Council PKT 11-04-1998 Special
<
(
(
AGENDA
FED ERAL WAY CITY CO UN CIL
SPECIAL/STUDY SESSIONS
Council Chambers - City Hall
November 4 & 5, 1998 - 5:30-8:30 p.m.
(www.cifederal-way. wa.us)
.. .. .. .. 7<
I.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II.
1999-2000 BIENNIAL BUDGET
COUNCIL DELIBERATION OF EXPENDITURES/REVENUES
III.
AD J a URN1vŒNT
.,c.
- éXh I ~'\" \'¡:\/'
SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
1\/4:'/<18 - Dtkr
~ ~:Sw'
~I"\ IY~
~
I/,rrð -.¿
;/
Council Item 1-- 1999!!~~-~~~\õõõ'- -!--- 199~~~'~1~-~.I,,!~cioö' ...". ....._~.!!.!!!~ T°t?!__..
Priority Number Program Note One-time OngoinG
General Fund: Beginning General Fund Balance $ (1,257,884) $ (166,832)
7 1 cc - City Manager $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ (1,227,884) $ (166,832)
7 4 CD - Building Inspector 1.00 $ 33,000 $ - $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ (1, 1 94, 884) $ (106,632)
7 7 CD - perron Tracking System $ 167,625 $ 88,000 $ 18,000 $ 38 ,000 $ (939,259) $ (68,832)
7 8 CD - Update UBC Fee $ - $ - $ (108,000) $ (108,000) $ (939,259) $ (176,832)
7 II CDIPW - Update $ - $ - $ (32,000) $ (32,000) $ (939,259) $ (208,832)
,r::. C!. -<"I,
7 10 LAW - Prosecution or DV 1.00 $ - $ $ 9,016 $ 9,196 $ (939,259)' $ (199,636)
",;m- -
LAW - Regional Justice 2Yrs $ 51,600 $ 51,600 $ - $ -
7 11 Center Court Calendar $ (836,059) $ (199,636)
7 12 MS - DP Analyst 1.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (836,059) $ (199,636)
7 14 MS - Tax Audit Contract $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ (836,059) $ (194 636)
7 16 MS - Govemment Access Contract wI $ $ $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ (836,059) $ (189,636)
r.h"nn,,1 school - -
7 18 MS - Various Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ $ (836,059) $ (189,636)
7 20 PARCS - Coordinator 1.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (836,059) $ (189,636)
7 21 PARCS - City Hall 0.40 $ $ $ $ - $ (836,059) $ (189,636)
- - -
7 22 PARCS - Celebration Park 0.75 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (836,059) $ (189,636)
7 24 PARCS - Maintenance 2Yrs $ 55,000 $ 55,000 $ - $ - $ (726,059) $ (189,836)
7 25 PARCS - Electrical Recairs $ 10000 $ - $ - $ - $ (716059 $ (189,636)
7 26 PARCS - Computerized Partial $ 16,000 $ - $ - $ - $ (700,059) $ (189,636)
II ¡nhl"
7 27 PARCS - Fleet Reolacement $ 5,310 $ - $ - $ 531 $ (694 749 $ (189,105)
7 30 PARCS - Senior lunch $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ (644,749 $ (189,105)
PS - School Security Officer 2.00 -
7 32 at 2 high schools (2 Officers) $ 9,500 $ - $ 43,404 $ 43,404 $ (635,249) $ (145,701)
PS - Neighborhood 2Yrs
7 38 Community Resource Center $ 57,118 $ 81,022 $ - $ - $ (497,109) $ (145,701)
fi D"'f"IR.i R~\
PS - Neighborhood 2Yrs
7 39 Community Resource Center $ 57,118 $ 81,022 $ - $ - $ (358,969) $ (145,701)
'fi P<>t"\R. 1 R..,..\
7 40 PS - Victim Assistance 2Yrs $ 64,577 $ 64,577 $ - $ - $ (229,815) $ (145,701)
IPrnn""m (1 Unm. "'<>\
7 50 CD-Contracted SVcs COlM1CiAdd $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ (129,815 $ (145,701)
