sunset Square i.e., Safeway and longs Drugs, Ross Plaza, i.e., Rite Aid and Party City, and Indochine and Genghis Kahn Restaurants. 6. ProDosed Projects within the CitY Center a. Infrastructure Improvements . 23rd Avenue South - Widen roadway to 5 lanes, add new sidewalks, street lighting, and street trees between South 320th Street and South 317th Street (planhed for year 2001). . Pacific Highway South/South 320th Street Intersection - Widen roadways, add new turning lanes at each leg of the intersection, street lighting, street trees, install architectural and landscaping elements at each corner of the intersection, and underground utilities (planned for year 2000). . Pacific Highway South between South 312th Street and South 324th Street - Widen roadway, add new sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, landscaped raised medians, and underground utilities (planned for year 2001). . South 320th Street between 11th Avenue South and Interstate 5 - Underground utilities, widen sidewalks where necessary to add new street lights, install street trees behind the sidewalks and possibly install medians where feasible (planned for year 2001). ;-; . SeaTac Mall surface water conveyance system upgrade (planned for year 2000). . Flyover ramps from 1-5 HOV Lanes connecting to South 317th Street (planned for year 2003). . South 312 @ 14th Avenue South - Upgrade pedestrian signal to full traffic signals (planned for year 2001, funding not secured). ,~ b. Transit Project, . Sound Transit Center Facility - South 317th Street and 23rd Avenue South (planned \ for year 2001 or later). 7. ImDlementation of ComDrehensive City Center ChaDter Goals and Policies ~ Developing the City Center requires collaboration between government entities, citizens and developers. Specific strategies must collectively be pursued in order to coordinate various elements and actions that are dependent bIpon one another. It will take some time for the development community to redirect its energy and investments to produce buildings and development that respond to the direction of the Comprehensive Plan. As referenced in the Plan, much of the City Center's development is dependent uPon market demands and dense development that is not projected until about 2005. In the interim, the City has the ability to influence development by taking regulatory and infrastructure related actions to prepare for this development. The City Center Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains implementation strategies whiçh form the basis to achieve desired City Center development. The preceding sections in this discussion paper, i.e., Activity Since Adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Proposed Projects Within the City Center, lists many of the actions taken, to date, by the City to help facilitate development within the City Center. The following sections describe some of the challenges or barriers to developing a more dense City Center in addition to what might act as catalysts for future development and what tools are currently in the City's tool box which might attract developers to the City Center. 8. Challenges I Barriers to City Center DeveloDment a. Office - Making office projects work when there is no record of making denser office developments work. Who is going to prove there is a market for higher density office? Developers are hesitant to be the first one to develop mid-high rise office buildings in the City Center when the Center lacks existing examples of successful dense office development. b. Residential - Making residential projects work when there is no record of making denser developments work. Who is going to prove there is a market for higher density residential? Although senior housing has been developed within the City Center Frame, no new housing units have been developed within the City Center Core since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1995. c. Retail - Making dense retail projects work when there is no record of making denser developments work, e.g., recent multi-story developments in Bellevue, Redmond and Seattle. Retail development remains at the one story level in the Federal Way area. d. Nonconformances - The cost to install infrastructure improvements when abutting roadways adjacent to the site planned for development or having to underground utilities where feasible can be high. e. Traffic congestion - A primary challenge within the City Center is to keep traffic flowing while allowing development to continue. South 320th Street and Pacific Highway South will remain primary transportation corridors. As such, a more pedestrian friendly environment will be created between and away from these corridors at the time new \ development occurs along new smaller grid roads. --x f. Cost of land - The cost to develop is higher in the City Center vs. vacant land in the East Campus and West Campus areas. g. Cost of land has a significant impact on the cost of planned public improvements, Le., the more land cost the higher the cost to acquire land for planned improvements. h. The availability of commercially zoned land in the area of South 34Sth Street and 16th Avenue South/Pacific Highway South competes with the City Center. L Requirement to animate (provide retail) at the ground floor in mixed use development sometimes is difficult for developers. j. Trying to create dense high rise environment in a high tech world. High Tech businesses often desire more suburban lower scale development. k. Lack of continuity in the City Center urban fabric, i.e., there is no critical mass of positive dense developments to entice the pedestrian. Positive examples of quality development exists, however, they are disjointed within the City Center area. I. Perception of developing in Federal Way - The current market favors building high tech, retail and office development in Seattle, East/Northeast King County. 