LACEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 26, :00 P.M. 420 COLLEGE STREET, LACEY CITY HALL

Transcription

1 CITY COUNCIL ANDY RYDER Mayor CYNTHIA PRATT Deputy Mayor LACEY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 26, :00 P.M. 420 COLLEGE STREET, LACEY CITY HALL LENNY GREENSTEIN JASON HEARN MICHAEL STEADMAN RACHEL YOUNG CAROLYN COX CITY MANAGER SCOTT SPENCE CALL TO ORDER: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS* A. A motion to approve payment of claims, wages, and transfers for 7/4/2018 through 7/17/2018. * Items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately. 3. PUBLIC RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS: A. Recognition of Madison Miller as Youth Representative on Parks Board (Jennifer Burbidge) B. Recognition of Thomas Sui as Youth Representative on Historical Commission (Jennifer Burbidge) 4. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA* *The City Council will allow comments under this section on items NOT already on the agenda. Where appropriate, the public will be allowed to comment on agenda items as they are addressed during the meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. PROCLAMATION: 7. REFERRAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION: 8. REFERRAL FROM HEARINGS EXAMINER: 9. RESOLUTIONS: A. Resolution Adding Ballot Proposition for the Creation of a Lacey Metropolitan Park District (Jennifer Burbidge) 10. ORDINANCES: 11. MAYOR'S REPORT: A. Recommend Reappointment of Ken Balsley to Parks Board (Mayor Ryder)

2 12. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: A. North Thurston Public Schools Joint Use Agreement (Jennifer Burbidge) B. Amendment to ILA Cooperative Law Enforcement (Thurston County Narcotics Taskforce) (Dusty Pierpoint) 13. STANDING GENERAL COMMITTEE A. Utilities Committee (7.02) 14. OTHER BUSINESS: 15. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: A. Mayor Andy Ryder: 1. Mayors Forum 2. Thurston Chamber Shared Legislative Committee 3. Transportation Policy Board (TPB) B. Deputy Mayor Cynthia Pratt: 1. Joint Animal Services Commission (JASCOM) 2. LOTT 3. Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) C. Councilmember Rachel Young 1. Economic Development Council (EDC) 2. Health & Human Services Council (HHSC) 3. Thurston Thrives D. Councilmember Lenny Greenstein 1. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 2. TCOMM Thurston County Law & Justice E. Councilmember Jason Hearn: 1. Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) 2. Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater Visitor & Convention Bureau (VCB) 3. Thurston County Coalition Against Trafficking (TCCAT) F. Councilmember Michael Steadman: 1. Lacey South Sound Chamber 2. Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) G. Councilmember Carolyn Cox 1. Community Action Council 2. Intercity Transit (IT) 3. Thurston Regional Planning Council (TRPC) 4. Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness and Affordable Housing 16. ADJOURN

3 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Disbursement Approval RECOMMENDATION: By motion, approve payment of claims, wages, and transfers. STAFF CONTACT: Troy Woo, Finance Director ORIGINATED BY: Troy Woo, Finance Department BACKGROUND: The action requested of the City Council is by motion to approve payment of claims, wages and transfers for 7/4/2018 through 7/17/2018. The disbursements consist of the following: Checks: Week of Beg. Check No. End. Check No. Amount 7/6/ , /13/ ,446, Electronic Transfers: Week of Amount 7/6/ , /6/ /11/2018 1, /12/ , /13/ , /13/ , Significant Disbursements: Vendor Amount Description SCI Infrastructure LLC $317, Hogum Bay Rd Improvements LOTT $1,088, Rates & Capacity Development Charges SCI Infrastructure LLC $165, Water Improvements Phase 2 Thurston County District Court $89, Violations Page 1 of 1

4 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Metropolitan Park District Proposal RECOMMENDATION: Review associated materials to place a November ballot proposition before Lacey voters concerning the creation of a Lacey Metropolitan Park District. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Jen Burbidge, Parks & Recreation Director ORIGINATED BY: Parks and Recreation Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary and Strategic Goals 2. Elway Final Report 3. Resolution FISCAL NOTE: PRIOR REVIEW: City Council Retreat on February 9, 2018 City Council Worksession on June 7, 2018 City Council Worksession on July 19, 2018 BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2015, the Lacey Parks and Recreation Department sought the input of Lacey citizens to inform the development of the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The community provided extensive feedback that assisted the overall policy direction for the plan to guide future recreational facilities, parks improvements and maintenance needs for Lacey s overall parks system. The updated Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 14, It outlines the opportunities and challenges ahead for the Parks and Recreation Department: Providing adequate facilities to keep up with growth Moving from a predominately property acquisition era to a greater emphasis on park improvement and development phase. Solidifying a future funding strategy Page 1 of 3

5 The following is an excerpt from the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan s Executive Summary - Solidifying a Future Funding Strategy, found on page six:... The six-year Capital Improvement Plan has no established funding sources identified for new park development. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to establishing a Metropolitan Park District and/or park bond measure for future funding. Currently, project implementation relies heavily on outside revenue sources. At the City Council Retreat on February 9, 2018, future investment for parks was a primary agenda item. City Council focused on two of the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan s Strategic Goals... (#2) Prioritizing Parks & Recreation Projects and Identifying Corresponding Current and Future Funding Sources, and (#7) Developing a Sustainable Park System that Meets Community Needs. During the retreat, the City Council discussed a Metropolitan Park District (MPD), authorized by RCW Chapter 35.61, as a way to address park funding issues. Under this state law, voters can approve the creation of a MPD. If approved by voters, the district could levy taxes and fees to generate revenue for the purpose of acquiring, maintaining, operating, developing, and improving parks and associated amenities. Council felt it was important to reach out to Lacey citizens with a statistically valid survey. The City hired Elway Research to conduct the survey. In addition, a project prioritization discussion was held, and as a result City Council also directed staff to hire a firm to conduct an indoor sports facility feasibility study. This study will be completed by September 2018, which will help inform the type of facility to be constructed, if found feasible for this market. It will also highlight opportunities for private/public partnerships. At the June 7, 2018, Council Worksession, the results of the Elway poll were reviewed and discussed by Council (see attached). At the Worksession, City Council directed staff to reach out to significant partners in the community to discuss the potential investment in the Lacey parks system by way of a MPD. At the July 19, 2018, Council Worksession, City Manager Scott Spence and Parks Director Jen Burbidge reported back to City Council concerning discussions with Lacey Chamber of Commerce, Olympia Master Builders, Thurston County Realtors Association, and Thurston County Multiple Listing Sales Association. It was also highlighted that a MPD could focus on three primary goals: Maintain quality parks with the growth ahead Enhance Lacey s position as a sports community and sports destination Create new park and recreation amenities in the properties Lacey has strategically acquired Page 2 of 3

6 A potential Lacey MPD funded at an effective rate of $0.47 per $1,000 assessed property value would generate an estimated $2.7 million annually for the district. For a house assessed at $300,000, a public approved MPD would cost $11.75 per month for the individual homeowner. Projects considered to be funded by a proposed MPD include the following: 8 Athletic Fields 4 Baseball 4 Soccer Project Estimated Estimated Annual Initial Cost Maintenance Cost $4 Million to $6 Million $200,000 Spray Park $350,000 $50,000 Outdoor Sports Stadium $6.5 Million $1 Million Greg Cuoio Trail System (Phase I) $850,000 $160,000 Pleasant Glade Trail System $350,000 $60,000 (Phase I) 5 Playgrounds (Various $500,000 $20,000 Locations) Total Cost $12,550,000 to $14,550,000 $1,490,000 Other Considered Projects: Museum & Civic Center Indoor Sports Facility (40,000 sq. ft.) $8 Million $16 Million $600,000 $750,000 ADVANTAGES: 1. Allows voters to decide future investments within Lacey s parks system. 2. Meets the intent of Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Asks the public for an increase in property taxes to fund park improvements and facilities as well as associated maintenance and operational expenses. Page 3 of 3

7 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan 2017 Update Adopted September 14, 2017 LACEY PARKS &RECREATION c~iacey

8 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan CITY COUNCIL Andy Ryder, Mayor Cynthia Pratt, Deputy Mayor Lenny Greenstein Jason Hearn Michael Steadman Virgil Clarkson Rachel Young PARKS & RECREATION BOARD Ken Balsley, Chair Lu Carlson Sheelah Mccaughan Angela Jefferson Vacant Position Alexandra Rivera, Student Representative CITY MANAGER Scott Spence PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR Jen Burbidge COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Christy Osborn, Associate Planner INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT Gary Montgomery, GIS Coordinator CITY OF LACEY MISSION Our mission is to enrich the quality of life in Lacey for all our citizens... to build an attractive, inviting, and secure community. We pledge to work in partnership with our residents to foster community prkte, to develop a vibrant, diversified economy, to plan for the future, and to preserve ijnd enhance the natural beauty of our environment. PARKS & RECREATION VISION The City of Lacey is a community that provides its residents and visitors with convenient access to a wide range of public leisure services and facilities at a reasonable cost. Those services include cultural arts, individual and team sports, aquatics, educational and fitness programs, and special events. The community's well-maintained facilities Include neighborhood parks within walking distance of all persons, community parks distributed across the service area, open spaces that support wildlife habitat, and indoor facilities to support recreational programs and provide public meeting space. These facilities are linked by 1inear pathways for walking and bicycling. Our community protects and enhances our many historic, cultural, and environmental resources. 2

9 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents I. II. Ill. IV. v. VI. VII. VIII. IX. x. Section Pages Executive Summary 4-6 Strategic Goa Is 7 Public Involvement 8-11 Local Park History Facility Definitions Levels of Service Standards Park Planning Areas: Pleasant Glade Woodland Wonderwood Rainier Vista Interlake Pattison Mc Allister Meadows Tanglewilde/Thompson Place Hawks Prairie Policies & Objectives Prioritized Actions Implementation Cost Appendix A: Parks & Recreation Budget & Capital Facilities Plan Appendix B: Park Amenities Appendix C: Athletic Fields Inventory Appendix D: Survey and Data Collected 3

10 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan I. Executive Summary The City of Lacey, surrounded by exceptional natural beauty, has lakes, forests, and views of Mount Rainier and Puget Sound that create an inviting community identity. Woodland Creek s.ystem flows through three major lakes throughout Lacey then on to Henderson Inlet. Wetlands associated with Woodland Creek and Lacey's lakes encompass hundreds of acres and provide critical habitat to local fish and wildlife populations. The City needs to develop an adequate range of park facilities to provide access to these community resources, while also protecting and enhancing important habitat for the future. These sensitive areas, including Woodland Creek and six fresh-water lakes, play an important role in the health of our environment. The City of Lacey, dedicated to parks and recreation activities since its incorporation in 1966, has an amazing park system of nearly 1,200 acres, with diverse, rich program offerings! The relatively young park system includes modern facilities, well maintained, heavily used, and highly valued by the community. Lacey's Parks & Recreation Department offers a full spectrum of programs and special events for all ages. Lacey residents have pride in our parks, programs, and facilities, which includes neighborhood, community, regional, and linear parks; plazas; trails; habitat reserves; and public facilities. Many dedicated people, including elected officials, city staff, volunteers, and community residents, helped build this robust and successful park system. This community-based approach resulted in a park system with a rich variety of properties, facilities, and programs for the public. 4