6 5 CD - Neighborhood Matching 2Yrs, $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ (99,815) $ (145,701)
'I="n<l" Partial
6 17 MS - IntemetlWeb Service $ - $ - $ 5,200 $ 5,200 $ (99,815 $ (140,501)
6 33 PS - Street Crime Division (2 2.00 $ 9,600 $ $ 103,404 $ 103,404 $ (90,215) $ (37,097)
IOfficersl -
6 34 PS - Criminal Intelligence 1.00 $ 4,800 $ $ 51,702 $ 51,702 $ (85,415) $ 14,605
IOfficer f1 nffi""., -
6 37 PS - Criminal Scene Tech (1 1.00 $ 2,705 $ $ 49,352 $ 52,384 $ (82,710) $ 66,989
Ipsnr -
6 49 Human S\Ics to $400,000 COlOlClAdd $ 94 ,000 $ 88,000 $ (82,710) $ 154,989
6 55 EX MembershiD Coooci Add $ 7,600 $ 7,600 $ (67,510) $ 154,989
5 28 PARCS - Comprehensive Partial $ 10,000 $ $ - $ - $ (57,510) $ 154,989
Ipl,," I InrI"l.. -
5 29 PARCS - youth Athletics $ - $ - $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ (57,510 $ 165,989
5 52 PSRC MembershiD COll1OlAdd $ 24,000 $ 24,000 $ (9,510 $ 165,989
5 53 Raa Citv-maint flaas COlM1CiAdd $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ (4,510 $ 165989
5 56 Sister City COlM1CiAdd $ 2,000 $ 6,000 $ 3,490 $ 165,989
4 35 PS - Juvenile Case Filing 1.00 $ 4,800 $ $ 51,702 $ 51,702 $ 8,290 $ 217,691
., (1 officer) -
4 51 Arts Commission -restore tndo COIOICI Add $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 78,290 $ 217,691
3 13 MS - labor Contract 1 time in $ $ 20,000 $ $ $ 98,290 $ 217,691
2000 - -
3 36 PS. Criminal Analyst (Non- 1.00 $ - $ - $ 42,474 $ 45,137 $ 98,290 $ 262,828
~m\
2 3 CM - Community 1 Yr $ 46,200 $ $ $ . $ 144,490 $ 262,828
.. - -
1 31 PS - Schoo/liaison (1 1.00 $ - $ - $ 62,073 $ 62,073 $ 144,490 $ 324,901
Offic",1
0 2 CC - Contract lobbyist 1 Yr $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ $ 164,490 $ 324,901
0 23 PARCS - City Hall Space CM Corö1gency $ 25,000 $ $ $ $ 189,490 $ 324,901
6 CD - Regional Air 1 VI $ 75,000 $ $ $ $ 264,490 $ 324,901
Strnl<><1v
15 MS . Aerial Ortho- DeIet. .1 !his $ - $ - $ $ $ 264,490 $ 324,901
19 MS - Business license Fee $ - $ - $ - $ (85,000 $ 264 490 $ 239,901
41 PW - Street Maintenance 4.50 $ 16,370 $ $ - $ (122,570) $ 280,860 $ 117,331
42 . PW - Deputy PW Director 1.00 $ 7,835 $ $ 49,411 $ 51,346 $ 288,695 $ 168,677
-
Position
PW - Emergency ' 7,000 288,695 175,677
43 $ - $ - $ 7,000 $ $ $
44 PW - Intern $ - $ - $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 288,695 $ 187,677
.JM:,.Ld ç~
:;>.-
NEWPROG.XlS Council Priority
..
SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
"
Council Item 'I ~ ~~~.T!. --.-.L.._,,_,_Net on.golng ',_.m, , , <;U~R:JUI~!iV~,T<!~~~
Prlorilv Numb.r Program _._~ote _¡_~!-_I 2000 I 1999 -+- ~~, -' ,-.2!l'!:!!!!!.'!'- l..._°!!1l!!!!!iI -
45 PW - Trl1C Hl1plac:crnmll I nil 1,;0,;':1 !I' I $ - I $ .! $ 10,000 ' $ 10,000 $ 2a¡¡,6~ $ 191,611
'"
47
PW - Maintain New Street
PW - New Trallic Signals
Excess 112% Utility Tax
currently collected
CIty-wfde Y2K CeJeb-Div Com
48
54
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
. $
32,000 $
(467,497) $
,,',',',',',',',,',,',', :::::::;:::;:::::::;#=::;: ::'t:ótâfGeñeÍ'iílt;ûna:i:}'~::;:;19,65}:t:':94Ö"¡25Øt}6ö6";~21i :::$:}}}it4¡241:::${
-
.
