The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/2012 AGENDA i i CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337 Phone (360) 473 -5280 JULY 25, 2012 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 5:00 PM — STUDY SESSION in COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM 603 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION and EXEMPT CLOSED SESSION, THE BREMERTON TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (TBD) BOARD WILL CONVENE FOR A WORK SESSION (A SEPARATE NOTICE WILL ALSO BE ISSUED) The Study Session is open to the public but there will be no opportunities for input or participation; no action will be taken during the Study Session, and the content of these items is subject to change. If approved by Council, the items will be placed on the August 1, 2012 Council Meeting Agenda. A. FULL DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Shoreline Master Program Presentation: "Code Layout and General Requirements" — Nicole Floyd, City Planner II, (Information only) 2. Proposed public hearing and ordinance adopting the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) Sub - Area Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan; and amending Chapter 20.80 of the Bremerton Municipal Code (BMC) to activate the Development Regulations — Doug McIntyre, Long - Range Planner [2 Presentation] Section A of Exhibit B was replaced... 1 Proposed public hearing and ordinance adopting the Planned Action Ordinance for the South Kitsap Industrial Area (SKIA) — Doug McIntyre, Long -Range Planner [2 Presentation] The Ordinance was amended... 4. Review of Park Funding Mechanism to Stabilize Park Funding — Wyn Birkenthal, Parks & Recreation Director (Per 2012 -2013 City Council Goals; Information only...) B. GENERAL COUNCIL BUSINESS 5. Council Committee Chair Reports 6. Other General Council Business (As necessary...) C. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION D. EXEMPT CLOSED SESSION — Update on "Labor Negotiations and Proceedings" per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) ® Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations provided upon request. Those requiring special accommodations should contact the City Clerk's Office at (360) 473 -5323 by noon on the Monday preceding the Council meeting. City Council Summer Workshop - Calendar of Events Study Session - June 27, 2012 — Kick Off • Pass out binders • Ecology Requirements / Parameters • Explanation of Document Content • Overview of public process and City Council schedule Study Session - July 11, 2012 — Why Update the SMP? ✓ • Why is this update necessary? • Department of Ecology's Role in the update • City's Research and Analysis (See Shoreline Inventory, Public Access Inventory, Cumulative Effects Analysis & Restoration Plan) • City Goals (See Section 200) • 3 years of public process July 18, 2012 — Televised SMP Presentation (Repeat of previous Study Session) ✓ ..�+� July 25, 2012 — Code Layout and General Requirements • Maps & Designations (See Section 400) • Policies & Regulations • Height (See Section 790) • Use Priority (See Section 800) • Public Access (See Section 740) Aug. 1, 2012 — Televised SMP Presentation (Repeat of previous Study Session) Aug. 8, 2012 — Shoreline Modifications Study Session • Buffers & Vegetation Management (See Section 710 & 720) • Docks (See Section 930) • Shoreline Stabilization (See Section 980) Aug. 15, 2012 — Televised SMP Presentation (Repeat of previous Study Session) Aug. 22, 1012 — Nonconformities Study Session • Nonconformities (See Section 600) • SB 5451 Sept 5, 2012 — Televised SMP Presentation (repeat of previous Study Session) Sept. 12, 2012 — Recap / Revisions Study Sessions • Review of any modifications recommended by City Council, Ecology, and the public Sept. 19, 2012 — Public Hearing & Code Adoption • Recap of the process • Review of project applicability and contents i CITY COUNCIL 345 6th Street, Suite 600, Bremerton, WA 98337'0 Phone (360) 473 -5280 2012 - 2013 City Council Goals Financial Sustainability • Develop a Business Plan and rate study for our utilities. • Adopt utility rates recommended by the rate study. • Work with KRCC to determine if an alternate fuel station is feasible. • Research and present to council alternative methods to maintain Parks Department funding. Economic Development . Develop and pass an ordinance before the FY2013 budget is prepared that reduces the B &O tax. Housing and Community • Request the internal Auditor to study the costs and impacts of rental housing and issue a report on the subject. • Develop and execute a campaign to "Wipe out Tagging" that informs residence and business owners of the requirements and benefits of removing "Tagging" as soon as possible. Streets and Sidewalks • Using the City's Non - motorized Transportation Plan identify and prioritize the top three safety improvements that should be implemented around schools. R: \City Council \RETREAT\2012 & 2013 Council GOALS - Post.doc � BREMERTON PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 680 LEBO BLVD, BREMERTON WA 98310 • 360 473 5305 MEMORANDUM To. Mayor Patty Lent and City Council From: Wyn Birkenthal, Director of Parks and Recreation Subject: Review of Park Funding Mechanisms to Stabilize Park Funding At the March 22 Council Retreat there was a consensus that options to bring financial stability to the City's park operations should be explored in depth This memorandum is prepared to provide background to facilitate the discussion 1. Formation of a Park Foundation Park and Recreation