CITY OF SNOHOMISH. Founded 1859, Incorporated 1890 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING SNOHOMISH CITY COUNCIL. in the George Gilbertson Boardroom 1601 Avenue D

Transcription

1 CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360) NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING SNOHOMISH CITY COUNCIL in the George Gilbertson Boardroom 1601 Avenue D TUESDAY 6:00 p.m. WORKSHOP AGENDA 6:00 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCUSSION ITEM Metropolitan Parks District Update (P.1) 6:55 3. ADJOURN

2

3 Date: To: From: City Council Larry Bauman, City Manager Subject: Workshop Discussion of the Proposed Metropolitan Park District Ballot Measure and Parks Funding Options The purpose of this agenda item is for City Council review and discussion of a proposed resolution (see Attachment A) to place a ballot measure before the voters to approve creation of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). Based on previous Council discussions, the understanding by staff is that Council generally supports the concept of placing this ballot measure before the voters on the August 2015 Primary Election ballot. This report will discuss the ballot measure option as well as other information regarding funding options and provide the City Council an opportunity for review and input prior to a potential action on the ballot resolution, which is tentatively scheduled for April 21, The deadline for submitting a resolution to the County for a measure to be placed on the August 2015 Primary Election ballot is May 8, which would make the City Council s currently scheduled May 5, 2015, regular meeting the last possible opportunity to act in time to meet that deadline. This workshop is intended to review background, process, local opinion surveys and legal authority regarding the state s MPD regulations. Staff has provided analysis of current and proposed levels of parks maintenance, how the MPD funding could support implementation of long-range park goals, and a draft ballot proposition. The overall objective is to ensure that the Council is fully informed and has reviewed all aspects of the MPD and alternatives as well as the proposed resolution for the ballot prior to scheduling any resolution for Council action. BACKGROUND: The City Council began discussions in 2012 regarding the optional parks funding concepts of a property tax levy or establishing some type of a park district, each of which would require a vote of the people. Subsequent discussions on this topic resulted in the Council narrowing those options and primarily focusing on a proposed MPD ballot measure in However, a Councilmember has also requested that staff analyze the option of using banked property tax capacity, and this report will also review that option. However, this staff report does not cover other park district options that were previously discussed and have not been supported by those previous Council reviews. ANALYSIS: The City has substantially increased its holdings of park lands during recent years, often with little or no comparable increases in staffing due to budget limitations. As parks are funded by the City s General Fund sources, the maintenance and operations of City parks must compete with other General Fund-supported programs, including Police, Planning, Finance, Streets, Economic Development and Administration. Total park land owned by the City, including open space and properties not yet developed, currently includes 169 acres. Of the developed parks, we have 51 acres. These 51 acres include 5.4 acres of the Centennial Trail project that was completed in Additionally, the City Council has recently City Council Workshop 1

4 completed purchases of 10 acres for the Ludwig Road property and 20 acres for the boat launch facility that will be built initially by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and then turned over to the City for further parking and other enhancements as well as ongoing maintenance/management. Once developed, these 30 acres of park land would represent about an 18 percent increase in the total developed parks acreage. The 1.12-acre Hal Moe site, planned for redevelopment, would also add new grounds and potentially significant building maintenance responsibilities to the existing 51 acres of developed parks once that project is completed. About Metropolitan Parks Districts An MPD would provide a baseline of protection for the public s investment in parks during the worst of economic conditions and create the ability to improve the park system through capital projects during normal economic conditions. MPD funds could only be used for park, trail and other recreational facilities, including both capital and operations, but these MPD revenues could not be transferred to support other City operations or capital needs. If established, a Metropolitan Parks District would be a separate taxing district that would operate much like the City s Transportation Benefit District (TBD), with two main differences: the MPD would collect property taxes rather than sales tax, and it would be permanent until officially dissolved by Council action rather than the time-limited, 10-year, TBD. MPDs are created by simple majority vote within the proposed taxing area (in this case, within Snohomish city limits). Property taxes would be limited to no more than $0.75 per $1,000 of assessed property value, or for the average $247,200 house in 2015, approximately $15.45 a month. As a junior taxing district, an MPD could lose its ability to collect taxes should senior taxing districts (city, county) increase tax rates above a set amount (currently $5.90 per thousand dollars assessed valuation.) Level of Potential MPD Funding: The 2015 Budget development process for the General Fund Parks Division included the identification of parks maintenance costs that had not previously been allocated to the park division budget but had been allocated in other general fund divisions or other funds. The cost allocation policy and plan identified administrative and financial costs related to parks operations along with updated equipment and vehicle replacement plans and finally internal service fund costs for parks operational impact on fleet and facility operations and information services operations. The 2015 General Fund Parks division expenditure budget is more than $710,000 and is solely funded through General Fund revenue sources. Along with developing potential MPD supported levels of service for implementation of the Parks Plan, three funding scenarios (see Attachment C) were developed based on MPD levies of $0.25, $0.50, and $0.75 per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation (AV). Each MPD levy scenario includes funding from MPD sources and identifies the various amounts of continued General Fund support based on the proposed MPD Levels of Service. Staff will review the LOS and funding scenarios during the workshop. At the highest level of levy rate (75 cents), the MPD revenues would reach $750,000 annually based on current property tax assessments in the City. The projected MPD revenues are shown below with estimates of annual and monthly costs to a Snohomish homeowner with an average AV of $247,200: 2 City Council Workshop