-
-
$
-
$
c.....J Add
Councl Add
$
.
c.....J Add
Counci Add
.
10,000 $
44,000 $
(339.763) $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
:{1öit046,:; ::$:"
268,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
266,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
268,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
288,695 $
268,695 $
288,695 $
268,695 $
':::288'695,::":$::
207,677
251,671
(88.086)
(88,086)
(68,086)
(88,086)
(88,086)
(68,086)
(88,086)
(68,086)
(88,086)
(68,086)
(68.086)
(88,086)
(68,086)
(88.086)
(68,086)
';:::188"086
NEWPROG,XlS Council Priofity
SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED PROGRAMS
CouOé;II Item 1 Net 1't1me I Net on-golng Curnmulatlvt,Tótal
PriOrIty. . Number Pr() ram Note 1999 I 2000 I 1999 2000 One-tlme Ongoing
Other Funding Sources:
49 Excess Real Estate excise Tax $ (835,000) $ (835,000) $ -
50 SWM Fees $ (45,857) $ (107,518) $ (880,857) $ (107,518)
51 Solid Waste Fees $ - $ (9,520) $ (880,857) $ (117,038)
52 PW - Support 0.50 $ - $ - $ 9,520 $ 9,520 $ (880,857) $ (107,518)
53 PW - &oM.J, Maintenance 100 $ 31,850 $ $ 55,672 $ 55,672 $ (849,007) $ (51,846)
54 PW - Software Upgrade $ 1,172 $ $ $ $ (847,835) $ (51,846)
55 PW - Hanson SW Licenses $ 5,000 $ $ 500 $ 500 $ (842,835) $ (51,346)
56 PW - Templlntern $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (842,835) $ (51,346)
57 CM - Marketing Material Partial $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ (827,835) $ (51,346)
58 CM - Economic Development wlNe:N $ $ $ $ 75,000 $ (827,835) $ 23,654
Executive Revenue - -
59 CM -1% HoteVMotei Tax New $ (15,000) $ $ $ (75,000) $ (842,835) $ (51,346)
Revenue - -
60 MS - Earty Redemption of $ 835,000 $ - $ $ - $ (7,635) $ (51,346)
42 . PW - Deputy PWDirector 1 Yr $ 7,635 $ $ 49,411 $ 51,346 $ $
Position - - -
$ $ -
$ - $ -
$ $ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
$ - $ -
...... er I"unomg 1.:>U :¡ IIIIU,II:>f :¡ - S 115,103 S 111,038 $ -~$ -
Grand Total 21.15 '$ 1,821,115 $ 606,321 i $ 209,344 I $ 195,784 $ 288,69:> $ (88,086)
. PW Deputy Director is 1/2 funded with SWM fees
NE'M'ROG.XlS Council Priority
I
Revenues
Potential Revenue Sources
Sources 1999 2000
Property Tax: from $1.53 to $1.56 120,000 120,000
Sales Tax: at max. - -
Utility Tax: existing 1/2% 425,000 425,000
B & 0 Tax: no - -
Admissions Tax: 5% * 50,000 250,000
-
Gambling Tax on Card Rooms: from 11 % to 150,000 150,000
20%
745,000 945,000
* There is one year waiting period for any admissions tax on Enchanted Park.
Date:
To:
November 3, 1998
Federal Way Ci
Kenneth E. N~ r
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
From:
Subject:
This memorandum will follow up on questions and information requests regarding the
1999-2000 proposed budget received ITom the City Council at the October 27 Public
Safety Department budget presentation and during the past week.
1) The Public Safety Department is currently working on obtaining the number of police
calls for services ITom the Federal Way Schools during 1997. This information will be
provided when it becomes available.
A memorandum ITom the Chief discusses the method used in determining the staffing
level for the department.
2) A memorandum from Derek Matheson provides a brief analysis of pros and cons to
the City's participation in the Puget Sound Regional Council.