9. Catalysts and Tools in the Tool Box Potential Catalysts: . Planned Action SEPA: In 1995, the legislature authorized a new category of project action in SEPA called "planned action." The intent is to provide a more streamlined environmental review process at the project stage by conducting more detailed environmental analysis during planning or prior to development actually occurring. Early environmental review provides more certainty to permit applicants with respect to what will be required and to the public with respect to how the environmental impacts will be addressed. The process requires that a City first complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which addresses the likely significant adverse environmental impacts of the planned action. After completing the EIS, the City designates by ordinance or resolution those types of projects to be considered planned actions, including mitigation measures that will be applied. The types of project action must be limitéd to certain types of development or to a specific geographic area that is less extensive than a City or town's jurisdictional boundaries. Designating planned action projects reduces permit-processing time. There are no SEPA public notice requirements or procedural administrative appeals at the project level because a threshold determination or new EIS is not required. The only notice requirements are those required for the underlying permit. When considering whether to designate planned action projects, it's important to note that the process can be quite costly to the jurisdiction. More-up-front environmental analysis and review by a city is required. As a result, the county or city pays for studies and processes that would normally be paid for by private applicants at the time of each application. The cities of Vancouver and Everett Washington have utilized this process for certain areas of their City Centers/Downtowns to attract new development. NOTE: The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Chapter contains; policies related to this process. Economic Development Policy (EDP) 2 calls fòrl initiating' a process to master-plan the City Center (the City Center Chapter is a response to this policy). EDP4 calls for completing an environmental impact statement for this area so that specific projects that are consistent with the sub-area plan may only require an environmental checklist. The checklist is only to check for consistency with the planned action SEPA. . Height Bonus Program: City staff are currently working ,on a proposal to develop a point based bonus program whereby developers in the City Center can be awarded increased building height in exchange for providing public open space and pedestrian amenities, over and above the minimum standards established in Federal Way City Code Article XIX, Community Design Guidelines. An alternative to providing physical area improvements, developers may also choose to pay a fee-in-lieu, which the City will utilize for any manner of future improvements or programs determined by the City to enhance the City Center environment. . Establish Height Limits Outright: Current regulations allow certain types of development within the City Center Core to achieve, outright, heights of up to 95 feet. Heights of up to 145 feet may be achieved in exchange for providing public open space or paying a fee-in-lieu of providing open space on site. Several uses have height limits of only 35 feet in the City Center Core, e.g., housing, which may be increased up to 85 feet in exchange for providing public. open space on site, or payment of a fee-in-lieu of providing the open space on site. It may be worth examining the possibility of establishing height limits outright and perhaps look into transfer of development rights in order to develop taller structures beyond established height limits. . Planned Sound Transit Center Facility and Associated Transit Oriented Development (TOD): City staff are currently working with Sound Transit staff to design and plan for the City Center Sound Transit Facility in addition to soliciting private developers to construct mixed use transit oriented development on the Sound Transit site or within V4 mile of the Sound Transit facility. City staff are also exploring the possibility of pursuing a grant to construct housing adjacent to the Sound Transit Center but on the subject site. When staff obtains enough information about the process and possibilities associated with developing transit oriented development, the City Council will be provided with relevant information. . Construction of a Civic Facility: Comprehensive Plan Policy CCP37 emphasizes locating civic and cultural facilities within the core. Construction of civic facilities, e.g., a City or Community Hall, civic center or performing arts complex, etc., will demonstrate to the development community the City's commitment to develop a more dense City Center area. An initial step to possibly reducing the cost of Ibcating City Hall in the City Center may be accomplished by having a developer construct an office building and the City lease a portion of the building with the potential to purchase the structure at a later date. The City of Kent used this process in 1989. . Parking Structure: Is the City interested in studying the possibility of issuing revenue bonds to build a parking structure? Comprehensive Plan Policy CCP41 calls for encouraging public and private parking structures in lieu of surface parking in the core j area and to consider a public private partnership to develop structured parking in thè.