5 Levels of Service (LOS) Analyses: An LOS analysis for parks maintenance has been developed by staff for this Council review. These LOS assumptions are perhaps the best way to understand how services would be affected by the addition of new revenue for maintenance. The service levels are projected for improvements in maintenance effort and are shown on Attachment C, which will be discussed during the workshop. The attached series of LOS matrices compare current (2015 budget) levels of service to the three potential MPD funding levels shown in the table above, and also shows how these service levels compare to both current service levels and service levels during the 2008 Great Recession. Attachment D provides further discussion of levels of service with photographic illustrations as examples of optional levels of maintenance. Opinion Survey: In 2014 the City conducted a random telephone opinion survey (see Attachment B) regarding parks and recreation issues in the community. Among the results of the survey was a set of responses regarding funding priorities for parks and recreation. When asking respondents to prioritize parks and recreation needs, they clearly placed maintenance of parks (44% give this a very high priority and 30% listed this as a high priority) as the top need for additional funding. Second in priority was upgrading the parks and recreation facilities that the City already has (15% said this was a very high priority and 33% said it was a high priority). When the survey asked respondents to indicate support for a parks district to develop tax revenues for parks, 60 percent of those polled said they would somewhat or strongly support such actions to create a parks district. This level of support was found after explaining that the cost to the average household would amount to about $15 dollars per month. The survey of recent voters through EMC Research, completed in June of 2014, summarized the results with this key finding: A majority of respondents were in support of the establishment of a Parks District, even after the cost of its establishment was revealed (60%). However, most of this is in the somewhat category. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Long Range Plan: The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Long Range Plan serves as a functional planning document intended to complement and implement the information and policies contained in the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan. More than 600 contacts with community members were completed during the plan s City Council Workshop 3

6 development. The City Council appointed a community task force whose members met with 16 community groups and agencies for their input in addition to guiding the City s development of a public opinion poll. The City sought public ideas on its City website through featured questions and polls via Imagine Snohomish and offered an online version of the phone survey. Committee members interviewed the public at the Farmer s Market and distributed mail-in paper surveys at outreach events. Some of the groups contacted included Historic Downtown Snohomish, Kiwanis, Old Homes Group, Rotary Club, Snohomish City Toastmasters, Snohomish County Parks Board, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation, Snohomish Historical Society, Snohomish Networking Women, Snohomish Senior Center, Snohomish Sportsmen Club and others. Funding Priorities 1. The highest support was for maintaining existing park and trail facilities. 2. Upgrading existing facilities had slightly more support than for building new facilities. 3. All project ideas had majority support in the telephone poll. 4. General public input was consistent overall with the results of the statisticallyrepresentative public opinion poll and contributed additional ideas and community characteristics. All potential new programs/facilities projects in the telephone poll had majority support as a great or good idea. The top two projects were: 1. Redevelop Hal Moe Pool site for continued public use. 2. Provide a place for community events. The overall goals, policies and project recommendations of the 2007 plan are substantially unchanged in this update. Completed projects in the 2007 plan have been removed, of course, from the 2015 list of recommendations. A number of park upgrade projects were added to the Capital Facility Plan as a result of public input. The two most significant changes from the 2007 plan are noted below. Top Two Recommendations: A. Hal Moe Pool Site Return of the Hal Moe Pool site to the City for park purposes is the most significant change to the list of park projects. B. Metropolitan Park District In response to public input to first take care of what we already have, and incorporate lessons learned during economic downturns, the plan recommends that establishment of a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) be pursued. This permanent funding source would secure reliable funding for park maintenance and protect the City s $25 million investment in parks even during recessions. Lessons learned from the Great Recession: the City s General Fund as a source for parks is likely to be reduced or eliminated during economic downturns. From a high point in 4 City Council Workshop