3) A Revised Tax and Fee Comparison for 1998 includes the Cities ofBurien, SeaTac,
Newcastle, and Lakewood in the comparison. The Cities of Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma
and Vancouver were eliminated from the comparison.
Should you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
K:\FIN\aIENNIAL\QAIO27.DOC
. .- ...........,,~.-
Memorandum
f~~
~~~
~~-
~OLIC~
~
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
FIELD OPERATIONS
.:;;r.~""",-
DATE:
October 30,1998
TO:
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
Ronald T. Wood, Chief of Police f:ßY
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Police Department Staffing Considerations
As we have discussed, one of the difficult issues in the Police Department's formation has been the
determination of an appropriate staffing level. While a number of staffing formulas exist, there is
no universal agreement that anyone is best, although the officer-per-l 000- residents ratio is probably
most often cited. As police officers (and related support employees) are such expensive positions,
over-staffing creates unreasonable costs at the expense of other types of governmental services and
should be avoided to minimize inèfficiency. Under-staffing, on the other hand, creates officer and
community safety issues, reduces response times and service delivery quality, and dictates a reactive
service model driven by police calls rather than a proactive or preventive policing philosophy.
The considerations of police staffing levels is further impacted by the fact that unlike other
government services, police services are not limited to business or residential community members
and are generally established by consumer discretion rather than by available resources. Where the
Parks and Recreation Department can establish program or facility limits and turn others away; or
Community Development maintains a 60 day window for permit processing to manage workloads;
or Public Works can schedule projects to coincide with seasons or budget cycles; police services are
more difficult to predict or delay, and almost impossible to limit. Finally, police staffing cannot be
easily supplemented for short periods of high demand through the use oftemporary employees due
to legal limitations and liability issues.
In this environment, the responsible manager tries to maintain staffing levels allowing.immediate
response to emergency or life threatening incidents and "reasonable" response rates to non-
emergency events without wasting expensive resources which are not needed to reach this balance.
The unpredictability of emergency incident occurrences and the need to staff for them to some
degree inevitably leads to periods when emergencies do not occur and non-emergency incidents
receive very good response times. It is also during the non-occurrence periods for emergencies that
preventive and follow-up work can be accomplished using the emergency response capability
productively. The goal is to minimize staffing levels consistent with community expectations,
emergency response capability, and "appropriate" amounts of proactive and preventive or follow-up
time for uniformed officers.
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
Page - 2
October 30, 1998
'" AW'\
"'3 ? rJI \1-\ ¡VI
I -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
b 11M
4
- - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---~
lPI\M.
tJ Dc.',J
McJ>,J Ie. ~I'I
{=,.,,^""
bPM
The graph above provides an approximation ofthe calls for service fluctuation in a typical 24 hour
period. While it does not differentiate emergency and non-emergency incidents, it does reveal
variations in volume.
Using this graphic to establish outcomes at various levels of staffing, the following observations can
be made:
1.
Ifthe department is staffed at the level ofline 4, the number of calls,
at any time of the day, exceeds the departments' response capability.
There is no discretionary time for proactive or preventive efforts, nor
for follow-up or report writing for incidents handled. We can assume
that emergency calls will usually be handled reasonably quickly by
calling units off of other, lower priority calls, however, that reduces
service quality on the displaced calls and delays arrivals somewhat on
emergency incidents. As the call levels exceed department response
capabilities in line 4 staffing levels, all calls are delayed for some
period oftime, and during peak call periods, the delays are extensive.
2.
Ifthe department is staffed at the line 1 level, the over staffing creates
an inefficient environment unless there is substantial proactive or
other activities projected on a continuous basis. During the low call
volume periods, officers must have programs or project activities or
their work volume will decline in spite of the expensiveness of this
model.
3.
Staffing at the line 3 level provides some limited periods each day
where the call volume is lower than the staffing allocation, creating
catch up time or time for other directed activities. As the portion of
the day below this line is significantly less than the call volume
periods above line 3, the ratio of excess calls to staffing suggests that
the officers will use all available time to catch up on back-logged
calls, leaving no time for preventive or proactive efforts.
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
Page - 3
October 30, 1998
Additionally, the significant excess of calls to staffing levels at most
of the day indicates that no provision for emergencies exist and
officers will again have to be called or diverted ITom lower priority
calls, extending the delay in their handling.
4.