~ commercial core area. Construction of a parking structure to serve future more dense development could relieve developers from having to develop on-site parking, thus, serving as an enticement to develop in the City Center. Tools in the Tool Box: The following lists positive reasons for the development community to develop within the City Center: . Adopted Comprehensive Plan City Center vision. . 1996 - Adopted City Center development requirements and increased height limits. . 1998 - Adopted streetscape design guidelines. . Community design guidelines which have resulted in more attractive development. . Recently constructed or planned infrastructure improvements. Planned improvements will be designed to include 1998 streetscape design standards. . Proposed Sound Transit Center Facility. . Four new hotels with a range of room rates. . Large areas of underdeveloped land, e.g., parking lots and one story development. . Located between Tacoma and Seattle. . Proximity to Weyerhauser/Quadrant East and West Campus Areas. . Planned grid road system providing new streetscape/street frontage opportunities. . Proximity to SeaTac Airport. . Ability to underground storm water facilities. 10. Summary As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, there are several reasons why a definable, vital City Center is an important part of Federal Way's future. These include: 1) Community Support - the Federal Way community has made the City center a significant part of its vision, 2) Economic Development - Federal Way's economic development strategy relies on a strong urban center, 3) Natural Evolution - the development of a more intensive; multi-use urban center is a natural step in Federal Way's evolution, and 4) Growth Management - developing a City Center is part of a regional strategy to address western Washington's growth management problems. Adopting a Comprehensive Plan, which includes the City Center Chapter, was the first step towards realizing a City Center. Federal Way's challenge in the future is to implement the vision of the City Center Chapter. The adopted implementation program is comprised of a combination of short- and long-term actions. Some of the short-term actions have included amending the City Code, adopting design and development guidelines, and constructing capital improvements. Long term actions include monitoring, evaluating, and possibly amending the Plan as conditions change, constructing a Transit Center, and implementing a capital investment program that allocates resources to projects that will spur City Center development in the direction envisioned by the Plan. This paper has been prepared to provoke discussion about the City Center. City staff welcome all comments, suggestions and ideas related to this topic. Prepared by: Stephen Gitton, AICP Director of Community Development Services I. II. III. IV. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY (Police and Court) Current Facility: . Police: a. Leasing 23,000 sq. ft. b. Lease term: 3 year ending June 30, 2002, with 2 one-year optional extensions. c. Annual lease expense: $235,000. . Court: a. Leasing 6,360 sq. ft. b. Lease term: 3 year ending June 30, 2002, with 2 one-year optional extensions. c. Annual lease expense: $68,000. Funding Status: . Total available at the end of 1999: $5.9 million: a. 1997 Bond Proceeds: $4.5 million (I5-year utility tax bonds) b. 1998 Carryforward (balance from department startup) $380,000 c. 1999 mid-bienniuni capital allocation: $567,000 d. Investment interest: $463,000 . Converting above lease expense to 10-year capital bonds: $2.0 million. Next Step . When? . Where? a. City Center vs. West Campus? . Options: a. Build new? b. Purchase and Rehab exiting building? c. Single municipal campus vs. separate City Hall, Public Safety, Court facilities? . Switch with City Hall (approximately 27,180 sq. ft.) and locate City Hall in the city center? (This option may require renting additional space from surrounding buildings to accommodate current and projected needs.) . Sell City Hall and locate single municipal building in the city center? Process: . Consultant StudylNeed Assessment? Traditional process in acquiring land, design and construction separately? . . Design/build or turnkey purchase of existing building. Other? . k :\fin \b iennial\coun c i I\bgtq. doc 6 II. III. IV. CAPITAL FACILITY I. What we need to plan and what we should plan. GMA requires city to plan for transportation, utilities, parks, and facility. However only transportation element has concurrency requirement. How do we currently finance capital projects. . Existing Capital Sources a. Grants b. Real Estate Excise Tax (Averaging $1.5 million per year, with $1.2 million required for debt service) c. Mitigation Fees (amount varies annually, averaging $50,000 per year.) d. General Fund Balance (averaging $1.5 million each year'in the past 4 years) e. Utility Taxes (financed $23.7 million in capital bonds for specific projects) Current Allocation Process a. Resources are allocated when available which may be outside regular budget process (i.e. through carryforward or special capital funding allocation process) . Other Common Capital Financing Options: . PubliclPrivate: a. Developer or other private