7 2008 to the 2009/2011 low of the recession, parks maintenance full-time-equivalent (FTE) staffing from the City s general fund was reduced from 7.5 to 2. More severe reductions to maintenance services were prevented in part by a state action to allow Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) to be used temporarily for one more maintenance position instead of its stated purpose for capital projects. Changes in the method of providing police services had what was most likely the largest impact on preventing deeper cuts into the maintenance budget for City parks. Metropolitan Park District Option: Currently, some 17 Metropolitan Parks Districts have been established in Washington State according to the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC). Chapter 98, Laws of 1907 initially authorized only cities of the first class to create metropolitan park districts. The metropolitan park district statutes were reenacted in 1943, when, according to an AWC legislative bulletin, the previous statutes had been inadvertently repealed by one of the state highway acts. The statutes were amended by Chapter 88, Laws of Function and Powers of Metropolitan Park District May purchase, acquire and condemn lands within or without the boundaries of park district. May issue and sell warrants, short- term obligations, or general obligation bonds. May issue revenue bonds. Can petition for the creation of local improvement districts. May employ counsel, provide for park police officers, secretary of the board, and all necessary employees. Has power to regulate, manage and control, improve, acquire, extend and maintain, open and lay out, parks, parkways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds, within or without the park district. Has power to authorize: o conduct and manage the letting of boats, or other amusement apparatus, o the operation of bath houses, o the purchase and sale of foodstuffs or other merchandise, o the giving of vocal or instrumental concerts or other entertainments, o the management and conduct of such forms of recreation or business as it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes. May sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of surplus property. Can annex territory. Formation Boundaries of Metropolitan Park District: A metropolitan park district may include territory located in portions or in all of one or more cities or counties, or in one or more cities and counties, when created or enlarged. There are two ways to initiate the formation of a park district: by petition and by a resolution of the governing body or bodies within which the district is to be located. (RCW ) City Council Workshop 5

8 Local Government Resolution Method for an MPD: A city or county may initiate district formation by adopting a resolution submitting a proposition for its formation to voters within the proposed district boundaries. If the district includes area within the county or other cities and counties, the legislative body of each city and/or county that includes a portion or all of the area in the district must adopt a resolution submitting the proposition to the voters. However the City Council has determined that an MPD that is identical to the City s current and future boundaries would best serve Snohomish citizens, and the resolution presented for review would propose such a measure for voters on the 2015 Primary Election ballot. Banked Property Tax Option: When the City Council has decided annually in past years to not levy the full amount of property tax allowed by state statutes, the amount of that levy not authorized is banked and potentially becomes available (within limitations described below) to the Council for property tax levies in future years. Banked capacity is the difference between the highest lawful levy that could have been made and actual levy. For 2015, the highest lawful levy would be $2,160, less the 2015 actual levy of $1,146, for a banked capacity of $1,013, However, whether or not the full banked capacity can legally be taken as part of any annual levy is subject to: Levy made by district Statutory Dollar rate limit (3.60) Levy limit (101%) $5.90 Aggregate limit (Senior vs. junior districts) 1% Constitutional limit As a result of these other limitations, for 2015, the portion of banked capacity that may be included in the City levy would be approximately $633,000. CONCLUSION: An MPD or similar level of new revenue would provide a baseline of protection for the public s investment in parks during the worst of times and also create the ability to improve the park system through capital projects during normal economic conditions. MPD funds could only be used for park and trail facilities. The alternate option of utilizing banked property tax capacity has the advantages of no election costs and that it can be directly implemented by the City Council within statutory limits. It appears that the 2014 survey shows support for taxing that would be needed for the additional banked levy amount. However, unlike with a separately established MPD, such revenues would not be segregated from the General Fund unless staff is directed to do so by the Council. Survey results and the input of citizens and community leaders in a variety of forums including from our Citizens Advisory Committee for the 2013 Strategic Plan update as well as during the development of the recently updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan clearly indicate public support for additional funding to enhance parks maintenance and to construct a limited range of new projects. The citizens survey shows that even when told what the taxing impact of an MPD measure would mean for average homeowners, some 60% of respondents said they could support such a measure. The means to accomplish these funding goals for improving the 6 City Council Workshop