Staffing at the line 2 level (or between lines 2 and 3) offers the
optimal projected staffing level. In this match up, there is
approximately twice as much time per day where staffing levels
exceed calls for service as the reverse, providing appropriate amounts
of time on each shift to process follow-up activities and do proactive
or problem oriented preventive activities. This balances the need to
be fiscally conservative with the need to have adequate staffing to
address total call volume most of the time, assuring available
resources to respond to emergencies in a timely manner without
diluting general incident handling capacity to a level unacceptable to
the public.
By balancing service capacity with fiscally conservative restraint and using shift overlaps for brief
periods each day to leverage available staffing, we have the highest potential of managing
emergencies, differential call volumes, and public expectations of service levels without wasting
allocated funds. As the calls for service can't be accurately forecast, even using historical data, and
as the public expects police response to be an inexhaustible service, this seems to provide the most
responsible basis for establishing staffing levels.
I hope this information is helpful to you. If I can provide further detail or answer any questions,
please contact me.
RTW/abm October 30,1998
1:\CHIEF\Nyberg
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Questions regarding Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC)
Councilmember Linda Kochmar has requested additional information on my decision not to include
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) membership dues in my 199912000 City Manager's Proposed
Budget.
What is the Puget Sound Regional Council?
The Puget Sound Regional Council is an association of cities, towns, counties, ports, and state
agencies that serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and
Snohomish Counties. Federal laws require the establishment of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in major metropolitan areas around the country to work on regional transportation
issues. Each of the four counties is required to be a member of an MPO. In addition to the four
counties, 65 cities, three ports, and two state agencies are members of PSRC.
PSRC's functions are to:
~ Maintain a regional growth and transportation strategy
~ Review and approve expenditures of federal transportation funds
~ Ensure that state, regional and local land use and transportation plans are consistent
Forecast and monitor economic, demographic and travel conditions in the region
Provide technical assistance to local governments and other organizations
Provide a forum to discuss emerging regional issues.
~
~
What are the advantages ofPSRC membership?
~
Applying for funding. PSRC is a pass through agency for many state and federal grants to
which the City submits applications for transportation projects. All cities in the region are
eligible to compete for these funds, but member cities have some involvement in establishing
criteria and making funding decisions.
~
Data and Models. PSRC collects data on population, economics, employment, housing, and
income, as well as develops land use and transportation models for the region. The data and
models are often used by cities to meet Growth Management Act reporting requirements and
as a starting point for more localized land use and transportation models. The information
is available to member cities free of charge; non-members in some instances must pay a
nominal fee.
~
Regional involvement. PSRC is a large and comprehensive forum for discussing issues
facing the Puget Sound region.
What are the disadvantages of PSRC membership?
Cost is the primary disadvantage ofPSRC membership. Membership cost the City $22,500 in 1998.
This compares with $17,600 for the Suburban Cities Association (SCA), an organization in which
the City has a significantly higher level of involvement.
Why is the City Manager recommending that Federal Way not remain in PSRC?
As a non-member ofPSRC, Federal Way would still be able to playa strong regional role, could still
apply for pass through funding from federal and state sources, and would still have access to PSRC
data for a nominal fee. Membership by cities is PSRC not mandated by law, and many ofPSRC's
services are available to non-members through a user fee. There are several smaller cities in the
Puget Sound region that are not members.
At present, most of Federal Way's regional involvement and resolution of cross-jurisdictional issues
occurs through other organizations and forums such as the Regional Governance and Finance
Process; King County Regional Policy and Transit Committees; Suburban Cities Association and
its subcommittees; Sound Transit; the Association of Washington Cities; and numerous professional
organizations to which City Council members and staff belong.
As a non-member, Federal Way would be able to continue its involvement in PSRC by means of the
Suburban Cities Association. SCA member cities work together to advance their views an.d interests
at PSRC. It current practice is for SCA members to collaborate in determining who will represent
King County suburban cities on PSRC boards and committees. A representative from Federal Way
on PSRC committees is currently designated an "SCA representative", rather than a "Federal Way
representative". Of the more than 200 seats on PSRC boards/committees, Federal Way has one
alternate representative.
PSRC does not rely primarily on member dues to fund its services. In the last fiscal year, nearly 80%
ofPSRC's $6.4 million budget was derived from federal and state grants.