contributions, grants b. Mitigation/Impact fees c. LIDs Public: a. Grants b. Voter approved new taxes (property, utility tax, etc.) c. Designate a specific revenue stream or a portion thereof from existing resources (e.g. sales tax.) . Particular Council priority in allocating any available funds? . Completing Existing Projects; Streets; . . Public Safety and/or Court Facility; Set-Aside Funds For Grant Match. . k:\fin \bienn ial\counci I\bgtq.doc 5 Date: December 31, 1999 To: Federal Way City Councilmembers From: Da~dMo~ÆU~~ Jennifer S;;'~"JC,I~art and Recreation Director Re: National Little League Proposal As you know the Federal Way National Little League (FWNLL) has submitted a proposal to transfer their property off of Campus Drive to the City of Federal Way for $1.00. The property, which is adjacent to Panther Lake, is 21.36 acres and contains four ballfields, a stormwater retention pond and a large parking lot. The property is currently in a recognized floodplu ud the City has purchased.an easement for a substantial amount of the property for stormwater retention purposes. In exchange, the FWNLL has requested the City pro~de the facility for their exclusive use between March 1 - June 15 of each year. In addition, they are requesting the City make several improvements to the facility including a restroom/concession building, field improvements, public address system, paved parking, lighting for all four ballfields and other site improvements. FWNLL has estimated the cost of these improvements at $650,000. Staff believes the cost may be closer to $750,000. This issue has been before the Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Committee on two occasions. At their last meeting the Committee approved a motion to recommend that the City Muager be authorized to continue discussions with FWNLL regarding the issue of the City acquiring the property as'long as the FWNLL is willing to omit the exclusivity requirement. (Attached please find the staff reports prepared for the Committee.) I have had a preliminary discussion with Mike Lottes, President of the FWNLL, and there seems to be some possibility that they will withdraw that requirement. If this issue of exclusivity is withdrawn, other issues that would need to be negotiated include, among others, scope of improvements, timeftame to make the improvements, and capping of capital cost. The issue before the Council is whether to authorize the City Manager to continue with these discussions. Item 5C .', CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Date: December 7, 1999 From: Jennifer Schroder, Director Parks, Recreation and Cultural Subject: Federal Way National Little Backeround: On November 8, 1999, Paul Wham presented to the Council Committee a proposal from Federal Way National Little League (FWNLL) to transfer their property to the City ofF'ederal Way. The proposal included selling the 21.36 acre facility to the City for S1.ÓO. In excIiange, the FWNLL wants to partner with the City of Federal Way to improve the facility including paved parking, restroom/concession building, ballfield lighting to all four fields, public address systelI! ~d other site amenities. The FWNLL proposed the costs for improvements to the City to be approximately $650,000. . Other conditions presented by the League included exclusive scheduling of the fields beginning in March through July 15. City to be responsible for aU major repairs and cost of utilities. League would continue to provide the labor to mow, maintain and prepare the fields for practices and games. League would also provide volunteer labor toward any of the proposed improvements where appropriate. Council Committee directed staff to follow-up ~n questions raised and asked that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the proposal. Parks and Recreation Commission: On December 2, staff presented the FWNLL proposal to the commission along with a picture presentation of the property. The commission was able to view the condition of the fields, fencing and general site features. Commission Chair Dini Duclos led the discussion with a series of que~tions on the proposal. The questions the commission answered were: (1) What is the benefit of the proposal? How will this benefit the City of Federal Way and its residents? (2) Who would benefit the most from this project? and (3) What are the barriers/obstacles with developing this project? The following lists some of the benefits and barriers the commission listed: Benefits - Adds to the City's total ballfield inventory, adds open space, acquisition cost minimal, proximity to other City properties, to replicate parcel would cost millions, potential location of batting cage, doubles field capacity with lights, could develop into a premiere complex for youth similar to Celebration Park, potential partnerships. . Barriers - Cost of development, restrictive use by FWNLL as proposed, takes monies away fonn other parks projects, public reaction. " '" Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee Page Two When asked who would benefit, the commission listed the entire community as an additional recreational site, potential for other facilities to be located such as in-line skating, indoor ice arena and a batting cage were examples identified. )j The commission completed their discussion by moving to recommend to the City Council pursue negotiating the acquisition of the FWNLL property. ~\>(~"'j Council Committee Recommendation: Option One: Move to full Council approval to authorize the City Manager to continue negotiations ~~~ to &eE}UÏfe the Federal Way National Little League property as long as theFWNLL is willing to omit the exclusivity clause presented in their November 8, 1999 proposal to the City. ' Option Two: Move to not accept the proposal from the Federal Way National Little League. ,;,,:' : :+;iA.