Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Operations - 01/22/1991 OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES January 22, 1991 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Christi Houser Jon Johnson Paul Mann STAFF PRESENT: Lee Anderson Norm Angelo Robyn Bartelt Tom Brubaker Ed Chow Kevin Kearns Charlie Lindsey Roger Lubovich Tom Vetsch Tony McCarthy Kelli O'Donnell Don Olson Tom Vetsch John Willits Barney Wilson MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Lyle Price The meeting was called to order at 4:50 pm by chairperson Christi Houser. Approval of Vouchers All claims for the period ending January 15, 1991 were approved for payment. Vouchers for 1990 expenses for the period totalled $1,264,788.58. Vouchers for 1991 expenses for the period totalled $1,160,643.06. The new payroll system will list payroll expenses separately from now on. Payroll in the amount of $385,100.58 was approved for payment. Military Leave Policy- Continued Discussion Personnel Director Olson came back to the Operations Committee with the information requested at the January 8, 1991 meeting which included: 1. Update present Military Leave Policy. 2. Research possibility of leave sharing. 3. Research possibility of granting difference in City pay with military pay. The Personnel Department and the City Attorney's office have drafted a Military Leave Policy. It was reviewed at the last meeting of the Internal Personnel Committee and the Internal Budget Committee. The unions were asked for their suggestions on the policy. The Kent Fire Fighters Local 1747's response was received today (Copy Attached). 1 Operations Committee Minutes January 22, 1991 Assistant City Attorney Brubaker reviewed his findings on the legal questions raised during the last meeting. The City ability to pay reservists called for active duty is not directly denied by statute. It does however present a small risk if the person returns and is called for training during the same calendar year. If the City chooses to compensate for active duty, the policy needs to be amended and contract with employees to relinquish training for active duty. The daily pay question for 15 days needs to be clarified by the City. The statute does not specifically state the number of hours in a normal working day. The question of paying the difference between military pay and the normal pay for employees gone on active duty presents some legal problems. Since this was not bargained for in the employer's contract, it would be considered a gift under state law. Under the state constitution, the City is only allowed to make gifts to the poor and indigent so the City would be acting outside its constitutional powers. The State Auditor would not recognize such disbursements and may put the City in the position of exactions or debt collection which the auditor could theoretically take to the Attorney General. Such a policy may also leave the City Councilmembers open to personal liability. City Attorney Lubovich added that this could possibly be negotiated for in normal collective bargaining but no "consideration" by the union was given at this point so it would be considered a gift. The Committee discussed possibilities with the City Attorney who suggested that the number of hours in the 15 day period was more flexible as well as a possible leave sharing policy. Committeemember Johnson asked if individual vacation time from one employee to another could be given. Assistant City Attorney Brubaker stated that more research was needed on that issue. It did raise a possible insurance liability problem as well as bookkeeping strains. There is also the possibility that employees contributing time would be subject to a gift tax. Committeemember Mann expressed his concern that members of bargaining units as well as those that are not members of unions be treated equally. Personnel Director Olson noted that a revision to the City Policy would apply to all employees with the exception of the Fire Fighters Union. Committeemember Mann stated that he would like to give as much as he can within legal dimensions and he did not have a problem with insuring dependents. He would have a problem if leave sharing was done only departmentally. Chairperson Houser concurred with Committeemember Mann. Personnel Director Olson proposed that such a policy should be Citywide. Committeemember Johnson moved that a Leave Sharing Policy Citywide be looked into with the circumstances and compensation mechanics to be worked out. He requested Administration to bring pack a proposed policy. Committee Chairperson Houser asked about the question of 9- or 15-, 24 hour shifts. City Attorney Lubovich noted that other employees should be addressed at same time. Perhaps using language defining a"normal work week". Clarification of policy needs to justify any compensation of training or active duty for more than a 40 hour work week. Committeemember Johnson added to his motion that Administration address issues in provisions of contract in future bargaining sessions. He also requested that they pursue compensating more