2
. .
... ...
TAX AND Fee COMPARISON FOR 1998- REVISED 1
"-.-- ._nn....-
120
Population
(in thousands)
100
- - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - .. - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - .. - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Average: 51 ,496-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -I-
I
80
60
40
20
j ~ j .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i r Æ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ : ~"'~ ; i
Æ ~ ~,:¡ - .!
..-.---
7.00% -------
Utility Tax Rate
(blended average)
-'-'--' --.
5.00% -
6.00% - ----
400% - - - -
3.00% -
2.00% - - - - - -
1.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0.00%
~ ~ j I I 1 ~ I I ~-~ fl II", I ;
~!g>CD~W"'!! :i!i Õ~-cn
Æ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q "-
Business Full Time Admissions Property B&O Utility Sales
Jurisdiction License 2 Employees Population Tax Tax Tax Ta?,( Tax
..
Auburn $25 373 37,440 5.0% 3.10 0.000% 4.50% 1.00%
Bellevue $22 1,042 105,700 3.0% 1.75 0.150% 4.87% 1.00%
Bellingham $40 641 61,980 5.0% 2.27 0.170% 5.89% 1.00%
Burien $15 32 28, 110 0.0% 1.60 0.000% 0.00% 1.00%
Des Moines $50 121 27,200 5.0% 1.58 0.000% 3.34% 1.00%
Everett $10 987 84,330 5.0% 3.60 0.100% 3.33% 1.00%
Federal Way $15 247 76,820 0.0% 1.55 0.000% 3.89% 1.00%
Kennewick $50 310 50,390 5.0% 2.59 0.000% 6.89% 1.00%
Kent $75 630 71,610 0.0% 2.98 0.000% 4.60% 1.00%
Kirkland $35 333 44,220 5.0% 1.82 0.000% 4.44% 1.00%
Lakewood $35 54 62,540 0.0% 1.60 0.000% 0.00% 1.00%
Newcastle $0 20 8,605 0.0% 2.83 0.000% 0.00% 1.00%
Olympia $80 513 39,070 5.0% 3.03 0.100% 5.78% 1.00%
Redmond $65/employee 436 43,310 5.0% 1.75 0.000% 3.11% 1.00%
Renton $55/employee 536 46,270 5.0% 3.55 0.000% 6.00% 1.00%
SeaTac $35 143 23,540 0.0% 2.96 0.000% 0.00% 1.00%
Yakima $86 660 64,290 0.0% 3.29 0.000% 7.22% 1.00%
Average Tax Rates $38 416¡ 51,4961 2.82% ,$ 2.46 0.031% 3.76% 1.00%
1. The revised comparison reflects changes in comparable jurisdictions per Council's request. The jurisdictions added are
shown in italic type. The City of Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane and Vancouver are deleted from the comparison.
2. Business license fee average does not include Redmond's and Renton's fees which are based on the number of employees.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
October 27, 1998
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
1999-2000 Capital Budget Issues
As you know, the City Manager's Proposed 1999-2000 Budget does not contain capital budget
recommendations beyond some projects funded with Surface Water Management (SWM) fees. This does
not reflect a lack of capital facility needs, as there are several unfunded projects included in the City's
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Rather, it reflects a timing
issue related to the availability of funds for such capital projects.
There are four potential funding sources for capital projects - 1998 General Fund cash carryover (if any),
unspent bond proceeds from the 1995 Street Bond issue, unallocated 1998 Real Estate Excise Tax (REET)
monies, and unallocated 1997-98 utility tax collections in the amount of $1.3 million. Three of the four
funding sources - the cash carryover and the unspent bond proceeds - will not have accurate dollar
projections until the current accounting year is closed out and the S. 312th Street improvements are closer to
completion. Further, the 1995 Street Bond ordinance requires the appointment of a citizen committee before
any unused bond proceeds can be expended. For these reasons, I have chosen to not include a capital
spending plan in the 1999-2000 Budget and to recommend that the City Council address capital budget issues
when more accurate figures are available. As the above funding sources can only be used for capital projects,
I was unable to include them in my proposed operating budget.
Attached is a $9.3 million list of projects that are included in the City's CIPmp but are currently not funded.