9 City s parks system can be directly or indirectly implemented (with a vote of the people) by the Council either through electoral or non-electoral process. STRATEGIC PLAN REFERENCES: INITIATIVE #1: Establish a sustainable model for strengthening and expanding our parks, trails, and public spaces and STRATEGY #1.A: Establish a sustainable funding model to maintain and expand the City s existing system. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council DISCUSS the options for providing a new funding source for parks maintenance and development and DIRECT staff regarding next steps. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Resolution for Voters to Adopt a Metropolitan Park District B. City of Snohomish Telephone Survey C. Funding Scenarios for Parks Maintenance Levels of Service Impact D. Levels of Maintenance Examples with Photos REFERENCE DOCUMENT: Adopted Parks Recreation and Open Space Long Range Plan City Council Workshop 7

10 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF SNOHOMISH CITY COUNCIL Snohomish, Washington RESOLUTION (XXXX) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR A BALLOT PROPOSITION TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY ON AUGUST 4, 2015, TO CREATE A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY TO FUND OR FINANCE PARKS MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City of Snohomish (the City ) is a Code City, located in Snohomish County, Washington, duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Parks, Recreation and Open Space Long-Range Plan ( Parks Plan ) that identifies a number of deficiencies in the City s existing parks system and opportunities for its enhancement; and WHEREAS, Snohomish Parks and Recreation facilities and programs are an essential element to the quality of life, public health, economic development and welfare of Snohomish residents; and WHEREAS, through a scientific opinion survey the citizens of Snohomish have expressed the importance of quality park maintenance and amenities as they are seen to enhance the value and character of the City; and WHEREAS, the City is aware that current funding for the maintenance of its parks is entirely dependent on General Fund sources that are vulnerable to reductions caused by economic downturns such as the recession during which budget amounts for parks maintenance were reduced in order to preserve funding for public safety, streets maintenance and other key services; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that General Fund revenues, which substantially provide funding for the City s Parks, are not sufficient to sustain the full costs of management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of existing park and recreational facilities for full implementation of the Parks Plan; and WHEREAS, Chapter RCW provides authority for formation of a Metropolitan Parks District ( MPD or Park District ) by approval by the voters; and 8 City Council Workshop

11 WHEREAS, RCW (3) provides that an MPD, if formed wholly within the municipal boundaries of a city, may be governed by the governing body of the City, in this instance the elected City council serving in ex-officio capacity as the MPD Board of Commissioners ( Board ); and WHEREAS, if the MPD is approved by the voters and created, the District Board of Park Commissioners would be authorized pursuant to RCW to levy or cause to be levied a general tax on all the property located in said Park District each year not to exceed fifty cents per one thousand dollars of assessed value of the property in such Park District. In addition, the Board of Park Commissioners may levy or cause to be levied a general tax on all property located in said park district each year not to exceed twenty-five cents per one thousand dollars of assessed valuation. Although park districts are authorized to impose two separate regular property tax levies, the levies shall be considered to be a single levy for purposes of the limitation provided for in chapter RCW. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SNOHOMISH AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Election. Pursuant to RCW , the Snohomish City Council hereby calls for submission of a proposition to the qualified electors of the City asking whether the Snohomish Metropolitan Park District shall be created. The Snohomish County Auditor, as ex officio supervisor of elections in Snohomish County, Washington, is hereby requested to call and conduct such special election to be held within the City of Snohomish on such day and to submit to the qualified electors of the City. The County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to certify said proposition in the following form: CITY OF SNOHOMISH SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON PROPOSITION NO. 1 METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT The Snohomish City Council of Snohomish, Washington, adopted Resolution XXXX in order to allow voters to decide whether to create a Snohomish Metropolitan Park District with boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of the City as now or hereafter established and to be governed by the Snohomish City Council as the ex officio Board of Commissioners to support the park system and recreation programs. Should this proposition be approved? City Council of Snohomish as the ex officio Board of the Metropolitan Park District City Council Workshop 9