than existing policy allows. Discussion of negotiations followed. President of Kent Fire Fighters Local 1747, John Willits, addressed the Committee. He expressed concern that the fire fighters called for active duty were running out of time. He also noted that the City will be exposed to some risk. Fire Fighters are constantly exposed to risk and look for acceptable levels of risk. 2 s z 0 Operations Committee Minutes January 22, 1991 Mr. Willits feel that they are asking the City to assume an acceptable level of risk. Union member Kevin Kearns further stated that the wording of the policy does not disallow further consideration of shifts. Compatible cities are giving from 5-24 hr. shifts to 15-24 hr. shifts. He feels there is justification for 9-24 hr. shifts as a middle of the ground proposal. Generic wording could be used to apply to all employees based on their normal work schedule. Mr. Kearns also felt leave sharing should not be fire fighters only but had been informed that it could not be addressed when negotiating because of bookkeeping problems. Fire Chief Angelo requested that direction be given not only for active duty but also reserve duty military leave. A contradiction between the two would be hard to administer and to justify to department employees. Committee Chairperson Houser asked that the Leave Sharing Policy go to full Council,. Committeemember Johnson noted that if the issue waits until the next Operations Committee meeting any action would not be on payroll until March. Sooner action is needed. After further discussion of the number of shifts and hour per shift granted in the 15 day period, the shift trade option was discussed. Mr. Willits stated that shift trading had been done on an individual basis in the past. Since this practice had been suspended, this question needs to be answered immediately as employees are running out of time on payroll. He also felt shift trading was a benefit to the City because of reduced overtime needed to cover employees. When asked by the Committee,Fire Chief Angelo pointed out that this did have the same potential liability because of the extension of benefits. His personal view was that when shift trades were done rank for rank the department loses nothing and provides the same service level to the public. These trades have been handled as an individual responsibility. He did have some concern if it was carried on for longer than a six month period. Committeemember Johnson withdrew his previous motion and made a new motion to permit shift trades not to exceed six months between individuals with similar experience and rank. This would allow time to rectify issues and determine amount of time for 15 work days. During subsequent discussion,Committeemember Mann made a friendly amendment to Committeemember Johnson's motion to include: . . . pending authorization from insurance company and to grant active military leave at 52 hours for three weeks.'City Attorney Lubovich noted that the average work week of an employee could be used to justify 52 hours per week for the fire fighters. The motion was carried with a vote of 3-0 to be put under Other Business. It was also requested that a leave sharing policy be researched. - Committeemember Mann asked for clarification of employees terminated because of call to active duty. Would employees on active duty continue seniority under federal and state law. City Attorney Lubovich affirmed that when they return from active duty their job is protected by law, and the City is obligated to return them to the same or a similar position, fully reinstated with equal pay, seniority and status. Update Golf Financial Status Finance Director McCarthy described the current status of the golf course. He recommended that the Committee needed to be updated to determine the direction needed to be taken and the possibility of rate increases. The Council had authorized a $700,000 line of credit to provide cash for operations. The line of credit was authorized to: establish a merchandising inventory ($167,366); complete the acquisition of 3 r 0 Operations Committee Minutes January 22, 1991 capital assets including some cost overruns associated with facility's development ($220,850); pay golf course debt service ($701,458); and provide for operational expenditures including $64,115 in interdepartmental charges. The line of credit is scheduled to be paid back over the next two years. This does not seem possible with the current revenue picture. In addition, the City has absorbed the sales tax which was raised in King County on November 1, 1990 but the golf rates have not been raised. The Internal Budget Committee recommended the rate increases be enacted as proposed by Parks Director Wilson. In addition, it was recommended by the IBC that a review of expenditures including a staffing analysis be done. After reviewing the preliminary Statement of Revenues and Expenses and the Statement of Revenues,Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital with the Committee,he also recommended the overall review should determine the appropriate level of City