The projects that I believe have the highest priority are, by category:
I.
Transportation projects that already have significant grants but are short of matching funds to
complete them:
~ 23rd Ave. S. (S. 317th St. to S. 324th St.)
~ SR-99 and S. 330th St. signalization
~ SW 340th and Hoyt Rd. improvements
$162,200
$225,000
$33.000
$420,200
2.
Parks projects that are designed, under design, or for which the City has made significant
commitments to the public to construct them when funds become available:
~ Skate Park $250,000
~ Wedgewood Park $50,000
~ Celebration Park Maintenance Building $60.000
$360,000
.. ,
\
I
3.
The provision of a grant matching funds so that the City can leverage the use of state, federal, and
other funds. This allows staff to more easily apply for grants that will reduce the impact ofCIP and
TIP projects on the City's budget.
In spring of next year, when actual figures / more accurate estimates of capital revenue sources are available,
I will ask my staff to begin work on a Capital Facilities Strategic Plan. This planning effort will involve City
departments and boards/commissions working to identify a wide range of possible capital facilities - along
with rough estimates of cost and prioritization criteria - for City Council review and approval. Should the
Council desire, this planning process could be made to coincide with the work of a Street Bond citizen
committee.
The final product will be an effective long-term strategy for managing capital issues that takes into account
all of the City's future capital needs, including those highlighted above. Once the plan is complete, the City
Council can make capital funding decisions that are based upon a comprehensive potential revenue package
with more accurate dollar projections.
I look forward to discussing these issues next week during your deliberations on the operating budget.
Again, as the funding sources described in this memorandum are for capital projects only, they cannot be
used for ongoing operations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Preliminary Time Line for Capital Issues
December 1998
City Council adopts 1999-2000 Budget
March 1999
Staff begins work on Capital Facility Strategic Plan
April 1999
Actual figures available for 1998 General Fund (carryover, utility tax, REET)
Preliminary estimate available for unused Street Bond funds
City Council appoints Street Bond citizen committee
May 1999
Final estimate available for 1998 cash carryover
Staff submits draft Strategic Plan
Citizen committee submits recommendations
City Council reviews and adopts Strategic Plan and
recommendations; makes capital funding decisions for 1999
citizen committee
January 2000
City Council uses Capital Facilities Strategic Plan as basis for discussion of 200 1-
2002 capital improvement issues at retreat
c:
Management Team
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
October 27, 1998
Federal Way City Council
Jenny Schroder, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Response to October 20 and 21 Budget Review Council Question
From:
Subject:
At the Department budget presentations, Council asked (1) how many additional park
maintenance workers are needed to improve the current level of service and to prevent our
park system from deteriorating. They also asked (2) for the possible costs for the
maintenance of pocket parks in the downtown core.
(1) This year staff presented to the Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety
Council Committee the Park Maintenance Plan of existing staff resources and a model
of hours required to carry out a recommended level of service based on a National
Standard for the current inventory. The variance identifies that our current amount of
staff resources and seasonal labor is providing a service level of approximately 56% of
the recommended level of service. This is down from the 1996 level of service of
approximately 71%.
The model developed is only that, a "model," and not based on a City-adopted
standard of maintenance. Therefore, another approach to identify the additional
amount of staff needed to maintain our parks at a level higher than the current level of
service is to establish the current year's service level of maintenance as the benchmark.
The current service level of maintenance focuses on ballfield and restroom
maintenance, mowing and litter/garbage control and provides, for example, limited
time for preventive maintenance activities, such as turf and field renovation, brush
removal to maintain a line of sight into parks, graffiti removal, repairs to irrigation
systems, removal and replacement of dead or damage trees, installation and
maintenance of flower spots and reasonable response time to address Citizens Action
Requests.
The current level of service has shown physical evidence of deterioration to athletic
fields. Athletic field turf should be aerated, top-dressed and seeded twice a year.
Saghalie Parks turf soccer/football field is a good example of our current levels affect
on turf quality. The field turf is heavily used; the turf is visibly sparse, and the field is
beginning to hold water. Lack of an adequate turf maintenance program has reduced
the field's ability to drain properly. The current funding level for routine maintenance
of our buildings is adequate and no deterioration caused by lack of routine
maintenance is occurring.
-13-
~
.,.