Foundations are a staple in larger cities (Spokane, Portland, Tacoma, Vancouver) where they are typically operated with an independent board of directors with the city staff serving in a liaison capacity Most of these foundations include support from F \T or P \T paid staff Portland's Park Foundation is one of the most successful in the Pacific Northwest having accumulated $10 5 million during its 10 year history Close to 100% of these donations are earmarked for specific park improvement projects, the exception is a scholarship fund maintained by the Foundation to subsidize Portland's summer playground program Park Foundations in jurisdictions closer to Bremerton's population are found in Key Peninsula Park District and Kent Everett's formerly independent park foundation merged with the Greater Everett Community Foundation to provide some economy of scale in board management, staff time and record keeping To establish an independent Foundation it is necessary to create articles of incorporation, by laws, apply for a 501 c3 designation to the IRS, appoint a volunteer board of directors and produce accurate financial statements detailing expenses and revenues Park foundations garner resources by a variety of means including one on one solicitation of gifts, hosting an internet site, organizing benefit events, marketing Foundation memberships at a cost between $200 and $10,000 annually and advertising volunteer opportunities Foundation Advantages: • Provides a 3` party organization to support Parks and Recreation efforts • Can help place park projects on the agenda of community groups • May attract bequests and estate gifts if foundation is marketed to attorneys Foundation Disadvantages • Park Foundations elsewhere do not appear to provide significant budget support for maintenance and park operations expenses People like to give to capital projects • Financial support from existing park Foundations encompasses new capital projects and recreation program scholarships • Small Foundations sometimes have difficulty obtaining and sustaining the support needed to incorporate, hold fundraising events, solicit board and general members, perform accounting, reporting and audit functions and invest assets • Several small foundations have been folded into larger community foundations after to achieve economy of scale needed to carryout operating functions 2. Park Fees on New Construction (Impact Fees) Background: Park Fees collected from new residential projects are authorized under Growth Management and the State Environmental Protection Act There are rules that apply under both, including 1) Fees may only be collected to pay for the impacts related to the growth in population related to the project the fees are assessed against, 2) Impact fees may not be used to correct an existing park/recreation system deficiency, 3) Fee must have a nexus to the project it is collected from, and 4) Fee must be used on a capital project within 6 years of collection or the fee will be returned to the payee with interest Typically fees relate to the City's standard for the number of developed park acres per thousand of population and new developments are assessed an amount depending upon the number of residents it will add and the impact the new residents will have on the city's park acreage standard Locally, Port Orchard and Poulsbo have park fees on new development The fees are generally good tools when a city has large undeveloped tracts of land that are slated for residential use Collection of fees in a city with low demand for new housing construction or one that is near build out will be minimal Advantages of Park Fees on New Residential Development • Helps a park system keep pace with new facility construction to accommodate growth • Good tool during times periods with rapid housing /population growth • Augments REET spending on selected capital park projects Disadvantages of Park Fees on New Residential Development • Park fees on development can be viewed as anti- growth by the real estate and housing development community • Argument can be made that cost of fees is passed along to homebuyers making housing within a city that charges fees less affordable for homebuyers • Fee use is limited for capital projects related to growth impacts • During a slow economy, park impact fee collections are negligible and may not aggregate into enough funding to create a capital project during the 6 year time limitation • Staff time needed for collection (at permitting most often) and tracking of fee accounts • Fees do not address M and O for new projects created through their use • Difficult to justify renovation of existing facilities with fees on new development 3. Round Up Utility Bills to the Nearest Dollar The round up to the nearest dollar can be implemented with either and opt out or opt in feature to prevent ratepayers from feeling put upon by paying for a service they may or may not use on a frequent basis Funds can be collected to subsidize M and O funding There is some nexus in that green vegetated park and street rain garden surfaces allow for infiltration of storm water run off decreasing the flowage into the city sewerage system There is no estimate at this time of the amount of funding rounding to the nearest dollar would produce Advantages of Rounding Up Utility Bills to the Nearest Dollar • Opt out (or in) feature gives citizens flexibility on whether to pay into this funding source • Provides a consistent and reliable income stream, although number of dollars may be small in relation to the overall park