subsidy so that amounts can be included in the budget forecasting for the effected funds. Parks Director Wilson recommended that after March 1, 1991 taxes be added to golf fees. He recognized the increase in taxes and has already spoken to the Men's Club. They understand that the golf course was built with todays dollars compared to other cities who have already paid for their golf courses. New golf courses also take more maintenance until established which will decrease over time. Committeemember Mann moved that the golf course be given authorization to raise state and local taxes and have an expense and staffing analysis done. The motion was seconded by Committeemember Johnson who added that the possibility of volunteer help could be looked at for routine duties. GolfComplex Manager Robyn Bartelt informed the Operations Committee of the difficulty of covering the number of hours the facilities are open with one or two full time staff members while controlling the cash now. After further discussion, the motion was voted on and carried with a vote of 3-0. Chairperson Houser directed Administration to engage a firm to do the analysis. City Hall Parking Assistant City Administrator Hansen brought to the Committee's attention the recent complaints of city vehicles parked in the City Hall parking lot. It has requested that all vehicles except police vehicles not park in the City lot. Finance has moved all overnight vehicle parking to the City Shops. This alone adds time to the employees work day who must come to City Hall to receive their work assignments for the day. The meter readers and building maintenance workers need to be in and out all day long to accomplish their work assignments. In addition, the vendors do not have adequate access to make deliveries, etc. During discussion of the parking limitations Assistant City Administrator informed the Committee that the Centennial Center owners were not willing to lease additional parking spaces to the City as they were in the process of adding tenants. Committeemember Mann noted that he was shocked at how narrow the spaces in the garage were and that the City had no ordinance stating minimum widths for parking garages. It was decided that Assistant City Administrator Hansen would bring back alternative parking solutions to the Committee and in the interim Finance would be allowed to use three parking stalls at City Hall. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 4 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: Tom Brubaker . RE: Military Leave Compensation DATE: January 18, 1990 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Does Washington law allow the City to grant leave with pay for "active military duty" if the City agrees with the employees' union to apply, and applies, the statutorily required fifteen day military leave compensation established for "active trgining duty" to an employee's "active military duty?" II. Under the state constitution, can the City pay those employees who have been called to military reserve active duty the difference between their established City wages and their military pay? III. Under RCW 38.46.060, does the fifteen day period of "normal pay" owed to the employee on military leave contemplate an eight- hour workday? IV. Can the City establish a "Military Leave-sharing Pool" where employees could donate earned vacation time to the pool in order to provide additional compensation to City employees now on leave for active duty with the military reserves? I. Certain city employees have been called to active duty in the Middle East from their military reserve units. In the past, when called for military reserve training, the City has paid these employees during the training period, as required by Washington law. RCW 38.40.060. This statute specifically mandates that the employees be paid for up to fifteen days work for their "active training duty" each year. Id. However, in this instance these employees have ,;AP*;called for active duty, not active training duty. As a reed` t,l!w , ! question arises as to whether these employees must or can b:T for their first fifteen days of active duty under the statut��o';. `' reover, if one of these employees were' ft vubsequently called for a Ve training duty during the same year that he or she is on active duty, a question persists whether a valid claim might still be :wade against the City for fifteen days' compensation for his or her active training duty, based on the specific statutory language. This statute specifically provides that public employees who are members of any organized reserve of the United States must receive a military leave of absence for a period not to exceed fifteen days per year in -o-rder to "take part in active training duty. " Id. The statute's language only encompasses training. Consequently, the City must assume that reservists have a statutory right to compensation only for their reserve training. However, even though the statute requires the City to pay compensation for training, it does not necessarily deny the City the ability to choose to pay reservists for