~ \
Federal Way City Council
October 27, 1998
Page 2
Next year, three parks will be added to the need for maintenance: Celebration park,
Lake Killarney and Heritage Woods Neighborhood Park. The Park Maintenance Plan
for Celebration Park, Lake Killarney and Heritage Woods comes to 4,242 hours
annually or the equivalent of two additional Maintenance Workers.
Two additional Park Maintenance Workers and one small pick-up truck are needed to
maintain the current level of service with the increase of developed park land that will
be on line in 1999. To provide for a service level equivalent to 1996 that addresses
preventative maintenance and repair activities as well as flower spot features in our
parks, will require additional resources to the two park maintenance workers
recommended. Based on the National Standard for Levels of Service, the total park
system maintenance hours for 1999, including Celebration Park, totals 46,283 hours.
The current years maintenance hours available are 22,918 hours. Two additional
workers would add 4,000 hours for total available hours of26,918 or 58% of the total
hours required based on recommended park maintenance standards level of service
model. To achieve a service level equal to the 1996 level of service or 71 % of total
recommended hours of maintenance, 5,942 hours in addition to two Maintenance
Workers is needed. This could be accomplished either ITom additional full-time staff,
contracting, seasonal labor or a blend of staff and contracting.
Cost for two Maintenance Workers, Step A with benefits is $64,608. One half-ton
pick-up truck is $20,000.
(1) Currently, the cost to contract the maintenance of the Federal Way monument sign and
landscape on 320th and 1-5 is $855 annually for the mowing, weeding, edging, pruning
and fertilizing required. In addition, we average $300 in expenses to contract for
repairs to the monument itself, i.e., electrical wear and cleaning of the glass block.
JS:mch
K:\FIN\BIENNIAL \PK - MNT. DOC
-14-
Unfunded Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Master plan of site required to address needs
for control of erosion and improve utilization of
aesthetics of grounds for public use.
To provide a complete assessment of
improvements required to upgrade galvanized
plumbing and convert retreat to HVAC.
Master plan site needed to assess future
development needs for sight line
improvements, parking and security.
Parks CIP !Wedgewood Iin 1998, Council funded $10,000 for Phase I
Neighborhood Park development. Community Partnering to
complete park development, playground
equipment and site improvements.
Construct a skateboard facility in Steel Lake
Park. The facility will provide recreation for
skateboard and rollerblade users.
Parks CIP IGrant Match Fund ITo provide required levels of matching funds fo
Council approved grant applications for park
acquisition or development projects.
Parks CIP ICelebration Park Provide for a maintenance building to support
Maintenance Bldg. staff and equipment at Celebration Park.
Street CIP SW 34Oth Street SW 34Oth & Hoyt Road SW Intersection
Street CIP 23rd Avenue S. 23rd Avenue S. - S 317th to S. 324th
Street CIP Pacific Highway Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes
Street CIP SR 99 and S. 330th SR 99 and S. 33Oth Street Signalization
CIP ReQuest for 1999-2000 BudQet
Parks CIP ¡Dumas Bay Center
Site Master Plan
Parks CIP I Dumas Bay Centre
'HVAC/Plumbing
Assessment
Parks CIP I Steel Lake Park
Master Plan
Parks CIP I Skateboard Park
1999
20,000
..... ...-----
50,000
20,000
... .n .- n.- -
Total
.. ....-.--. .... .' .......
50,000 :
. .... .--- ---- --
250,000
...... - p--
100,000
60,000
. ......--.... . .
.. .. .. ......
100,000
33.000 - ¡
.....1~j9~: ............-t
- 8,395,000 I
.......-.-....... . .. ... . ....
60,000
33,000
162,196
8,395,000
225,000
9.365.196
225,000
970.196
8.395.000
Annual M & 0
$ Needed; $ Recom. (2)
8,000
5,000 1
1,200
4,000 --- 0- 4,000
25,000 - . 18,000
40,000 :------.:
--4;000:;- .. -- 4;600
87.200 i 26.000
1. Skateboard park will primarily be maintained by user groups. The $5,000 will provide supplies and minor repair and maintenance needs.
2. M&O for these projects are included in City Manager Maintenance Program, funded with savings from converting street maintenance contract to crew.
99newpr2.xls cip
-