~' Coìnmittee,Member'iiÆ~¡:;:, ".' CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Date: December 9,1999 ~ From: Jennifer Schroder, Director Parks, Recreation and Cultural Subject: Staff Recommendations: Feral Way National Little League (FWNLL) Proposal and Batting Cage Proposal at Celebration Park ' As requested by the Committee Chair, this memo provides CoWlcil with staffs recommendation regarding the Federal Way National Little League proposal and the Batting Cage proposal at Celebration Park. Federal Way National Little League Proposal: Staff concurs with the Parks and Recreation Commission that the potential benefits of the FWNLL property to be incorporated into the City's inventory would cost-effectively increase the community's resource for youth ballfields. To duplicate acquisition and the development costs to construct four youth batting fields would easily exceed the potential cost to improve the FWNLL property. Staff recommends moving forward with negotiations for acquisition of the property only under the condition that the FWNLL Board omit the exclusivity clause. Of course, several other issues would need to be resolved if negotiations proceed including, but not limited to, time line commitments and funding for capital improvements. The process to schedule use on City ball fields occurs through a collaborative process with all users. On an annual basis, the City's Athletic Coordinator conducts a "scheduling meeting." FWNLL, American Little League, Federal Way Girls Fast Pitch and others meet and suþmit their needs for games and practices. FWNLL, for example, submits and receives field tim~s at Lakota, Sacajawea and Saghalie. Consequently, should the FWNLL fields become City fields, the fields would be incorporated into the City's total resources to accommodate all request for fields. Staff recommends a modification to Option One: Move to full CoWlcil approval to authorize the City Manager to continue negotiations to acquire the Federal Way National Little League property as long as the FWNLL is willing to omit the exclusivity clause presented in their November 8, 1999 proposal to the City. Batting Cage Proposal at Celebration Park: Staff concurs with the Parks and Recreation Commission that a batting cage facility would be a valued asset to the community. However, staffs recommendation is to keep the batting cage located at Celebration Park. Celebration Park, in its first year of operation, was received by tournament directors, league players and the community as a first class ballpark. Celebration Park was the "newest" and that in itself was a draw that brought tournaments to Federal Way. Long tenn, to keep the demand high to schedule Celebration Park, it will be our charge to keep the facility well maintained, attractive and competitive. A batting cage facility is a very compatible and complementary use to Celebration Park's batting complex. The batting cage would provide revenue to offset the cost of operation and maintenance as well as provide a service, a "competitive draw" for tournaments and leagues that no other tournament facility has within our region. Parks, Recreation, Human Service & Public Safety Council Committee December 9, 1999 Page Two Locating the facility in other park locations would be less desirable because of the need to be conveniently located within the community and to be easily accessed by the target user, "ball players." The batting fields at Celebration Park served 22 tournaments and 96 league teams, for a total number 00,000 participants. This volume of attendance increases the batting cage's ability to succeed financially. The Commission raised valid concerns regarding the appearance of the batting cage as the park's "entrance" view. Staff recommends that a computer-generated picture or a sketch of the proposed facility at Celebration Park be reviewed to provide a visual understanding of the impact to the appearance of the park. Design elements such as the color of the fencing, landscape buffers and other visual elements should be explored to ensure the improvement "adds" to the appearance of the park. In addition, to be consistent with proposed park capital improvements, a public hearing should be conducted to provide a broaderprocess for community input and review. . . Staff recommends, a modification to Option Two: Move to not accept the proposal to build a batting cage facility at Celebration Park at this time, and direct staff to work with the Parks and Recreatiôn Commission to conduct a public hearing on the proposed batting cage at a site to be determined. '-'. f ~! 9G(}Z~JOS9~ /'" '" 3'"' / 5 ' '>--. '" t ~ / / ',""s ~' . '. < v'" ~ / ¡'---. is,' r--)/ - i I ! I I : , I . I ; l I - I ~ . \) 1 I I I U .l- 0) ã: a en :J Q ~ '« (J ~ en roo ." iJ ~ . ~~ i~~ o~ àS... ~ ~ . f I! t ------- pa¡;cl~o(19 .~~ :~ . ~ VI 'Ì x w BOARD AND COMMISSION CHARACTERISTICS Arts Commission City Council 11 + 0 alts. 3 years, staggered I No Civil Service Commission City Manager 5 + 2 alts. 5 years, staggered INo Diversity Commission City Councif 9 + 2 alts. 3 years, staggered I No Ethics Board City Council 3 + 1 at. 3 years, staggered I No Human Services Commission City Council 9 + 2 alts. 3 years, staggered I No Parks & Recreation City Council 11 + 3 alts." 3 years, staggered I Yes - 3 terms Commission Planning Commission City Council 7 + 2 alts. 4 years, staggered I No Youth Commission City Council 13 + 3 alts. 2 years I No As of December 30, 1999 i NU1Ílber of alternates is Council's discretion. It is not specified by Code ~.Number of members may be 9 or 11 at Council's discretion W Seniors serve for one year >r" CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y 199912000 ADOPTED BUDGET INTRODUCTORY'sECTlðÑ;{~'f'i;'ir..