active duty time. Should the City choose to contract with the employees or their union to pay active duty compensation in place of active training duty compensation, it only runs a risk that the employee might return from active duty, continue to work for the City, and, within the same one-year period, be called back for training. In that event, even though he or she, through the union, had contracted otherwise, the employee may nevertheless be able to successfully claim a right to compensation for training time, based on the clear statutory language. Because this eventuality would first require an unlikely chain of events before an employee would even have the possibility of considering such a claim, the City should feel fairly comfortable making this choice, once it has assessed the relatively low-level risk involved. , . ZI. If the City decides to pay reservists on active duty the difference between their normal City wages and their reserve pay, it runs the risk of violating the state constitution and, potentially, could deplete its financial reserves. Since the City is not obligated to pay this difference, its doing so would likely constitute a gift to those employees. The state constitution only allows the City to make gifts "for the necessary support of the poor and infirm. . . . " Constitution, Art. VIII, §7. Since these reservists could not likely be categorized as among the "poor and infirm, " the City probably has no constitutional right to provide these funds. If it were to do so, the City would run the risk of breaching the public trust and misusing public funds. Additionally, though the emotional tenor of the present time makes one wish to reach out to support these troops, should this conflict become prolonged,"the expense to the City over time could be extreme. Further, once such a policy has been established, the City could be similarly obligated in the event of otr military conflicts involving the reserves. Moreover, the City and the state have already taken steps to assist those who have joined the reserves. First, as discussed above, they receive fifteen days pay for training, which is given above and beyond any accrued vacation or sick leave pay. Also, they receive full benefits during this time, and their seniority is not prejudiced. Finally, when they return from active duty, even if they have been gone for an extended time period, their job is protected by law, and the City is obligated to return them to the • same or a similar position, fully reinstated with equal pay, seniority and status. Consequently, if it -.should choose to give reservists the difference between their military pay and their normal pay with the City, the City may be violating the rights bestowed upon it by the state constitution. Moreover, if the conflict becomes lengthy, continuing with this plan may become a sizable expense to the City. III. In the past, the City has not clarified what constitutes a "day" under the statute that gives City employees "fifteen days" pay for their reserve training time. Because certain employees typically work ten or more hours in a regular work day, it would be advisable to clarify the length of work time that the City will cover in a working "day" under this statute. The statute requires that the employee receive his or her "normal pay. " RCW 38.40. 110. The Washington courts have addressed the meaning of the word, "days" in another context and has decided that the legislature intended "days" to mean working days and not calendar days. Washington- Federation of State EmRloyges, 54 Wn. App. at 314. In that case, the state personnel board was only compensating employees for their normal pay earned during a fifteen calendar day period, approximately two work weeks plus one working day. The court held that, because the context of the statute dealt with time spent during employment, the use of the word, "days, " could only be interpreted to mean working days. Id. at 311. Although the normal working day of a City employee may typically be more than eight hours (a firefighter, for example, works a twenty-four hour day) , it is likely that a court would conclude that the true intent of the statute was to compensate employees with their normal pay for three work weeks. Again, for example, it is unlikely that a firefighter would normally work fifteen twenty-four hour days in a typical three week period. In the above-mentioned case, the court, essentially, protected the employees when it avoided an abusive or unfair application of this statute when it forced the state personnel board to stop including traditional week-end days to measure the fifteen day period. If an employee were to claim an overly high number of compensatory work hours per day under the language of this statute, it is just as likely that. a court would protect the employer to avoid abusive or unfair application of the statute to extract what would amount to more than fifteen eight hour work days. IV. Last, certain employees have expressed an interest.in creating a military leave sharing pool that would allow City employees to donate a portion