11 C:ity or Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan In 201S, the public: became Involved in the comprehensive plan update. This engagement continued through 2017 as part of the Energize Lacey-Shaping our Community Together public involvement campaign. City staff and Park Board members conducted in-person and online surveys at various events and held public meetings and hearings. Information was also included in City utility billings, on the city website, and social media. The public was asked to rank (in order of importance), identified goals for park development, habitat and natural resource areas, bike and pedestrian trails, historic and cultural areas, and parks funding. Community members were also asked to identify specific priority goals for the comprehensive plan. Improvements to existing parks was the top priority, followed by diversifying park systems. Swimming and water access was the third-largest response. The Parks & Recreation Comprehensive planning process gives the City an opportunity to evaluate its current parks, programs, and indoor and outdoor recreational facilities. It also provides enough time to get valuable input from the community and evaluate the goals, objectives, and needs for the 20-year planning period. The Lacey Parks & Recreation Department faces some challenges ahead, including: Providing adequate facilities to keep up with growth. Moving from a predominately "property acquisition era" to a greater emphasis on "park improvement and development phase." Solidifying a future funding strategy. Keeping up with Growth The City of Lacey is one of the fastest growing cities in the county. The population for the planning area, which includes the incorporated City and its unincorporated urban growth area, was approximately 81, 7SO in The total population is projected to grow 9 percent (6,860 more people) by the year 2020, and a total projected population of 107,720 by the year 203S. The parks department promotes various programs and events to residents in the North Thurston Public School District. The district's 2016 enrollment was 14,SOO students and is projected to increase to 16,800 students over the next ten years. People who live outside the school district and urban growth area boundaries also participate in parks programs. As our community grows and recreational needs increase, we must keep up with demand by providing adequate facilities for our residents. Currently, our indoor and developed outdoor space cannot accommodate our participants' program demands. This demand will continue increasing as projected student and residential populations grow. 5

12 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Moving to a Park Improvement and Development Phase Over the last several years, the City did a great job acquiring parks and open space. Currently, 35 percent (404 acres) of the park system is developed, with the remaining 765 acres, undeveloped. The City' s overall level of service for parks is above the national standard. Most park planning areas have adequate park and open space properties identified. Therefore, as our community moves forward, we will place priority on using our limited financial resources for park improvements and development, rather than property acquisition. The City will consider future acquisitions where deficiencies exist and property and funding are available. Solidifying a Future Funding Strategy The City needs ta solidify a future funding strategy for the long-term development, maintenance, and operation of all park FUNDING.. acreage, trail miles, and facilities. In the past, a 1 percent utility tax, deposited into the Parks and Open Space account, was the City's primary funding source for acquisition and development. Park and Open Space Bond funds, approved by the voters in 2002, were the primary funding source for previous park development. The last remaining bond funds were spent in The six-year Capital Improvement Plan has no established funding sources identified for new park development. Therefore, seriously consider must be given to establishing a Metropolitan Park District and/or park bond mea,sure for future funding. Currently, project implementation relies heavily on outside revenue sources. Plan Overview The Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan, part of the City of Lacey Comprehensive Plan, provides the Parks & Recreation Department an essential strategic vision, which directs short- and long-term actions and decisions based on community needs. The plan has ten sections that give the reader a clear understanding of the overall strategic goals, policies, and objectives for future park facilities, as well as identified level of service standards, prioritized actions, implementation costs, and funding options. The plan must be updated a minimum of every six years to identify proposed capital projects. The plan must also meet the Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCO) planning requirements for project grant eiigibility. Appendix A, Parks Budget and Capital Facilities Planning, is reviewed on an annual basis and updated if needed, 6

13 City of Lacey Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Piao II. Strategic Goals The Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan's strategic goals serve as the overall structure and framework for the plan and a guide to identify policies, objectives, and prioritized actions. The Plan's goals coincide with the goals of other elements of the City of Lacey Comprehensive Plan and mutually support these elements to guide the community's future. These goals were created through the Energize Lacey public involvement process with attention to the City's mission statement and the Parks & Recreation Department's vision. Goal #1 Develop a high-quality, diversified parks and recreation system that includes unique facilities, events, and recreation programs that encourage social interaction, cultivate community spirit, and strengthen the livability of Lacey. Goal #2 Prioritize Parks & Recreation projects and identify corresponding current and future funding sources. Goal #3 Develop a trails system that interconnects parks, schools, neighborhoods, open spaces, other trail systems, and important public facilities. Goal #4 Provide parks, facilities, and programs to underserved areas and/or natural areas that should be preserved. Goal #5 Preserve and enhance sites and artifacts of historical and cultural importance and make them accessible to the community. Goal #6 Leverage investments in parks, recreation, and facilities and maintain Lacey's eligibility for grant funding. Goal #7 Develop a sustainable 1Park system that meets community needs. 7

14

15 Lacey Parks & Recreation PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS MAY 2018

16 Lacey Parks & Recreation PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS MAY 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction... 1 Methods... 2 Respondent Profile Key Findings Findings... 8 Use of Parks and Programs... 9 Evaluation of Lacey Parks Priorities for Parks & Recreation Improvements Support for Tax Increases to Support Parks Maintenance & Development Levy Metropolitan Park District Information Sources Discussion Appendix Questionnaire with data Presentation to City Council Crosstabulation tables under separate cover

17 Lacey Parks & Recreation PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS MAY 2018 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of a survey to measure Lacey residents opinions and behavior relative to Lacey Parks and Recreation facilities and programs and assess their willingness to support a property tax levy to pay for park and recreation improvements. The survey, conducted on behalf of the City of Lacey by Elway Research, Inc., was designed to assess: Overall evaluation of Lacey City Parks and the perceived value for the tax dollars spent; Use of Parks and Recreation programs; Priorities for potential parks and recreation programs; Potential support for property tax levies to pay for maintenance and development, including rationale for support and opposition; Information sources about Lacey City Government. A total of 444 residents were interviewed by telephone or online between April 24 and May 11, Demographic information was collected to further compare answers. This report includes Key Findings, followed by annotated graphs summarizing the results to each question. The full questionnaire and a complete set of crosstabulation tables are presented in the appendix.

18 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 2 METHODS SAMPLE: SAMPLE FRAME: TECHNIQUE: 444 Heads of Household in Voter Households In the City of Lacey. All households within the city in which at least one person was registered to vote (N=16,713). Households for which we had telephone numbers (n=5,923) were included in the telephone sample. A sample of households for which telephone numbers were not available (n=3,600) was asked to take the survey online. Mixed Mode: 131 Telephone survey with live interviewers; 119 via cell phone with live interviewers; 194 via on-line survey. FIELD DATES: April 24 May 11, 2018 MARGIN OF ERROR: DATA COLLECTION: ±4.7% at the 95% level of confidence. That is, in theory, had all similarly qualified residents been interviewed, there is a 95% chance the results would be within 4.6 percentage points of the results in this survey. TELEPHONE: Calls were made during weekday evenings and weekend days by trained, professional interviewers under supervision. Up to six attempts were made to contact each number in the sample. Questionnaires were edited for completeness and 10% of each interviewer s calls were re-called for verification. ON-LINE: Invitation letters were mailed to households asking residents to log on to the survey website to complete the questionnaire. A reminder postcard was mailed one week later. It must be kept in mind that survey research cannot predict the future. Although great care and the most rigorous methods available were employed in the design, execution and analysis of this survey, these results can be interpreted only as representing the answers given by these respondents to these questions at the time they were interviewed. MAY 2018

19 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 3 Mixed-Mode Survey Method This survey was conducted using a mixed-mode sample design that combined landline telephone and cell phone with online data collection. The most recent count indicates 16,713 voter households in the City of Lacey. We obtained telephone numbers for 5,924 households, including cell phone numbers, and mailing addresses for the others. All 5,924 telephone numbers were called up to 4 times each or until someone answered and either agreed or refused to be interviewed. A total of 16,686 calls were placed. Every third household for which we had no telephone number (3600) was mailed a letter from the mayor asking a designated adult 1 in the household to log on to our survey website and complete the questionnaire on-line. They were sent a thank you/reminder postcard one week after the initial mailing. The telephone survey resulted in 250 interviews, for a completion rate 2 of 4.2%, and a cooperation rate 3 of 20%. The on-line survey resulted in 194 completed questionnaires for a completion rate of 5%. The data from both modes were combined into a single data set. The combined data were statistically weighted by age and gender to align with known parameters of the population of registered voters. It is argued that the inclusion of an on-line survey in addition to the telephone sample produces a more representative result than either a telephone or web sample alone would have produced. In this case, there were no significant differences in the profiles of the samples from the telephone and online surveys, except that online respondent were slightly more likely to answer some demographic questions than were telephone respondents. Research literature also indicates that telephone respondents tend to give more positive responses than on-line respondents, particularly to rating scale items where on-line respondents are typically less likely to give the highest rating than are telephone respondents. In this survey, although the results followed the expected pattern described above, there were not statistically significant differences in the overall evaluation of Lacey parks, in the assessment of their value for tax dollars spent; nor in the level of support for the various proposals. The similarity of response supports the validity of the findings. 1 Instructions were that the survey be completed by the adult (18+) in the household with the most recent birthday. This is a common practice to randomize respondents. 2 The completion rate is the percentage of completed interviews by the total number of telephone numbers dialed. It includes numbers where no one answered the call. 3 The cooperation rate is the percentage of completed interviews by the number of qualified respondents contacted. MAY 2018

20 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 4 Interpreting the Findings This survey makes extensive use of scale items to measure public opinion. There are several ways to interpret the results from scale items. A common practice is to combine "definitely support" and "probably support" into "total support" and do the same on the "oppose" side of the scale. In the realpolitik of public debate, however, it is likely that those with the strongest opinion will have the loudest voices. Those who say they definitely support a proposal are more likely to act on that position, and more likely to engage in the debate, than those who say probably. Moreover, there is a known tendency on the part of survey respondents to answer positively. Most respondents tend to want to be helpful and polite. It is therefore practical to treat "probably support" answers as less reliable than "strongly support." Think of it as latent support. Those who say they "probably support" a proposal are positively inclined, but not convinced and less likely to act. Because of this positivity bias, it is useful to consider "oppose" and "strongly oppose" responses to be reliable estimates of active opposition. If people naturally tend to give positive answers in surveys, then those who say they are opposed are likely to be genuinely opposed. For purposes of situation assessment and strategy development, then, comparing the "definitely support" versus the total "opposed" provides a prudent (some would say realistic) assessment of public thinking. MAY 2018