(i, It.! , ""c'" "'.'.1:1:'1: FUTURE VISION Federal Way is a great place to live, learn, work, and play because of its: Government for and by the people . Can-do attitude . Partnership with citizens often through volunteerism . Provide quality services . Value diversity, innovation, participation and unity . Sense of identity and ownership by neighborhoods . Fiscally conservative and innovative (contracting) with growth . Moderate tax rate and bonds for major projects . Maintain defined vision and continuity for staff and resources Responsible arowth . Some growth in all segments of community inevitable . Channel growth into specific development goals . Preserve quality of life by developing infrastructure with growth . Preserve a primarily residential community and open natural areas with concentrated urban development in the City's Center . Increase corporate headquarters and some annexation . Modest population growth (build out available single family, multi-family) in City CenterlSR-99 corridor . Multi-use, pedestrian-friendly City Center with plazas and structured parking . Preserve property rights balanced by community health, safety, and welfare Economic vitalitv . International and regional trade and employment center . Corporate headquarters and small business support services . Redevelop retail warehouse for office, retail, and light manufacturing consistent with market trends . Quality jobs to enhance tax base and quality of life i Efficient traffic system . Link neighborhoods with City Center and other communities . Mass transit to connect corporate campus and City Center with economic and leisure hubs of other communities . New infrastructure mostly in City Center by concentrating growth there . Easy and safe transportation for youth to school Carina for our own . Government and social service agencies work in concert to build a sense of community . Provide caring and safe environment through community-based policing . Support strong student achievement, educational institutions, and leadership . Coordinate human service systems . Require greater participation from clients in improving their individual situations Quality culture. environment and play . Parks, trails, sports, and cultural arts cater to active life styles . Partner with schools to develop facilities, parks, and services . Build performing and cultural arts center . Preserve our natural resources, scenery, vistas, lakes, streams, wetlands, and Spring Valley pastoral setting Reaional player . Participating regional partner in Puget Sound economic, political and cultural life . Participate regionally to yield funding opportunities . Safeguard against outside impacts that reduce quality of life . Support sister cities (tultural, educational and economic benefits) 2 INTRODUCTORY SECTION . CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y 199912000 ADOPTED BUDGET This vision will not be easily achieved. It will require difficult choices. Cooperation will be required between the public sector, neighborhood groups, business, schools and citizens to maintain the high quality of life, grow gracefully, remain a healthy and desirable community and improve urban life amenities with higher density. 3 CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y 199912000 ADOPTED BUDGET INTRODUCTORY SECTION -- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MISSION STATEMENT It is the mission of the government of the CKy of Federal Way to seek to achieve the pullOSe of the people of Federal Way, as declared at the time of the City's incorporation, February 28,1990, affinned and revised January 26, 1996: => To take upon ourselves the goveming of our own destiny; => To create a more habitable living environment to enhance both our work and recreation; => To maintain our many local goveming bodies as small, locally-baSed, and accessible; => To ensure that the special needs of Federal Way are addressed in a responsive and responsible manner. 6 INTRODUCTORY SECTION CITY OF FEDERAL WA Y 199912000,ADOPTED BUDGET -- 1999/2000 COUNCIL GOALS 1. Implement the police department 2. Contain contracting costs, including court and jail. 3. Continue implementation of 1995 bond issue projects. 4. Implement the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Continue to develop sports fields and to include provisions for maintenance and operation. 6. Implement neighborhOOd development program. 7. Implement affordable housing policy. 8. Economic Development Strategic Plan. "'" ~ 'i, ~; 1 . .. i 1 7 I '\ " (" , l ~ ¡ú ;.ti~~~. ~ tÜû.ßi.:.1;'iÙ:~~å.W~~~i6 ~VdÌi¡j~~, \¡~;~ ;:;~~{'jiÜ~4l~I¡",Ul~l.\'í~ ;iÜ.'¡¡j.~\~:i.i {{/ ~~'I:.\!:~:,{ ~';!.~.~~~~. Q VlD Ò \l \ 0 ,~CY %' CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: January 18, 2000 TO: Mayor Mike Park Federal Way City Council Members . . David M~er Summary from the January 7- 8 Council Retreat FROM: RE: Attached you will find a copy of Jim Reid's Summary of the Key Decisions and Agreements from your January 7 & 8 Retreat Ocean Shores. Please review the summary and let me know if you have any questions or comments. Mo8eley2000\DMOO.O2.wpd Attachment c: Department Dll'8Ctora