12 Section 2. Boundaries. The Boundaries of the Snohomish Metropolitan Park District shall encompass the corporate limits of the City of Snohomish, as they currently exist and as they may be modified by future actions. Section 3. Corrections. The City Clerk and City Attorney are authorized to make necessary clerical corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener s/ clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto, and to make corrections or revisions consistent with the requirements of the Snohomish County Prosecutor s office and County Auditor s office which do not change the substantive meaning of this resolution. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or constitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Snohomish and APPROVED by the Mayor this (7 th or 21 st ) day of April, CITY OF SNOHOMISH CITY COUNCIL By Karen Guzak, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM By Torchie Corey, City Clerk By Grant K. Weed, City Attorney 10 City Council Workshop

13 ATTACHMENT B City Council Workshop 11

14 12 City Council Workshop

15 City Council Workshop 13

16 14 City Council Workshop

17 City Council Workshop 15

18 16 City Council Workshop

19 City Council Workshop 17

20 18 City Council Workshop

21 City Council Workshop 19

22 20 City Council Workshop

23 City Council Workshop 21

24 22 City Council Workshop

25 City Council Workshop 23

26 24 City Council Workshop

27 City Council Workshop 25

28 26 City Council Workshop

29 City Council Workshop 27

30 28 City Council Workshop

31 City Council Workshop 29

32 30 City Council Workshop

33 ATTACHMENT C City Council Workshop 31

34 32 City Council Workshop

35 City Council Workshop 33

36 34 City Council Workshop

37 City Council Workshop 35

38 36 City Council Workshop

39 City Council Workshop 37

40 38 City Council Workshop

41 City Council Workshop 39

42 ATTACHMENT D CITY OF SNOHOMISH Founded 1859, Incorporated UNION AVENUE SNOHOMISH, WASHINGTON TEL (360) FAX (360) Levels of Maintenance Examples with Photos Class 3 (Basic MPD LOS) Photo Examples: Pilchuck Park and Claytown Park Improvements: Maintenance levels at the Class 3 Service level (basic MPD) would be considered a good park maintenance program. The addition of 1.5 parks personnel, additional maintenance and operations cost and added capitol project support added to our current maintenance program would allow our parks and park facilities to be maintained on a more consistent schedule. All parks, grounds, landscapes and City entrance areas will be maintained at the basic standards 12 months of the year and the ability to consistently schedule our park maintenance will be the end goal. Over the past 10 years we have added many additional parks properties, structures and programs throughout our park system but at the same time have not increased staffing or maintenance funds to match the need. Pilchuck Park Basketball and Tennis Courts resurfaced 40 City Council Workshop

43 Claytown Park following recent improvements Examples of recently added park property: Stocker property 20 acres (future boat launch), Ludwig Property 10 acres, 1103 Maple.39 acres, Centennial Trail (phase 2), 5.41 acres, Wildlife refuge area 3.76 acres and the Hal Moe pool site, 1 acre. Total: acres of newly acquired public park and public access property over the past 8 to 10 years. Not all of these properties are developed park property but all take some amount of maintenance in order to keep the public safe and to keep the properties maintained at a minimal level. It is important to find a stable revenue stream that will keep up with the parks system staffing and maintenance needs. MPD basic task list: a) Restrooms, trash cans and doggie pot containers would be cleaned and emptied at least once per day and more as needed depending on season and use. b) Parks, grounds, landscapes and City entrance areas would be cut, trimmed and weeded weekly or as often as needed to keep these areas maintained. c) Walking paths cleaned and maintained free of debris, potholes and trip hazards. d) High use Park and Grounds areas would be watered as needed for plant survival and fertilized on an annual schedule considering our Integrated Pest Management Program as our guide. e) Playground and ADA access areas would be inspected monthly. All needed repairs will be completed in a safe and timely manner. f) Parking lots will be swept painted and maintained on a regular schedule. g) Volunteer, Special events, reservation and programs will continue to be developed to ensure program coverage, promote community spirit and economic growth City Council Workshop 41