M and O needs Disadvantages of Rounding Up Utility Bills to the Nearest Dollar • Staff time for accounting and tracking of funds • May take years to build into a fund that can make a substantial impact 4. Formation of a Metropolitan Park District Park Districts are created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance and acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards and recreation facilities While Washington State has provisions for Park Districts, Park Service Areas and Metropolitan Park Districts to be formed as municipal corporations, Metropolitan Park Districts (MPD) have been proven to be the most durable and popular of these closely related mechanisms MPD's have a higher maximum levy amount than park service areas or ordinary park districts In the last few years Pullman, North Bend and Normandy Park have established MPD's MPD boundaries may include territory located in one or more cities or counties MPD's may be formed by a resolution of local government(s) involved by submitting a proposition to its voters A second formation method is by petition Five commissioners are elected at the time of formation to serve 6 year terms If the district encompasses only one city or county, jurisdiction the governing body or the city or county may be designated to serve in an ex officio capacity as the board of the MPD Normandy Park's City Council currently serves as the Commission for the Normandy Park MPD MPD's involving more than one local, jurisdiction may appoint members of their governing bodies to serve as MPD commissioners Inter -local agreements specify the method for filling commission vacancies MPD's are _junior taxing districts able to levy up to 75 cents per thousand dollars of assessed property value within its boundary (subject to $5 90 limit) Metropolitan Park Districts may also issue debt obligations of up to 2 5 % of the assessed value of property Debt must be used for capital purposes and requires voter approval with a 60% super majority One quarter percent of the 2 5% debt may be issued by a vote of the district commissioners If the MPD board of commissioners is a separately elected body, they may be compensated at a rate not to exceed $70 per day of MPD business not to exceed $6,720 per year MPD Advantages • MPD has the greatest potential to raise level of Park Services than other mechanisms • Allows voters to make decisions on the level of Park services they would like to support • MPD with boundaries larger than the city could have greater economy of scale • Removes cost of Parks and Recreation services from the city general fund (wholly or partially) MPD Disadvantages • Need 60% voted supermajority to fund MPD operations • MPD with boundaries larger than city limits would be subject to negotiations with involved ,jurisdictions • Some city Park Department services fall outside the role voters may have of a traditional park district (street side vegetation, cemetery, downtown plaza maintenance, etc ) 5. Revenue Generating Leases There are close to 200 acres in the city park system Existing leases (license agreements) of park property include the YMCA, Bremerton Ice Arena, Olympic Soccer & Sports Center, Kitsap Community Resources Smith Playground, and Bremerton Farmer's Market These leases facilitate use of park land by organizations that provide valued services The typical consideration involves minimal cash payment for use of the property Leases of park land for the express purpose of generating cash flow is an option that may engender some community opposition, however for the purpose of discussion it should not be completely overlooked Among the issues surrounding cash generating leases are the Parks Protection Act, which requires a unanimous vote of city council, there must be a viable market for the property in question for property to produce income, a number of city parks are encumbered by Federal grant funds which complicate leasing, the length of the lease on any property where the lessee makes a valuable improvements is likely to be in excess of 10 year in addition to renewal clauses with minimal barriers, leases capable of generating significant income are likely to alter the character of the existing park land Advantages • Leasing a small percentage of overall park land base may provide additional resources to maintain and operate the remainder of the park system • Appropriate leases may drive park visitation (Richland, Wa restaurant lease) • Long term lease income is typically stable and rises with inflation Disadvantages • Citizen acceptance of leased parks • Deed restricted and encumbered properties exist within the park system • Requires unanimous vote of council at two public hearings 6. Parking Fee on High Demand Parks Parking fees have been implemented to supplement park department finances at numerous local and state and federal facilities King County has parking fees for Marymoor Park use, Washington State Parks experimented with a $5 parking fee for several years and opted to change their system to a $30 per year discover pass and an option to pay $10 per car for one time park visitation The success of parking fees often hinges on the following elements 1) Park location and uniqueness of facility, 2) Cost of collection and enforcement, 3) Citizen acceptance of parking fee, and 4) Neighborhood impacts from people seeking to avoid the fee by parking nearby Advantages • Ongoing source of revenue • Does not impact park land Disadvantages • Citizen acceptance • Neighborhood impact at some locations • Cost of collection and enforcement