21 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 5 RESPONDENT PROFILE In interpreting these findings, it is important to keep in mind the characteristics of the people interviewed. This table presents a profile of the respondents in the survey. The results have been statistically adjusted by age to align with the population of registered voters. The "Combined" column displays the weighted sample profile used in this report NOTE: Here and throughout this report, percentages may not add to 100%, due to rounding. Sample Profile by Survey Mode GENDER Female Male Other AGE: PARK USE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD: HOME OWNER ETHNICITY/ RACE INCOME None 1-4 visits 5-8 visits 9+ visits Self/ Owner Private Sector Public Sector Not employed Retired Couple with children Couple with no children Single with children Single with no children Own Rent African American/Black Asian/ Pac Islander Caucasian/White Hispanic/latino} Native American Other No Answer $50,000 or less $50 75,000 $75-100,000 $100,000+ No Answer *Combined telephone + online results, then statitically weighted. PHONE ONLINE COMBINED* 44% 56% 7% 25% 22% 44% 21% 26% 26% 26% 10% 19% 17% 6% 46% 26% 35% 8% 30% 79% 19% 5% 2% 75% 4% 3% 2% 8% 26% 21% 14% 21% 18% 50% 47% 3% 13% 20% 27% 41% 14% 37% 20% 29% 5% 18% 24% 6% 47% 24% 44% 4% 26% 81% 18% 1% 5% 83% 3% 1% 7% 3% 22% 30% 21% 20% 7% 54% 45% 1% 12% 28% 29% 30% 16% 30% 24% 30% 9% 22% 24% 7% 37% 29% 37% 6% 26% 79% 15% 4% 4% 77% 4% 2% 5% 6% 23% 25% 18% 23% 12% MAY 2018

22 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 6 KEY FINDINGS Use of Lacey parks & programs 84% of respondents had visited a Lacey city park in the last year. 30% had made 9 or more visits 29% had visited at least 5 different parks 17% had participated in a city recreation program. Lacey parks positively regarded 74% gave Lacey parks a rating of excellent (28%) or good (47%). 81% rated the overall value [their] household receives from Lacey Parks & Recreation as satisfactory or better. 15% said excellent 32% said good. Little enthusiasm for parks and recreation projects under consideration in Lacey. For each of 7 projects presented, more respondents said it should be a low priority or not a priority at all for Lacey. 5 of the 7 had a majority rate it as a low or non-priority. The highest priorities mustered 38% who rated them a top or high priority (Indoor Sports Arena and Trails at Cuoio park). Majorities inclined to support taxes for parks 60% were inclined to support a tax increase to pay for maintenance. 24% said they would definitely support it 56% were inclined to support a tax increase for development of new parks and recreation faculties. 23% said they would definitely support it In both cases, a general opposition to new taxes was the primary reason in opposition; Supporters valued parks as good for the community, especially families. MAY 2018

23 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 7 Support dropped when the two purposes were combined (maintenance and development) and a specific tax presented (47 per $1000 or assessed property value). 45% said they would favor this proposal; 47% said they would oppose it. Respondents leaned toward forming a Metropolitan Park District, but were far from agreement 41% were in favor of an MPD, with 30% opposed, and 29% having no opinion. LaceyLife and the city website were cited as the most useful source of information about city programs and services. Each was cited by 4 in 10 respondents as most useful to them. MAY 2018

24 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 8 FINDINGS This section presents the survey findings in the form of annotated graphs. Bullet points indicate significant or noteworthy differences among population subgroups. MAY 2018

25 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 9 Use of Parks and Programs Number of Parks Visited and Number of Visits Number of Parks Visited Number of Annual Visits % None 24 Q2 I am going to read the names of some parks and facilities in your area. As I read each one, I would like to know how many times if at all anyone from your household visited that facility in the last year. You can say None, Once or Twice, 3 or 4 Times, or 5 or more times. 84% of respondents reported visiting a Lacey City Park in the last year 29% visited at least 5 different parks; The average number of parks visited was % made 9 or more visits in the last year. Park use was generally uniform across demographic categories. At least one park visit was made by at least 83% in every income bracket; 83% of every age category (up to age 75) The most frequent park users (9+ visits last year) were: Parents (47%); Age (48%); Public sector employees (47%); Incomes of $75-100,000 (43%). Least likely to visit a park in the last year were: Over age 75 (58%); Single with no children at home (73%); Retired (76%). MAY 2018

26 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 10 Use of Parks and Programs Number of Visits to Lacey Parks Rainier Vista Community Park % The Regional Athletic Complex % Wonderwood Park % Long Lake Park % Bush Park % Lakepointe Park % Homann Park % Thornbury Park % Meridian Park % Avonlea Park % Q2 I am going to read the names of some parks and facilities in your area. As I read each one, I would like to know how many times if at all anyone from your household visited that facility in the last year. You can say None, Once or Twice, 3 or 4 Times, or 5 or more times. At least 13% of respondents visited each city park in the last year. 4 of the facilities were visited by at least 40% of respondents: Rainier Vista Community Park was the most popular, with 57% of respondents visiting it last year, with 42% of those visitors making 6+ visits (24% of all respondents). The RAC was close behind with 51% visiting it last year, including 39% of its visitors making 6+ visits (20% of all respondents); Wonderwood Park was visited by 43% with 28% of those making 6+ visits (12% of all respondents); Long Lake Park was visited by 41% with 24% of its visitors making 6+ visits (10% of all respondents). 14% named a park in which they did not feel safe, led by Wonderwood (6%); Rainier Vista (2%); Homann (1%); Avonlea (1%); Long Lake (1%). MAY 2018

27 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 11 Use of Parks and Programs Participation in Recreation Programs PARTICIPATE IN RECREATION PROGRAM 17 YES NO Not aware of programs Not physically able to participate % No activities I am interested in I participate in private club or YMCA Offered at inconvenient times 9 8 Cannot afford the cost 6 Transportation or parking problems Program was already full 2 1 Need childcare in order to participate 1 Q4 During the last 12 months, have you participated in a recreation program (day camps, sports leagues, special interest classes, swim lessons, trips) offered by the City of Lacey? IF NO: What are some reasons you do not participate in City recreation programs? One in 6 respondents (17%) had participated in a city recreation program in the last year. Most likely to have participated were: Parents (32%); Age (29%); People of color (28%); With incomes over $50,000 (21%). Non-participants offered a variety or reasons for not doing so. 20% said they were not aware of any programs 16% were physically unable to participate, which went up with age, from 2% of those under 50, to 13% for those 51-64, to 55% of those over 75; 12% said they were not interested in the activities or program offered; and 9% belong to the YMCA or a private club and use those facilities/programs. MAY 2018

28 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 12 Evaluation of Lacey Parks Overall Rating of Lacey Parks Excellent Good Satisfactory No Opin 28 Unsatisfactory Poor 74% 47 Q1 Overall, how would you rate the parks in Lacey? Would you say: Respondents gave Lacey Parks a positive overall rating, with 90% rating them as satisfactory or better, including 74% rating them as excellent (28%) or good (47%). The ratings were relatively uniform across categories of respondents. Most likely to say excellent were: Parents (32% vs. 25% of people with no children at home); Men (33% vs. 24% of women). MAY 2018

29 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 13 Evaluation of Lacey Parks Positive Assessment of Parks Value for Tax Dollars Excellent Good 15 Satisfactory No Opin Unsatisfactory Poor 34 47% 32 Q11 As a department of City government, Lacey Parks and Recreation is a public agency supported by local tax dollars. Overall, how would you rate the value your household receives from Lacey Parks and Recreation? Would you say 8 in 10 respondents (81%) said that, for their tax dollars, the value their household receives from Lacey Parks and Recreation was satisfactory or better. 47% rated the value as excellent (15%) or good (32%). Assessment of value went up with familiarity, usage: 23% of those who make 5+ park visits last year said excellent ; vs. 8% of those with 1-4 visits; and 6% of those who did not visit any park in the last year. The highest ratings of value came from: Those who has rated lacy Parks & Recreation as excellent overall (36% excellent value ); Parents (20% excellent value ). Rating of value went up with income, from: 7% of those under $50,000 saying the value was excellent ; to 22% of those with incomed over $100,000. MAY 2018

30 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 14 Priorities Priorities for Parks & Recreation Projects TOP HIGH No Op LOW NOT Indoor Sports Arena Trails at Greg Cuoio Park Wanschers Park Swim Beach Trails at Pleasant Glade Park Expand R A C Sports Fields at Meridian Park, New Meridian Campus N Park Q10 The following are some parks and recreation projects that are under consideration in Lacey. Given that resources are limited, some choices must be made. As I read each of these potential programs, please tell me if you think that should be Not a Priority at all, a Low Priority, a High Priority or a Top Priority for Lacey. Respondents were not enthusiastic about a list of potential projects. For each of 7 projects presented, more respondents said it should be a low priority or not a priority at all for Lacey than said it should be a top or high priority. 5 of the 7 had a majority rate it as a low or non-priority. The highest priority projects mustered 38% who rated them a top or high priority: Indoor Sports Arena (12% top + 26% high priority); Trails as Cuoio Park (11% top + 27% high priority). MAY 2018

31 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 15 Support for Parks 60% Inclined to Support Tax Increase for Parks Maintenance Definitely Support Probably Support UNDECIDED Probably Oppose Definitely Oppose % 37 Q6 Would you be inclined to support or oppose an increase in taxes to pay for maintenance of parks, trails and other recreational facilities? Respondents were generally inclined to support a tax increase for park maintenance, but many remain to be convinced. Asked about a tax increase to pay for maintenance or parks, trails and other recreational facilities, 60% were inclined to support such a measure, but only 24% said they would definitely support it, compared to 31% who were inclined to oppose it. Support for the tax was related to park use and perceived value: 74% of those who saw the parks as an excellent or good tax value were inclined to support, as were 53% of those who said satisfactory, but 65% of those who rated them unsatisfactory or poor were opposed. 65% of park users were inclined to support the tax; including 68% of those who made more than 5 visits; compared to 39% of those who had not visited a park (50% of whom were opposed). Couples with no children at home were the most likely category to oppose the maintenance tax increase (42%). MAY 2018

32 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 16 Support for Parks Reasons for Support, Opposition to Maintenance Levy Family place, Kids 21 No new taxes 59 Good for community 18 Can't afford it 9 Keep parks maintained 15 We use them 8 Don't use them 8 Enjoy parks, outdoors 7 City wastes money 8 They are important 6 Parks OK, Not needed 7 We need more parks 4 For improvements 3 City has the money 3 Q6.1 What would be the main reason you would be inclined to support such a measure? What would be the main reason you would be inclined to oppose such a measure? When asked why they held the position they did, supporters tended to talk about the value to the community and their household, while opponents talked about taxes. Those who were inclined to support the maintenance tax tended to name a variety of reasons: 21% said the parks were a good place for kids and families; 18% said they were good for the community; 15% said they use them, or they enjoy the parks and outdoors; 15% said the money was needed to keep the parks maintained; 6% said simply parks are important. Those opposed to the levy were opposed to any tax increase, for the most part. 59% of those opposed gave general opposition to new taxes as their reason. Other money issues included: 9% said I can t afford it ; 8% said the city will waste the money; 3% said the city has enough money and doesn t need more taxes. MAY 2018

33 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 17 Support for Parks 56% Inclined to Support Tax Increase for Parks Development Definitely Support Probably Support UNDECIDED Probably Oppose Definitely Oppose % 34 Q7 Would you be inclined to support or oppose an increase in taxes to pay for the development of parks, trails, and other recreational facilities? Slightly fewer respondents (56%) were inclined to support a levy for development, than for maintenance, while the opposition was almost exactly the same (32%). Asked about a tax increase to pay for the development of parks, trails and other recreational facilities 56% were inclined to support it, with just 23% definitely in support, while 32% were opposed. As with the maintenance levy, support was related to perceived value: 69% of those who rate parks value as excellent or good were inclined to support the tax increase; compared to 48% of those who said satisfactory ; while 61% of those who said unsatisfactory or poor were opposed. and park usage 60% of park users were inclined to support the development tax, including 64% of those who made more than 4 visits last year, compared to 38% of non-users (47% of whom were opposed). As with the maintenance tax, couples with no children at home were the most likely category to oppose the development tax increase (41%) MAY 2018