44 Class 4 (Current LOS Without MPD) Photo Examples: Hill Park restrooms and Pilchuck Park Bleachers Deferred Maintenance: Maintenance levels at the Class 4 Service Level are consistent with our current park maintenance program. Our current staffing levels are prohibiting our ability to stay on a consistent maintenance schedule. Staff currently does a great job juggling its work load between routine maintenance, improvement projects, volunteer programs, reservations and special events. Due to the fact that we can t stay on a consistent schedule the overall condition of our parks, grounds and City entrances suffers all year. We fall behind and can t catch back up. Park maintenance is deferred on a regular basis. Staff has tried to develop a robust volunteer program to help offset some of the deferred maintenance but this also takes up a considerable amount of staff time and effort to maintain. Maintaining a park system in this manor creates a yo-yo affect. Sometimes the parks look good and other times everything looks rough. Constantly playing catch-up with deferred maintenance instead of keeping things consistently maintained. With the addition of the 40+ acres of park property previously mentioned there is no way we will be able to keep up with our current maintenance demands. We will be forced to continue to defer maintenance year after year until we find a way to adequately fund our ever growing park system. Hill Park restrooms current deferred maintenance 42 City Council Workshop

45 Pilchuck Park bleachers current deferred maintenance Current basic task list with deferred maintenance: a) Restrooms will be cleaned once per day only during spring, summer and fall. Restrooms are closed during the winter months. b) Parks, grounds, landscapes and City entrance areas will be cut every 10 days, monthly trimming with little mowing and trimming during the summer months. c) Walking paths cleaned and maintained for safety only. d) High use parks and grounds are maintained in a natural state with grass and broadleaf species mixed. Minimal fertilizing or irrigation will be used. e) Playground and ADA access areas would be maintained for safety only. f) Parking lots will be swept painted and maintained as required for safety reasons only. g) Volunteer, Special events, reservation and recreational programs will be as needed and as time will allow. Recession LOS (no MPD) Photo Examples: Pilchuck Park Closure, Blackman Lake Boat Ramp and Pilchuck Tennis Courts: Maintenance levels at class 5 Recession Service Level: During our recent recession 2008 to 2012, staffing levels fell by 40% during our busy spring and summer months. Regular routine maintenance of parks, grounds and landscape areas was completed only when time allowed. Landscape areas were cut as often as possible, there was minimal maintenance and everything was placed on an emergency schedule. It was only because of the ability to use REET funding to City Council Workshop 43

46 save 1 full time park positions were we able to keep all of our parks open and functioning at minimal safety levels. If REET funding was not available, the service reductions of 1 additional full time park department employee would have brought staffing levels to an all time low of 1.5 FTE with no additional temporary help in the spring and summer months. The recession level maintenance program would have looked something like this: Recession level task list: a) Permanently closing of park restrooms b) No reservation system for shelters or baseball fields c) Reduced mowing schedule and safety related maintenance only d) No volunteer event help e) Greatly reduced special event help f) Probable closing of many, if not all, parks during the worst quarters and year(s) of the recession The potential impact of recession without improved revenues for parks 44 City Council Workshop

47 Blackman Lake Boat Ramp (above) and Pilchuck Park Tennis Courts (below) prior to improvements Closing Note: The City of Snohomish has invested approximately $25 million dollar in property, structures and landscaping within our growing parks system and it is crucial that we find a stable funding source to protect our investment and make the improvements as described within our Parks, Recreation and Open Space Long Range Plan. If we continue to grow our parks system as outlined in our current plan we will need to increase our park operations and maintenance budget incrementally to match the planned improvements. City Council Workshop 45