of their accrued vacation pay to a pool that would then "pay out" those days to reservists unable to work because they are out on active duty. I have not had an adequate opportunity to research the legality of such a plan. However, these are the issues as I see them. First, the City may again be operating outside its constitutional role if it becomes involved in the management of this kind of "gifting" to employees out on military leave. The City could be acting outside its authority because these reservists, once called to active duty, would, in effect, have become full-time government employees and, concurrently, terminated City employees. As a result, the City could find itself in a position where it is extending vacation time and benefits to former employees after they have terminated their employment relationship with the City. The City could also face real complications regarding insurance, disability, and unemployment benefits. Would the City still be regarded as the employer or simply as the caretaker of a gifting program. In the event of an insurance claim by the employee or his family, it is possible that the employee might successfully claim that the City was liable even though the City's insurer might just a successfully deny coverage under its policy with the City. In that event, the City may find itself as a self- insuror for all costs, including those above the City's current $75, 000 self-insuror cap. CONCLUSION Although Washington law requires the City to provide fifteen days of military leave pay for active training duty in the military reserves, the City is nevertheless not stopped from choosing to contract with employees called to active duty from the reserves to exchange their compensatory reserve training time for compensatory active duty time. Still,-. if such an employee were subsequently called to active training duty during the same calendar year, he or she may still have a statutory right to receive training compensation, even though their contract states otherwise. Second, if the City were to provide compensation to employees called to active duty from the reserves in an amount equal to the difference between their military pay and their normal City wages, the City would be making a gift to those employees, which would be outside the City's constitutional authority. Third, the fifteen day period provided for in the military leave statute most likely is intended to contemplate an employee's normal wages earned during three work weeks. Last, a leave sharing program for employees called to active duty from the military reserves may provide the City with a possible solution to provide additional assistance to these employee/reservists. However, additional research will,bs required in order to determine potential complications With the constitutional "gifting" issue and with certain insurance liability concerns. �xtt Yz� #erg • xx x .A 74 7 g4 P.O. BOX 563 KENT,WASHINGTON 98031 John Willits ' ---' RESIDENT opc�u+IrFo -a Mike Moore SECRETARY 28 Im _� - 0 IV c c BAN 2 2 199 PERSONNEL DEPT DATE: January 18, 1991 TO: Don Olson, Personnel Director CC: Kent City Council Members Ed Chow, City Administrator Mike Painter, Kent Police Union President Tammy McQueeney, Finance Employee's Representative FROM: John Willits, President 9VI SUBJECT: Local 1747's Position on Military Leave and Leave Share; Policies Today at about 1400 hours, I read for the first time your "E-mail" message of 1115J91 regarding the City's actions on Military Leave and Leave Sharing policies. Since this was after the meetings yqu mentioned, I was unable to be present, or to have Local 1747 representatives accept your invitation to attend the IPC meeting where these issues were discussed. We do however have comment on these issues that I will summarize here. Military Leave Policy As a matter of record, the City brought the issue of clarifying the City's Military Leave Policy to the table during the last collective bargaining negotiations with Local'1747. At that time, the issue being debated was the clarification of what "15 work days" meant in the world of the 24- hour shift worked by our firefighters. The City was attempting to reconcile it's policy with State statute so that 15 "work" days was clear for 24-Hour shift firefighters. AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS • WASHINGTON STATE COUNCIL OF FIRE FIf 3HTE14Rr If. ' F d During those negotiations, the City took the position that the intent of the Ito was to grant 120 hours (15 Days X 8 Hours/Day) of leave for military duty. You asserted the position, which was agreed to by the Union, that it was not the intent of the statute to grant 15 of our 24- hour shifts (360 hours). The Union attempted to explain to the City that 5 of our 24-hour shifts (120 Hours _ 24 Hours/Shift) was not an adequate or equitable leave, given our work schedule. We took the position that nine (9) 24-Hour shifts was a more appropriate figure: This position was supported by two factors: The first factor is the established leave accrual relationship between "Day" shift and 24- hour shift employees