34 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 18 Support for Parks Reasons for Supporting, Opposing Development Levy Good for community 19 No new taxes 53 Need more parks 15 Parks OK, Not needed 10 Family place, Kids 14 Don't use them 8 Enjoy parks, Ourdoors 12 Have enough parks 8 Important 7 We use them 7 Can't afford it 6 Keep them maintained 6 City wastes money 5 Quality of life 5 City has the money 3 For Improvements 5 Higher priorities What would be the main reason you would be inclined to support such a measure? What would be the main reason you would be inclined to oppose such a measure? Reasons given for support the development tax were similar to those given in response to the maintenance tax proposal with a somewhat different emphasis. Supporters again cited a variety of reasons, but this time place the good of the community (19%) and the need for more parks (15%) at the top of the list. Reasons for opposition were largely the same: Opposition to new taxes (53%) dominated the list. Lack of need was mentioned slightly more frequently than previously: 10% said we don t need any new parks; 8% said we have enough; 3% said there are higher priorities for city tax dollars. MAY 2018

35 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 19 Support for Parks Maintenance and Development Levy Proposals 27 Support Both Maint. Only Undec Both Develop Only Oppose Both % 53 Combined response to maintenance (Q6) and development (Q7) tax proposals This graph indicates the combined support for the maintenance and development levy proposals. Just over half (53%) of respondents said they were inclined to support both tax proposals. 27% were opposed to both 10% supported one but not the other and 10% were undecided on both (or undecided on one and opposed to the other). On the polar ends of the scale: 19% said they definitely supported both; 14% said they definitely oppose both measures. MAY 2018

36 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 20 Maintenance & Development Levy Levy for Park Maintenance & Development Favor No Opin Oppose 47-2% 45 8 Q9 Would you favor or oppose a tax increase in Lacey for the purpose of maintaining and developing parks and recreation assets and programs if it increased your property tax by $127 per year, based on a home value of $270,000 (this is the average home value in Lacey). This is $0.47 cents per $1,000 dollars of assessed value. Later in the survey, respondents were asked again about a property tax levy for parks. This question differed in two ways from the previous questions: 1) it combined maintenance with developing parks and recreation assets ; and 2) It specified a dollar amount: 47 per $1000 of assessed property value. Respondents were evenly divided on this question: 45% would favor this proposal; 47% were opposed. Support for the taxes decreased, and opposition increased even more, when the proposals were combined and a dollar amount was introduced. 22% of those who had supported both proposals individually opposed this one; 93% of those who had opposed both individually opposed this one as well. Park use and assessment of park value made some difference: 65% of those who never visited a park were opposed, as were 51% of occasional visitors (1-4 visits in the last year); while 51% of frequent visitors (5+ visit last year) were in favor. 59% of those who had participated in a recreation program were in favor; 51% of those who had not were opposed. 54% of those who rated the parks as excellent were in favor; 51% of those who rated them less than excellent were opposed. MAY 2018

37 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 21 Metropolitan Park District Support for Metropolitan Park District % 41 Favor No Opin Oppose 29 Q8 As you know, Parks & Recreation is funded as part of the Lacey city budget. Some cities around the state have formed a Metropolitan Park District to administer their parks and provide a dedicated funding source for developing and maintaining parks and recreation programs and facilities. There is discussion about forming a Metropolitan Park District for Lacey. A Park District would provide funding for improving existing parks and funding future parks and facilities. It would be governed by the City Council and would have a separate taxing authority creating the dedicated funding source similar to the recent voterapproved measure in the City of Olympia, or a School District. As you understand it today, would you favor or oppose creating a Metropolitan Park District for Lacey? Support for forming a Metropolitan Park District was higher among those who rated Lacey Parks and Recreation as a good value for their tax dollars: 50% of those who rated the value a excellent or good were in favor of an MPD, vs. 36% of those who rated the value as satisfactory or lower. 34% were opposed and 31% were undecided. Opinion about the MPD was related to opinion about taxes for parks: 60% of those who favored a development levy also favored the MPD; 60% of those who opposed the levy also opposed the MPD. 56% of those who supported the maintenance levy also favored the MPD; 60% of those who opposed the levy also opposed the MPD. Park users were more likely to favor an MPD than non-users (43% vs. 33%). Support for the MPD was not related to the overall evaluation of Lacey Parks. MAY 2018

38 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 22 Information Sources Information Sources About City Government LaceyLife City website Newspaper 24 Facebook 20 Radio Cable Channel 3(TCTV) 8 9 YouTube Twitter 2 4 OTHER 10 Q12 When it comes to getting information about the City of Lacey and its programs and services, which of the following are most useful to you? 96% of respondents named at least one useful source of information about Lacey City Government. 61% named 1 source; 35% named 2 or more. Lacey Life (40%) and the city website (39%) were well ahead of other sources overall. Top 3 sources by age Website (36%) Website (43%) Website (53%) LaceyLIfe (46%) Newspaper (52%) Facebook (34%) LaceyLIfe (38%) LaceyLife (50%) Newspaper (37%) LaceyLife (27%) LaceyLife (31%) Facebook (33%) Facebook (15%) Website (29%) Website (14%) MAY 2018

39 LACEY PARKS & RECREATIION 23 DISCUSSION Lacey city parks are well-used and generally well regarded. Eight in 10 respondents had visited a city park in the last year and 3 in 10 had been to 5 or more parks. Nine in 10 rated the parks in Lacey as satisfactory or better, including 3 in 4 who said they were excellent or good. This familiarity and satisfaction translates into perceived value: 8 in 10 said that their household receives satisfactory or better value for their tax dollars. Nearly half rated the value as excellent or good. The perceived value, in turn, translates into a general willingness to support the parks and recreation programs with higher taxes. Majorities were inclined to support a tax increase for maintenance and for development of parks and other facilities. Support melted away once a specific tax proposal was introduced, however. The challenge will be to convert that latent support into support for a specific tax increase. A constant obstacle is resistance to new taxes. Historically, about 30% of the population can be counted on to oppose any tax increase. That was evidenced here in the consistent 30% or so who opposed both of the tax concepts and the actual proposed tax increase. Most of those opposed to both the maintenance and the deployment levies gave general opposition to new taxes as their reason. Another part of the challenge may be a paradox of satisfaction. Respondents were satisfied with the parks and programs and saw no great need to improve upon them. It is notable that each of the seven proposed projects had more respondents saying that should be a low priority or not a priority at all than said it should be a top or high priority for the city. The finding of slightly higher support for maintenance than for development adds weight to the satisfaction argument. In the end, respondents were not convinced that new money or a new structure was needed. Only 45% favored the proposed levy and 41% favored creating a Metropolitan Park District. Again, the latent support is there for parks and recreation programs. The task ahead for the City is to demonstrate the need for specific projects. MAY 2018

40 APPENDIX

41 CITY of LACEY RESIDENT SURVEY PARKS & RECREATION MAY 2018 TOPLINE DATA SAMPLE: SAMPLE FRAME: MARGIN OF SAMPLING ERROR: DATA COLLECTION: 444 Adult Residents of Lacey Registered Voter Households: At least one member is registered to vote in Lacey ±4.7% at the 95% level of confidence 131 Landline Telephone Survey with Live Interviewers 119 Cell phone survey with Live Interviewers 194 Online FIELD DATES: April 24 May 11, 2018 HOME: OWN = 79% RENT = 19% GENDER: MALE = 45% FEMALE = 54% The questions are presented here as they were asked in the interview The figures in bold type are percentages of respondents who gave each answer. % signs have been omitted for clarity. The findings are displayed for the telephone and online portions of the survey as well as for the combined total. The data have been weighted by age and gender to match population parameters Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding. 1. These first questions are about Lacey City Parks. Overall, how would you rate the parks in Lacey? Would you say: TOT PHONE ONLINE 28 Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory 2 1 * Poor DK/NA 10 8 Page 1 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

42 LACEY PARKS TOPLINE 2. I am going to read the names of some parks and facilities in your area. As I read each one, I would like to know how many times if at all anyone from your household visited that facility in the last year. You can say None, Once or Twice, 3 or 4 Times, or 5 or more times Rainier Vista Community Park PHONE ONLINE Wonderwood Park PHONE ONLINE Long Lake Park PHONE ONLINE Meridian Park PHONE ONLINE Thornbury Park PHONE ONLINE Lakepointe Park PHONE ONLINE Avonlea Park PHONE ONLINE Bush Park PHONE ONLINE Homann Park PHONE ONLINE The Regional Athletic Complex, Or R-A-C PHONE ONLINE none na * * * * * * * * 3. Are there any parks in Lacey where you do not feel safe? [DO NOT READ] TOT PHONE ONLINE 86 NO /No answer Wonderwood Rainier Vista Homann Avonlea Long Lake 2 0 Others 1 mention each Page 2 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

43 LACEY PARKS TOPLINE 4. During the last 12 months, have you participated in a recreation program (day camps, sports leagues, special interest classes, swim lessons, trips) offered by the City of Lacey? TOT PHONE ONLINE 17 YES IF NO: What are some reasons you do not participate in City recreation programs? TOT PHONE ONLINE 20 Not aware of programs offered by the city of Lacey 10 32* 16 Not physically able to participate Do not have the activities I am interested in I participate in private club or YMCA 3 15* 8 Offered at inconvenient times Cannot afford the cost Have transportation or parking problems Program was already full Need childcare in order to participate Other: NA Would you be inclined to support or oppose an increase in taxes to pay for maintenance of parks, trails and other recreational facilities? Would you [READ 1-4] such a measure? TOT PHONE ONLINE 18 Definitely Oppose Probably Oppose Probably Support 33 43* 24 Definitely Support 28 18* 9 UNDECIDED What would be the main reason you would be inclined to oppose such a measure? No new Taxes 59%...Can t Afford it 9%...Don t Use Them 8%...City Wastes Money 8% Not Needed, Parks OK 7%...City has the Money 3% 6.2. What would be the main reason you would be inclined to support such a measure? Kids, Family Place 21%...Good for Community 18%...Keep Parks Maintained 15%...We use them 8% Enjoy Parks, Outdoors 7%...Important, Needed 6%...Need More Parks 4%... Improvements 3% 7. Would you be inclined to support or oppose an increase in taxes to pay for the development of parks, trails, and other recreational facilities? Would you [READ 1-4] such a measure? TOT PHONE ONLINE 18 Definitely Oppose Probably Oppose Probably Support 28 41* 23 Definitely Support 27 17* 12 UNDECIDED 9 15 Page 3 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

44 LACEY PARKS TOPLINE 7.1. What would be the main reason you would be inclined to oppose such a measure? No new Taxes 53%... Not Needed, Parks OK 10%... Don t Use Them 8%... Have Enough Parks 8% Can t Afford it 6%... City Wastes Money 5%...City has the Money 3%. Higher Priorities 3% 7.2. What would be the main reason you would be inclined to support such a measure? Good for Community 19%... Need More Parks 15%...Kids, Family Place 14%... Enjoy Parks, Outdoors 12% Important, Needed 7%... We use them 7%...Keep Parks Maintained 6%...Quality of Life 5%...Improvements 5% 8. As you know, Parks & Recreation is funded as part of the Lacey city budget. Some cities around the state have formed a Metropolitan Park District to administer their parks and provide a dedicated funding source for developing and maintaining parks and recreation programs and facilities. There is discussion about forming a Metropolitan Park District for Lacey. A Park District would provide funding for improving existing parks and funding future parks and facilities. It would be governed by the City Council and would have a separate taxing authority creating the dedicated funding source similar to the recent voter-approved measure in the City of Olympia, or a School District. As you understand it today, would you favor or oppose creating a Metropolitan Park District for Lacey? TOT PHONE ONLINE 30 Oppose 36 23* 41 Favor DK/NA 19 41* 9. Would you favor or oppose a tax increase in Lacey for the purpose of maintaining and developing parks and recreation assets and programs if it increased your property tax by $127 per year, based on a home value of $270,000 (this is the average home value in Lacey). This is $0.47 cents per $1,000 dollars of assessed value. TOT PHONE ONLINE 47 Oppose Favor DK/NA 12 3 Page 4 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

45 LACEY PARKS TOPLINE 10. The following are some parks and recreation projects that are under consideration in Lacey. Given that resources are limited, some choices must be made. As I read each of these potential programs, please tell me if you think that should be Not a Priority at all, a Low Priority, a High Priority or a Top Priority for Lacey. ROTATE NOT LOW HIGH TOP DK Develop new Meridian Campus North Park in NE Lacey PHONE ONLINE Develop Wanschers Park swim beach on Hicks Lake PHONE ONLINE Develop Indoor Sports Arena, for track & field, soccer, baseball, basketball, and volleyball courts. PHONE ONLINE Expand Regional Athletic Complex, adding sports fields and related facilities PHONE ONLINE Develop walking, hiking, and biking trails at Greg Cuoio Park in NW Lacey PHONE ONLINE Develop walking and hiking trails at Pleasant Glade Park in Northwest Lacey PHONE ONLINE Add sports fields at Meridian Park, located at Willamette Drive NE and Campus Drive NE PHONE ONLINE 11. As a department of City government, Lacey Parks and Recreation is a public agency supported by local tax dollars. Overall, how would you rate the value your household receives from Lacey Parks and Recreation? Would you say TOT PHONE ONLINE 15 Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Poor DK/NA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Page 5 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

46 LACEY PARKS TOPLINE 12. When it comes to getting information about the City of Lacey and its programs and services, which of the following are most useful to you? TOT PHONE ONLINE 40 The city newsletter called LaceyLife 32 50* 39 City website 34 45* 24 Newspaper Facebook 16 25* 9 Radio Cable Channel 3(TCTV) 11 5* 4 YouTube Twitter OTHER 7 14* 4 DK 6 1* Page 6 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

47 LACEY PARKS TOPLINE Sample Profile by Survey Mode GENDER Female Male Other AGE: PARK USE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD: HOME OWNER ETHNICITY/ RACE INCOME None 1-4 visits 5-8 visits 9+ visits Self/ Owner Private Sector Public Sector Not employed Retired Couple with children Couple with no children Single with children Single with no children Own Rent African American/Black Asian/ Pac Islander Caucasian/White Hispanic/latino} Native American Other No Answer $50,000 or less $50 75,000 $75-100,000 $100,000+ No Answer *Combined telephone + online results, then statitically weighted. PHONE ONLINE COMBINED* 44% 56% 7% 25% 22% 44% 21% 26% 26% 26% 10% 19% 17% 6% 46% 26% 35% 8% 30% 79% 19% 5% 2% 75% 4% 3% 2% 8% 26% 21% 14% 21% 18% 50% 47% 3% 13% 20% 27% 41% 14% 37% 20% 29% 5% 18% 24% 6% 47% 24% 44% 4% 26% 81% 18% 1% 5% 83% 3% 1% 7% 3% 22% 30% 21% 20% 7% 54% 45% 1% 12% 28% 29% 30% 16% 30% 24% 30% 9% 22% 24% 7% 37% 29% 37% 6% 26% 79% 15% 4% 4% 77% 4% 2% 5% 6% 23% 25% 18% 23% 12% Page 7 / 7 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.

48 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 1

49 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE GENDER Female Male Other AGE: PARK USE EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD: HOME OWNER ETHNICITY/ RACE INCOME None 1-4 visits 5-8 visits 9+ visits Self/ Owner Private Sector Public Sector Not employed Retired Couple with children Couple with no children Single with children Single with no children Own Rent African American/Black Asian/ Pac Islander Caucasian/White Hispanic/latino} Native American Other No Answer $50,000 or less $50 75,000 $75-100,000 $100,000+ No Answer PHONE ONLINE COMBINED* 44% 56% 7% 25% 22% 44% 21% 26% 26% 26% 10% 19% 17% 6% 46% 26% 35% 8% 30% 79% 19% 5% 2% 75% 4% 3% 2% 8% 26% 21% 14% 21% 18% 50% 47% 3% 13% 20% 27% 41% 14% 37% 20% 29% 5% 18% 24% 6% 47% 24% 44% 4% 26% 81% 18% 1% 5% 83% 3% 1% 7% 3% 22% 30% 21% 20% 7% 54% 45% 1% 12% 28% 29% 30% 16% 30% 24% 30% 9% 22% 24% 7% 37% 29% 37% 6% 26% 79% 15% 4% 4% 77% 4% 2% 5% 6% 23% 25% 18% 23% 12% TOTAL NUMBER OF PARK VISITS 2

50 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 PARKS VISITED IN LAST YEAR PARTICIPATED IN RECREATION PROGRAM 3

51 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 VALUE FOR TAX DOLLARS 4

52 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 TOP OR HIGH PRIORITY MAINTENANCE LEVY 5

53 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 DEVELOPMENT LEVY BOTH LEVIES 6

54 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 COMBINED LEVY $0.47/$1000 METRO PARK DISTRICT 7

55 PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL 6/7/2018 CITY INFO SOURCES 8

56 RESOLUTION CITY OF LACEY A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF LACEY AT A GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2018, FOR THE APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF THE CREATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER RCW. WHEREAS, the City currently acquires, operates, and maintains its parks lands and recreational facilities and programs substantially using general fund dollars; and WHEREAS, the provision of parks, open spaces, recreational facilities and programs is an important function of city government and increases the quality of life within a city; and WHEREAS, the City of Lacey has conducted community-wide citizen surveys to determine the needs and priorities for parks and recreation services and facilities; and WHEREAS, Chapter RCW allows the City to create a metropolitan park district (MPD); and WHEREAS, RCW gives cities the authority to pass a resolution calling for an election on the creation of an MPD and stating the name of the proposed MPD and how it will be governed; and WHEREAS, RCW provides that when the boundaries of an MPD will be the same as a city s corporate limits, the city council may serve as the ex officio board of parks commissioners; and WHEREAS, an established MPD has the authority to levy a maximum of $.75 per $1,000 assessed property value to provide desired parks and recreation services in the City of Lacey; and

57 WHEREAS, the City has identified projects to meet specific goals of the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan by only levying a maximum of $.47 per $1,000 assessed property value; and WHEREAS, the City desires to utilize these funds to expand maintenance, create new facilities, and operate those facilities, the intent being to use these funds to supplement, not supplant, existing parks and recreation funds; and WHEREAS, in order to minimize the impact of cuts in services to citizens using Lacey parks and recreation facilities and programs, and in order to maximize the ability of the City to acquire and construct additional parks and recreational facilities in the future, the Lacey City Council desires to place a proposition on the ballot during the General Election on Novermber 6, 2018, which calls for the creation of an MPD pursuant to Chapter RCW; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON as follows: Section 1. Proposed Metropolitan Park District. The Lacey City Council proposes that a metropolitan park district be created, that the district be called, Lacey Metropolitan Park District, that its boundaries be the same as the Lacey corporate limits, and that the Lacey City Council serves as the ex officio board of parks commissioners. While state law authorizes an established metropolitan park district to levy a maximum of $.75 per $1,000 assessed valuation, the Lacey Metropolitan Park District would only impose a property tax in an amount up to $.47 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Upon approval of the voters of the proposition hereinafter set forth, the district may use proceeds of such property tax for the purpose of paying or financing the costs of district projects and operations. Section 2. Call for Election. Pursuant to RCW , the Lacey City Council hereby

58 requests that the Thurston County Auditor include in the local voters pamphlet produced as part of the November 6, 2018 General Election, in the manner provided by law, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of the City of Lacey, Washington, Proposition No. 1, asking whether a metropolitan park district should be created and governed. Section 3. Auditor to Administer Election. The Thurston County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Thurston County, Washington, is hereby requested to assume jurisdiction of and to call and conduct such election to be held within the City on November 6, 2018, and to submit to the qualified electors of the City the proposition hereinafter set forth. The Thurston County Auditor is authorized to make corrections to the Ballot Title necessary to comply with Washington State Law. Section 4. Official Ballot Proposition. The City Clerk is hereby directed, no later than 4:30 p.m. on August 7, 2018, to certify the following proposition, together with the required Resolution Cover Sheet to the Thurston County Auditor in substantially the following form, with such changes as may be approved by the City Attorney: CITY OF LACEY PROPOSITION NO 1. FORMATION AND FUNDING OF NEW LACEY METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT City of Lacey Proposition No. 1 concerns formation of the Lacey Metropolitan Park District, a metropolitan park district. This proposition would create the Lacey Metropolitan Park District to provide ongoing funding to acquire, maintain, operate, and improve parks, trails, recreational facilities, and programs; set district boundaries as the city s corporate limits; designate the Lacey City Council as ex officio board of parks commissioners with all powers set forth in Chapter RCW; and authorize the park board to set the maximum general tax levy rate at an amount up to $.47 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Shall the Lacey Metropolitan Park District be so created and governed? ( ) For the formation of the Lacey Metropolitan Park District, to be governed by the Lacey City

59 Council as ex officio board of parks commissioners. ( ) Against the formation of a metropolitan park district. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this Resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Severability. The provisions of this Resolution are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this Resolution or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Resolution, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption and signature as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LACEY, WASHINGTON, this day of, CITY COUNCIL By Mayor Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney

60 LACEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Updated Supplement to Joint Use Agreement Regarding the Cost Sharing of Facility Maintenance and Operation. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve revised Joint Use Agreement between North Thurston Public Schools and the City of Lacey regarding the cost sharing of facility maintenance and operation, and authorize City Manager to sign agreement. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Spence, City Manager Jen Burbidge, Parks & Recreation Director ORIGINATED BY: Parks and Recreation Department ATTACHMENTS: 1. Supplement to Joint Use Agreement 2. Agreement for Athletic Field Operation 3. Agreement for Pool Operation FISCAL NOTE: Revenue from Field Rental Fees and Aquatic Program and Rental Fees offsets City administrative and direct expenses. Note: the two year term facility agreements matches the District fiscal year of September 1 August 31. PRIOR REVIEW: General Government Committee on July 24, BACKGROUND: A Joint Use Agreement between the City of Lacey and North Thurston Public Schools, for the purpose of joint use of District and City indoor and outdoor facilities for programs of both agencies, has been successfully implemented since May of Facilities used and programs offered to students and citizens under this model partnership has resulted in efficient use of tax dollars. Since 1974, the City and District have entered into two supplemental agreements. The first, in 1981, allowed for cost sharing of fees collected for community programs to assist with District maintenance and operational expenses of outdoor athletic fields and properties, such as mowing, fertilization, and preparing ball fields (i.e., dragging, lining, etc.). The City scheduled community use of the ballfields during non-school hours, and charged a fee for groups renting ballfields. The City retained a portion of the rental fee Page 1 of 2

61 collected to cover direct costs, as well as an administrative fee for scheduling. The City reimbursed the District $6,000 annually under this agreement. A second Supplemental Agreement in 1987 rescinded all prior agreements and established cost sharing for District Use of City outdoor facilities. Since 1987, the District and City review field rental fee rates and revenue, District expenses, and City direct and administrative expenses to ensure the cost sharing is equitable. Currently, the City receipts approximately $40,000 annually, keeps 10% for direct and administrative costs, and reimburses the District the remainder. School field rental rates range from $3.25 to $8.65 per hour depending on elementary, middle and high school and also type of field. An Agreement for Pool Operation was added to the Supplemental Agreement in 1994 for the sharing of maintenance and operational costs and joint use of the swimming pools in three of the District high schools. Cost sharing enables the District to cover expenses attributed to community use for utilities, chemicals, custodians and pool operators. The City covers the cost share with a portion of the fees charged for swimming lessons, pool rental, open swim, and aquatic programs. The cost share amount in 1994 was $69,000, and is reviewed every two years to ensure cost sharing is equitable. The current Agreement for Pool Operation is in effect from September 1, 2016, through August 31, 2018 with a cost share of $105,000 per year; this is the same price it was for the previous two years. The Supplemental Agreement was last reviewed and updated in 2015, and it is now in need of renewal. It documents the pool agreement cost-sharing arrangement, the use of athletic fields, and allows for the City to distribute its quarterly Recreation Guide directly to the schools. This Supplemental Agreement also calls for an Agreement for Pool Operation, and an Agreement for Athletic Field Operation, both of which have been vetted and agreed upon by staff. Both are attached and scheduled to be updated not later than September 1 of the even numbered years. The General Government Committee will review the Supplemental Agreement, the Agreement for Pool Operation, and the Agreement for Athletic Field Operation at its July 24, 2018 meeting. ADVANTAGES: 1. This partnership has served our City residents very well in the past. It is to our collective benefit to continue this partnership to provide an efficient delivery of much needed, valued and highly regarded programs and facilities. 2. Aquatic and athletic programs teach skills and offer social interaction opportunities, as well as fitness, fun and safety. DISADVANTAGES: 1. No disadvantages are foreseen at this time. Page 2 of 2

62 SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT USE AGREEMENT This Supplementary Agreement, made and entered into on the date of the last signature set forth below (the "Effective Date"), by and between the North Thurston Public Schools, hereinafter called "District" and the City of Lacey, hereinafter called "City," WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the District and the City entered into a joint use agreement on May 21, 1974 to provide for the joint use of District and City facilities for programs of both the District and City, as supplemented by that certain Supplement to Joint Use Agreement dated April 20, 1987 (as supplemented, the "Joint Use Agreement"),; and WHEREAS, the District and the City reaffirm the cooperative efforts set forth in the Joint Use Agreement, and WHEREAS, the District and the City have been successfully sharing costs for swimming pools since 1994 and for athletic fields since 1981, and WHEREAS, in carrying out the terms of said Agreement, it has become necessary to formalize the existing cost sharing arrangement for costs incurred by the City and the District in maintaining and operating indoor swimming pool and outdoor athletic field maintenance and operation. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed between the parties as follows: 1. The District and the City shall analyze expenditures related to pool maintenance to ensure cost-sharing between the District and the City is fair and equitable and shall negotiate, in good faith, and enter into an 'Agreement for Pool Operation' in a form mutually agreeable to the District and the City. The District and the City shall review such agreement every two years (commencing on January 1, 2016) to ensure that the cost-sharing arrangement remains fair and equitable and shall cooperate in good faith to amend or modify the Agreement for Pool Operation to incorporate any changes reasonably necessary to adjust such cost-sharing arrangement. The City and the District shall strive to complete their review and execute any such amendment or modification not later than September 1 of the even numbered years. 2. The District and the City shall analyze field rental fees and expenditures related to District athletic field maintenance to ensure cost-sharing between the District and the City is fair and equitable and shall negotiate, in good faith, and enter into an 'Agreement for Athletic Field Operation' in a form mutually agreeable to the District and the City. The District and the City shall review such

63 agreement every two years (commencing on January 1, 2018) to ensure that the costsharing arrangement remains fair and equitable and shall cooperate in good faith to amend or modify the Agreement for Athletic Field Operation to incorporate any changes reasonably necessary to adjust such cost-sharing arrangement. The City and the District shall strive to complete their review and execute any such amendment or modification not later than September 1 of the even numbered years, such that any such amendment or modification can be effective as of September 1 of such even numbered years. 3. The District agrees to allow the City to distribute its quarterly Recreation Guide, hereinafter "Guide", to the District's students four times during each school year in the months of September, December, February and May directly through the District's elementary, middle and high schools. The City shall be responsible for all costs and expenses associated with or arising from the production, bundling and delivery of the Guide and shall deliver bundles of the Guide to the mailroom of each school. The District agrees to provide the bundles to each classroom. 4. This Agreement is intended by the parties to supplement the Joint Use Agreement. Further, this agreement rescinds the Supplementary Agreement entered into April 20, Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Joint Use Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year below-written. CITY OF LACEY City Manager, Scott Spence Date: NORTH THURSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Superintendent, Debra J. Clemens Date:

64 AGREEMENT FOR ATHLETIC FIELD OPERATION This Agreement, made and entered into on the date of the last signature set forth below, by and between the North Thurston Public Schools, hereinafter called "District" and the City of Lacey, hereinafter called "City", WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the District and the City entered into a joint use agreement on May 21, 1974 to make school facilities available for community recreation activities, and WHEREAS, the District is the owner and operator of athletic fields at all of its school sites, and WHEREAS, the City has the staff and expertise to schedule the community use of said fields, and WHEREAS, it is beneficial to the community and students residing within the boundaries of the District and the City that said fields be scheduled in a fair and consistent manner, and kept open and maintained, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed between the parties as follows: 1. The City shall schedule an agreed upon list of District fields. Hours, fields, and rental rates shall be established prior. The City shall require insurance certificates of user groups naming the City and the District as additionally insured. 2. The City shall pay the District annually the revenues from District field rentals less the portable toilet fees, and less a 10% administrative fee. The city will submit all financial details upon payment, which shall include portable toilet fees and field rental totals for the year. 3. The City shall be considered a managing partner and shall be consulted prior to any significant change in operational or maintenance procedures (example: field closures) that has the potential to impact community use of the fields. 4. The District will have exclusive use of the fields during school hours, and after-school hours as specified on the agreed upon list. 5. Notices. Any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given when submitted to either party.

65 The City s address for purposes of any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement is as follows: City of Lacey Sue Falash, Facilities & Athletics Manager 420 College St. SE Lacey, WA Phone District s address for purposes of any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement is as follows: North Thurston Public Schools Monty Sabin, Assistant Superintendent 305 College ST NE Lacey, WA Phone CITY OF LACEY City Manager, Scott Spence Date: NORTH THURSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Superintendent, Debra J. Clemens Date: h\contracts\pools

66 AGREEMENT FOR POOL OPERATION This Agreement, made and entered into on the date of the last signature set forth below, by and between the North Thurston Public Schools, hereinafter called "District" and the City of Lacey, hereinafter called "City", WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the District and the City entered into a joint use agreement on May 21, 1974 to make school facilities available for community recreation activities, and WHEREAS, the District is the owner of swimming pools and associated facilities at Timberline High School, North Thurston High School and River Ridge High School, and WHEREAS, the City has the staff and expertise to schedule the community use of said pools and supervise their operation, and WHEREAS, it is beneficial to the community and students residing within the boundaries of the District and the City that said pools be kept open and maintained, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed between the parties as follows: 1. The District shall rent to the City the pools and associated pool facilities located at Timberline High School, North Thurston High School and River Ridge High School for a period of two years commencing September 1, 2018 and ending August 31, The District shall be responsible for all operational and capital costs related to such facilities and shall be responsible for maintaining the pools and pool facilities in a manner which meets all applicable codes and safety requirements. 2. The City shall pay to the District the sum of $105,000 per year for the rental of said pools which shall be paid in quarterly installments commencing on December 1, 2016 and continuing on the first day of the months of March, June, September, and December of each year. In addition, the district shall be entitled to use the facilities without charge for those activities shown on the schedule in section 5. Such designated use shall be when school is in session, however, the City shall additionally accommodate and coordinate pool use by the District swim teams during the month of August of each year. Pending pool availability and adjustments to the school calendar, should the normal sessions of lessons, or equivalent, need to be reduced, a proportionate rental amount will also be reduced. 3. Except for the use of the pools and associated pool facilities reserved to the District by paragraph 5 hereof, all scheduling for community use of pool and associated pool facilities shall be by the City. The City shall be responsible for setting all fees for use of such facilities. It is understood between the parties that it is the City's intent to collect from the users of the facilities all costs of this contract and all direct costs of scheduling and operation of the pools by the City. It is further understood that the recovery of such costs will include a contract between the City and the Tumwater School District and may include other similar contracts.

67 4. The City shall be considered a managing partner and shall be consulted prior to any significant change in operational or maintenance procedures (example: water temperature decrease) that has the potential to impact community use of the pools, leading to loss of revenue. If extra costs are incurred by the City or revenues lost by virtue of the District's failure to properly maintain the pools and pool facilities, such cost or loss of revenue shall be the responsibility of the District. Any such loss of revenue or the incurring of additional costs shall be documented and may be offset against the payment due the District and adjusted on the next quarterly installment. 5. The district will have exclusive use of the pools during high school hours and afterschool hours during the boys and girls swim season. During the swim season, the teams will have use of the pools during school holidays at the times listed below or alternate times coordinated by the City and teams. All other time is designated for City use however, if available, the City will accommodate additional use for the high school teams such as weekends and summer practices. Normal District Practice Schedule* *Exceptions for swim meets ending by 6pm River Ridge High School Pool Swim Season Practice Monday-Friday 2:30-4:30pm River Ridge High School Swim Team Use** 4:30-6:30pm Tumwater and Black Hills Swim Team Use **Boys season practice 2:30-5:00pm Timberline High School Pool Swim Season Practice Monday-Friday 2:30-5:00pm Timberline High School Swim Team Use North Thurston High School Pool Swim Season Practice Monday-Friday 2:30-5:00pm North Thurston High School Swim Team Use If a pool is closed during the swim season, an alternate district pool will be made available to the displaced team. The home team and relocated team will reduce practice time to 90 minutes to accommodate all teams and community users. Priority in scheduling will be given in this order: Scheduled swim meets, district team practices then City programs. The City will determine the alternate pool based on the availability and least disruption to other users. If a pool closure is for an extended amount of time the school district athletic director will coordinate with the City to adjust the schedule. Example: Pool Closure Practice Schedule (location to be determined by City) 2:15-3:45pm Normal Team Use 3:45-5:15pm Displaced Team Use 5:15-9:45pm City Use

68 6. Aquatic equipment (examples: kickboards, noodles, tot docks, etc.) purchased by the City for use by the community and stored in pool facilities is solely for use during City use unless the District secures written consent from the City for use. Any damages or loss of aquatic equipment during school and or team hours of use shall be replaced by the District. Should the aquatic equipment not be resolved within 48 hours of notification of the damage or loss, the City has the right to purchase replacement aquatic equipment and off set the replacement cost against the payment due the District and adjusted on the next quarterly installment. 7. Although the term of this agreement is for two years, should a levy submitted to the voters by the District fail or should the City of Lacey unexpectedly lose tax revenue, the parties shall negotiate such modification of this agreement as may be necessary. Further, this agreement may be extended beyond its term, however, any such extension shall only be after an opportunity is afforded to both of the parties to negotiate the amount of the yearly payment described in section This agreement is specifically contingent upon the City of Lacey and Tumwater School District executing an agreement for use of said facility as part of the City's recovery of costs incurred herein. 9. Notices. Any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed sufficiently given when sent by mail if sent to the respective address of each party. The City s address for purposes of any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement is as follows: City of Lacey Jenny Wilson, Recreation Supervisor 420 College St. SE Lacey, WA Phone District s address for purposes of any notice provided for or concerning this Agreement is as follows: North Thurston Public Schools Monty Sabin, Assistant Superintendent 305 College ST NE Lacey, WA Phone CITY OF LACEY City Manager, Scott Spence Date: NORTH THURSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS Superintendent, Debra J. Clemens Date: h\contracts\pools

69 Lacey City Council Meeting July 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments Related to the Interlocal Agreement for Cooperative Law Enforcement and mutual aid (Thurston County Narcotics Task Force). RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve amendments to the Interlocal Agreement for Cooperative Law Enforcement and mutual aid (Thurston County Narcotics Task Force). STAFF CONTACT: ORIGINATED BY: BUDGET IMPACT/ SOURCE OF FUNDS: Scott Spence, City Manager Dusty Pierpoint, Chief of Police Dave Schneider, Assistant City Attorney Police Department None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Current Interlocal Agreement for The Thurston County Narcotics Task Force. 2. Proposed amendments to the Interlocal Agreement for The Thurston County Narcotics Task Force. BACKGROUND: For over three decades, the City of Lacey has been a jurisdictional partner of the Thurston County Narcotics Task Force. Over the course of this time the city has provided the management of the budget, grants and payroll for one FTE. Currently, the cities of Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater do not have a detective assigned to the Task Force and it may be some time before filling those spots. A captain from the Thurston County Sheriff s Office oversees and directs the Task Force and the Thurston County Prosecutor sits on the Executive Board. As a result, the proposed amendments would transfer the financial and grant management responsibilities from the City of Lacey to Thurston County.

70 This is the recommended course of action after several discussions beginning last year among the participating Cities and Thurston County. The General Government Committee reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended approval to the full City Council at their February 27, 2018, meeting. Advantages 1. Aligns the financial and management oversight responsibilities to the most active member of the Task Force. Disadvantages 1. None Foreseen.

71 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATIVE t.aw ENFORCEMENT AND MUTUAL AID THIS AGREEMENT is enlerpd into i11 duplicate tjy and betvveen the ST/\ TE Or WASHINGTON through the Washington State Patrol, THURSTON COUNTY, and the CIT!ES OF OLYMPIA, LACEY, and TU MW ATER, municipal c:orporations of the State of Washington. WHEREAS, Chapter RCW authorizes the pllrties to enter in to agrc'ements for joint or cooperative actions; WHEREAS, Chapter KCW authorizes the parties to enter into agreements for law t>nforce-ment mlttua! aid; and WHEREt\5. the parties wish to (rjritir1ue ro wovid<? for coo;:ierar: ;e ;irtior. <irid 'ltn.u.ji did in enforcing the Uniform Controlled Subst<HKes Act in Thurston County. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: l. Thp purpose of this Agreement:~ to provide for the cooperative enforcement of state and local laws relating to controlled substar:ces as set forth in the Unifu1Tn Controlled Substances Act and in the municipal code sections of the cit!es of Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater, by the Thurston County Sheriff's Office. thp Olympia Police Department, the Lacey Police Department, the Tumwater Pol ce Department and the Washington St.ate Patrol ("WSP"). The joint cooperation by these entities will be knmr.-n inforn1cil!v d5 the "Drug Urnt." or con 1ers~ly, the Tl;ur ston County N a rco.,,~~ T,3.k r-r1 rce. (''Task Forr e'') 2. The Agreement shall be administered by a joint board known as the "Executive Committee," comprised of the Thurston County Sheriff or designee, Thurston Count y Prosecutor or designee. the Chiefs of Police of the cities of Olympia, l.acf''{, and Tumwater or their des1gnee:;. and the Chier cf the WSP through the co1nrnander of tr1e investigative Assistance Division. or designee. The Executi Je Cornrnitter~ shjll have the authority to determine the rncj nner for carrying out the terms of this Agreement. This authority shall include, but not be limited to: det errninirg the number of employees withrn each agency assigned to duties pursuant to this Agreement; compliance w ith statutory reporting procedures; handling of evidence seized. handling of civil forfeiture procedures; and administration of funds 1nduding the!nterlocd l [>rug Fund.

72 The above listed members shall have full voting rights as a member of the Executive Committee as long as they have an activ'2 full-time employee assigned to the Task Force. lf a member does not have a full lirne employ<:'p <issigned to the Task Force, their voting privilege~ will be suspe1ided. However. the member may attend Executive Cornrnittee meetings and participate in discussions vvithout voting privileges. Voting rights will be reinstated once the member agency reestablishes participation by providing a full-time employee to the Task Force. 3. No separate lega I entity is created under this Agr eement. 4. The "seizing agency" for purposes of Chapter RCW. is Thurston County. /\If search warrants, orders for seizu re.,;r,d civil fortr:it tirc ;ictions nm: r1enced in regards to property seized by the Task ro1 ce w ill idf>ntify ThLirston \rnmtv as rt',e r\aintiff. Designation of l hurston County as the' seizin~; agency will nut alter U1e terms of Sections 11 and 13, herein. The City of Lacey shafi establish a fund to be knmvr as th0!11terloca i Drng Enforcement Fund, wit ti in tl1e furds. accounts and bud~er~ of the C!t'/ of La cey. This fund shafl be administered in nccor dance with tr e accou11 t1ng p1 act1ce,, o t the City o f Lacey and pur.suant to Lhe terms of this Agreement. M onies deposited in said fund shall be used only for carrying out the purposes of H1is Agreement, including administrat ive and overhead costs incurred by Task Force operations. 6. SQ_lHKE.SOF_!'ylQNlJ;S FOR INT~RLO CAL DRUG ENFOR C.~M-~NUU~JQ All monies, including all proceeds from the sale of oersonal and rea! propertv declared forfeit t o the sei2ing agency o n behalf of the Task f'..o rce anrl pursuant to Ch RCW and/or Ch RCW shall be deposit ed in the!ntedocal Drug Enforcement Fund. Funds deposited in the lnterlocal Drug Enforcem ent Fund may also consist of: A. Al1 fines, pe nalties and payrnents to the fund p ursu<1nt tc court or ~ dmini stra tiv i~ order: B. Donation s; C. Appropriations to the fund by the WSP. Th urston Co unty, and the cities of Olympia. Lacey, and Tumwater; D. Any other supplement al funding whic h niay be acquired, e.g., grant funding.

73 7 The lnterlocal Drug Enforrement Fund may be used for apy purpose related to the parties' enforcement of stcite and!uca! laws pertaining to ccntrolled substances. and to further the goal<> of the Task Force as set forth in this Agreemenl. Money sh<:ill tje disbursed from the lnterlocai Drug Enforcement Fund pursuant to procedures established by the executive committee. Lacey shall be responsible for the annuai reporting to the State of Washington, and for the annual disbursement of funds to t:-ie State of Washington, pursuant to the requirf'ments of Ch r~cw 8. The annual budget for the Task Force shall be approved by the Executive Committee, and shall be incorporated within the budget of the City of Lacey. 9. CQUNTY AND C!TYEWN.QS In addition to the monies rernaining in the inlerlocal Drug Enforu:n1en: Fund as carryover funds at the time of execution of this Agrr!ernen t, lf1is Agret'rnent shall be carried oul through the use of monies that may be contributed on an equal basis by Thurston Ccunty, and the cities of Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater, and the WSP. The request for contributed funds shall be made by the Executive Committee to the various jurisdictions, by August 15 of each year, in time for inclusion in the annu;il budget cycle of each juri!>diction. 10. ADM,_LN!STRA.IIQN.QUUNDS Al l funds including the 111terlocal Drug Enforcement Fund s1 1all be administered by the Executive Committee in accordance with all applicable lavvs and ~ound accoc1nting principles, and pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 11. PO_!o!_q~S &.PROCEDURES A. The Executive Committee shall create a Policies a11d Procedures manual (''Manual" ) that encompasses the operating policies and procedures for the Task Force. B. The Manual shall be updated on an as-needed basis. C. The Manual and any subsequent updates shall be approved b'y' the Excrntive Committee. D. The M anual, as arnended frorn time to time is hereby incorporated l1y rrterence into this Agree ment as if fully set forth. E. Nothing in the Manual is meant to supersede any provisions of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict hetween this Agreen1ent and ~he l'vlanu<i!, the term '> cf t t1is ~greernent shat' prevai:.

74 The Task Force Commander. as defined in the ''Thurston Countv Narcot!CS Tas1< Force Policy and Proledure Manual", sh<ill he re~pon51t)ie for the routine adn;inistr,1tive dutie:. of the Task f.orce!r.cluding; A. The scheduling of Board Meetings; B. Preparation of Board Meeting Agendas and Minutes; C. Processing of in'voices for Ti!sl< Force exppnses for r;wment b 1 ; ths City of Lacey; D. Other routine operating administrative functions. A. Alf persom assigned to duties pursuant to this Al;3rr..:rnent shall bt dee;ni::d employees ot tt10 rigency tilal. dssigns 11ern to tile rask Force:. Each party contributing an employee to the Task forcf: will retain t hat e:111pioyec <JS un employee of the contributing party and will be solely respon~ible for that employee, including the employee's salary and benefits and all other terms and conditions of employment. 8. In order for a persori to be assigned to the Task Force. that pprson sheil! h;,vc the following qual1f1cat1ons: 1. A pilst proven ability to conduct successful interviews with suspcn:,, witnesses, and informants. 2. Good time management skills. 3. Good report writing skill~ witl1 good organizutiona ab;!1tit><.. 4. Ability to conform to written policies and procedures. 5. Sufficient training and prior experience enforcing the Uniform Controlled Substances Act ("the Act") to understand and accurately apply Hw requirements for probable cause for arrest for violations of the Act. 6. Ability to work whatever schedule may be rpquired by thp I ask Fore( supervisor. 7. Ability to conduct long-term surveillances and in-depth investigations 8. Ability to appear timely for co urt appearances and provide competent testimony to support prosecutions of persons.1rres1ed for violaticim of the Act.

75 9. Ability to promptly and professionally carry out orders from the Task Force supervisor(s). C. The Task Force command str:icttlf'e 1-; ~overned t'jv tl'e' "T' 111rston Count)' i\larc.itir:s Task Force Poiicy and ProcedLJie Mz.inua!" 14. PROPERTY Money from the sale of assets declared forfeit through personal or real property seizures, or property purchased with lnterlocal Drug Enforcement Fund money will be jointly owned by the parties hereto. Se;zed vehicles th"1t become the property of t/1e Task Force through a forfeiture order rn.:iy bp designated Liv tht> Executive Committee fen use by an employee assigned to the Task Fo rce. The Executive Committee will provide oversight for use of seized vehicles by Task Force employees. The jurisdiction that employs the employee utilizing a seized vehicle for Task Force business will assume all liability for use of and damage to that vehicle, and will acquire insurance coverage~ for that vehir.te pursuant to the policies of that jurisdiction. Should such a vehicle become rlamaged or totaled. the rnonev received by that µarty frorn Jny insurance prncp':'ds sl1a!: be applied fir~t towrird ri"pairing that v;->h1~lr; ard if the vl"11icle 1~ c! :>enied ;:~)t"!.::1, '.kill be deposited into the lnterlocal Druf. enforcement Fund. Any 111.;urance dedcictiole required will be paid by the jurisdiction utilizing the vehicle. 15. ~E.[ICT!~~.QAJJJDURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall t;ike effect JS of th ~ c!ste of fili11g nr [JCJ ;ting as required by RCW or date of the last author iz1r'g ~1gratur::> af :xpd hereto. whicheve1 nccur~ later. The Agreement shall automatically renew on January 1, of each year and shall continue fo r subsequent one-year terms through December 31, 2020, unless otherwise terminated by mutual agreement of all parties 16. 'A['Tl-!Q~RAWALO_fJNDlVIDl)AL PAR.TIE:S Any party may withdraw from this Agreement by 5iv1ng ninety (90) days wrirten notice from the party's governing body to the other parties. Monies contributed during the calendar year of a p<jrty's withdrawal will be refunded to that pa rty, on a pro rata bcisis, after determination by the Executive Committee of any purcl1rise commitments rnadr~ prior to the notification of a party's withdr;;wal. Purchase commitn1ents made prior to notification of a party's withdrawal wij! re :!uce the withdrawing prirty's refund commensu1 ate with the pru rata s?1ar ~ le be contribute.j!.jy tne J-Jithdrawmg party foithat purchase. Mont>y <;o refunded will oe used l.j11 t'1e withdrawing party for its use in carrying out drug enforcement activities pursuant to Ch RCW. Property purchased with Task Force funds will remain the property of the non-withdrawing parties and the withdrawing party will have no interest in or claim of title to said property Notice uf withdrawal of any party to this Agreement shall clearly reference this Agreement and be filed or posted con~i s tent with RCW

76 17 TERMINA.TION-PROPERTI If this Agreement is terminated and the Task Force disbands entirely, the Executive Committee will determine e>.ilch party's equit.ib!e pro rata share of personal and rea! property, including monies on deposit in the lnterlocal Drug FnforcemPnt Funcl. Tire personal and real property will either be iiquidated, and proceeds distributed to each party on a pro rata basis; or the Executive Committee will determine by majority vot~ what is an equitable distribution ot property to each party, and the property will be disbursed accordingly. 18. UABILIT( HQJQ_HARM L~ $S; lrllp.emnjfjcation A. The parties agree th31 each ol the pi\rties ~t1ali, -:1~ all ti111es, ije sole Iv :-esµunsibre for the acts or the faiiure to act of its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents that occur or arise in any way out ofthe performance of this Agreement and to save and hold the other parties and their elected and appo;nted officials, employees and agents harmless from all costs, expenses. losses and damages, including cost~ of defense incurred GS a resu!t of any acts or omissions of the pilrty's elected and appointed ulficia!s. t-111ployep.s ilnd agents, rel;iting to the performance of this Agreement_ In the event that a claim and/or lawsuit 1s brought against a party to this Agreement, or against any party's erected and appointed officials, employees and agents for actions arising out of their conduct in perforrning under this Agr(,!etnent. it shalt be the duty of each such partv to prom pl ly notify the other rart1e~ that actually responded to, fir particip?.ted 111 thp event which is the suljject of,uch daim or lawsuit that the sarre has cer:-n initiatpd Each party and their respective defense counsel shall, to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with the best interests of their respective clients, cooperate with other parties to this AF?,reernent ilnd their respective defense counsel In the defense of any lawsuit arising out of respo nse to or participation in any event under this r"'greeme!lt and shall agree. whenevpr possible. to share nor. attorney fee-rel ated costs such as records gathering, preparation )t trial f'xhibits. the retention and payment of e :\pe~t witnesses, and the cost of deposition reporting and transcription. Each party hereto shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect public liability and property damage insurancp or se lf-insurance coverage in the rninimum arnount of $1 million per occurrence Clnd $2 million aggrrgate to cover claims for injury to persons or domage to D~cipert 1 1 ;irising from thr pi>rforrn:.ince of this Agre.:ment. Insurance coverage sha ll not be cancelled by any party except upon t hirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, to all other µart!es. Satisfactcrt evidence of the requisite insurance coverage shall be provided to each party to this Agreement, upon request of any ottwr party

77 8. Nothing herein shall require or be interpreted to: 1. Waive any defenst>. arising out of f{cw Tillf' drnit or restrict the abiiity of any party, or unv pjrty'.; eiected and oppuinted officials, employees and agents or legal counsel for any of the sarne to exercise any right, defense or remedy which a party to a lawsuit may have with respect to claims or third parties, including any good faith attempts to seek dismissal of legal clalms against a party by any proper means allowed under the civil rules in either state or feceral court. 3. Cover or require indemnification, cidense lor,. or p<;vment of any JUdgrnenr against i1ny individual o r party for intentional vvro 11t;ful conduc:, conduct outside the scope of employment of any individual, or for ariy judgment for punitive darnages against any individual or party. Payment of punitive damage awards, fines or sanctions shall be the sch~ responsibility of the individual against whom said judgment is rendered and/ or his or her emp!oyer, should that employer elect to make said pdyrner.t voluntarily. This Agreernent dces not require indcmnifi catior.,:cf ar,v e1:: 11t1vc d<in'<:f;e~ :::iwards or for any order imposing fines or s :i nction~. 4. The parties shall, to the best of their ability, coordinate their liability insurance coverages and/or self-insured coverages to the extent possible to fully implement and follow the Agreement set forth herein. However, the consent of any liability insurance c;irrier or self insured poc~ o r organi: ation is not 1 equired to make this Agreernent cffc :tive as between the pdrties signatory tc.. this Agreement a 11d the failure of anv insurance e<orrier o r sel f-insured pool or organization to agree or follow the terms of this provision ori liability shall not relieve any party trom its obligations under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to create third party rights in any entity not a party to this Agreement. The City of Lacey i'.; dcsigna tp l1 as t h1: agency vv1t h aulhority to enter into contract'> on behalf of the lnterlocal Drug Unit, including tr~ e aut hority to lease, buy, sell and hold t itle to real and personal property, execute grant applications and sign all other documents on behalf of and for t/1e benefit of all parties to this Agreement. Such authority will be exercised only upon the consensus of and at the direction o f the Executive Committee. If consensus cannot be reached, then such authority will be by rnajority vote of the Executive Comrnitt1~ e 20. ~ONS E NT TO ENF O R CE f\!l~f'jt OF LAVY.~ Th e signature of the Sheriff of Thurston County contained herein, operates as his consent within Thurst o n County to allow employees who are general authority Washington peace o fficers as defined by RCW ( 3) and ernploved by t he cities of Lacey, Olympia, Jnd Tumw.:iter, t o e,.._e r (>~c a![ po wl rs ve.tc~ d by IJ\N in a

78 general authority Washington peace officer who possesses a certificate of basic law enforcement training or certificate of equiva!ency or has been exempted from the requirement therefore by the Washington st<ite criminci! justice training cornmission. The parties intend that this Agreement contemplates that any partv may request mutual aid from the other parties, for purposes of effectuating the goals and purposes of this Agreement. Poltcies and procedures for requests for mutual aid are found in the "Thurston County Narcotics Tao;k Forc.e Policy ancj Procedures Manual" 22. AMENDMENT Any party may request amendment to this Agreement, howeve1, no such amendment shall be valirl or binding uniess it be in writinb, approveci by each jurisdiction's governing body, and recorded or posted as requird by 8CW A.ny such amendment shali be attached to ar;d made part of thi.s Agreement. 23 NOTICE Notice provided for in this Agreement shall be sent by certified ni;:jil to the addresses designi:lted for the par.ie.'> on the last page of this 1\e;reernent. This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered with the State of Washington, and it is agreed by each party hereto that this Agreement shall be governed by laws of the State of WGshington, both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at lvw, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enfor<.ement of this Agreement or any provisions thereof, shall be instituted and maintained only in any of the courts of competent jurisdiction in Thurston County, Washington. If, for any reason, any part. term or provision of this P..weerncnt is heid by a court of the United States to be i!tega l, void or unenforceable, tlw validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid.

79 ~NTIRE AGREEMEN"f: The parties agree that this Agreement is the complete expression of the ternis hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded. Any work performed prior to the effective date that falls with in the scope of this Agreement and is consistent with its terms is hereby ratified and confirmed. 28. DISPUTE RESOLUT[ON Any dispute between the parties to this Agreement shall first be submitted to mediation prior to any party filing an action against any other party. Costs of mediation shall be shared equally by the parties in dispute. JN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has caused this Agreement to be signed by its duly authorized officer or representative as of the date set forth below its signaturt~. Washington State Patrol Attn: Chief P.O. Box Olympia, WA By---=-\oJC>~t~t1,,..~,,,...,:.... ~ Title ~ C,\,;,e~ Date _JL-:- l_o_-.~r~q WSP Contract No. Ki0386 Approved as to forrr.: '~1 ff. ( i,,f.1 ) " \ '(!J.!,/,, By J:r...: -..,._,,,.-rj-.1;...,, -~ I Ass't Attol'hey General City of Lacey Attn City Manager PO Box 3400 Lacey, WA \ By~~,>,~,~;._~ ~;~-- -,.\ Title. ;.:.~- /. i., li""t~l~111~.,, ((~ ~ Date s. Approved as to fo~f'!'. '. I"'/' :~,... : 1-- By ~~~~-- City Attorney { r... ~S-.. ~.~_:_--;.

80 City of Tumwater Attn: City Administrator 555 Israel Road SW Tumwater, WA City of Olympia Attn: City Manager PO Box 1967 Olympia, WA Title._,'_.;.._.-"""'-'~----~---- I A i Date~-l~i- _ _ -'~-... 1~/, ~--~-~- Approved as to form: l ( By Q, ~l~'---1-~"-"- City Attorney \,.,\~') L~' '. D.. Lh Approved as to form: Bylrj/~ City Attorney (A;CA) Thurston County Attn: Board of County Commissioners 2000 Lakeri~ Drive SW Olympia, WA /~:... / ~ Bv -:f~~~~. Title L1 U~ L!ffJ!5.L... -., /w'./.. ~..,..., -- Date 1 ( 5' ---1 I Thurston County Attn: Thurston County Sheriff 2000 Lake ridge Drive SW Olympia, WA By Title Date v"'_.. -- \~O ~.if \~ 10 l ~t::.:-::jj'tt-, / { \.) U~&~~j l [J \ \VZ.j'l.bl\f