established in Section 11.1 of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement. This Section shows that a full 8-hour work period (Day shift) of leave has as its 24-Hour Shift equivalent 14 hours of leave. Fourteen (14) hours of leave for a 24- hour shift employee represent 58.33% of the full 24 hour work period. Applying this relationship to the issue of military leave days, the 24-hour Shift equivalent for fifteen (15) 8-hour "working days" would be nine (9) shifts (58.33% of 15 = 8.75). As further justification, due to the Kent Fire Department work schedule, a minimum of six (6) 24-hour shifts off would be needed for an individual to fulfill the standard two week annual military commitment. In addition to this requirement, '24-hour shift employees will also, on average, be on duty for the Fire Department on either the Saturday or Sunday of 2/3's the weekends each year. This means that, on average, there will be a chance that on eight occasions during any year (2/3's of the months) an individual would need to take leave to fulfill their monthly weekend military obligation. The Union's request of nine (9) shifts off is far less than the full potential of fourteen (14) 24-hour Shifts off(6 plus 8). The Union was willing to accept that beyond the nine (9) shifts, an individual would need to take personal leave time or arrange Shift Trades to satisfy their military commitment. This issue was never bargained to conclusion. In fact, this issue remained as an "unresolved" issue when the City.and Local 1747 entered impasse mediation with a represtative of the Public Employees Relation Commission (PERC). At our second mediation session, the City "withdrew" the issue from the table and advised that City Policy would be revised at some time in the future. The debate over how many shifts off was not resolved. Subsea p,t to this, the City Administrator issued a revised policy on Military Leave of Absence(Policy Plumber 3.7.1). While this policy was restated to align with the State statute, it did not address the�24-,Hour Shift situation. It is still the position of IAFF Local 1747 that 24-Hour Shift employees be� up to nine (9) paid shifts off for Military Leave and that 8-hour (Day.Shift) employees J ted fifteen (15) working days. Leave Sharing Policy The topic of Leave Sharing was proposed by Local 1747 during our last collective bargaining. The issue was proposed as a "concept" that the Union was attempting to see implemented for all City employees. During these negotiations, City Administration advised us that the concept was "just plain impracticable" and "would create an administrative nightmare". From the outset of our bargaining, the Union recognized and agreed to the City's desire to minimize implementing work or compensation provisions that affected only a single bargaining unit.- Since the City was not prepared to adopt a Leave Sharing Policy for all City Employees, we withdrew the issue and asked that it be given consideration at a future time. Local 1747 feels that a Leave Sharing Policy in the City of Kent provides an excellent means for the City and it's employees to unite together to assist our fellow workers in a time of need. Here is a brief list of the "concepts" we feel should be embodied in such a policy. Leave Sharing should be available to any employee who, for any medical or family emergency or extraordinary circumstance, has exhausted their Annual Leave and Sick Leave accruals. This would include personal illnesses, illness in the immediate family as defined in our Bereavement Leave policies, and extraordinary circumstances such as extended active military duty. Employees from throughout the City could contribute, on an hour-for-hour basis, accrued leave from their.Annual Leave total to any named individual, regardless of the pay-grade or employing Department of the contributor or the recipient. Employees would also be able to contribute to a Leave Share "pool" to be drawn on by any employee who encounters qualifying circumstances. Employees who draw Leave Sharing benefits will continue to receive all other benefits as if they were on peasonally accrued leave time (medical benefits,*retirement, etc.) and the contributing employees will experience no loss of benefit other than a reduction in their accrued Annual Leave balance. There would be no limit on the amount of Annual Leave an employee could contribute. Employees could "draw" Leave Share benefits for a period of up to one year, • t , In closing I would like to say that I am offended and saddened by your closing semArks in your 01/15/91 E-mail message wherein you state "...it is not the intent of the city, to invite any delegates from any of the Unions representing city employees to participate in a committee designed to revise City policies. City policy(s) will be developed solely by pity management staff." Local 1747 maintains the position that we can work to mutually agreeable solutions to these issues and other questions of this nature. Local 1747 has always been willing to weet and confer on any issues that affect City/Labor relations. It has been our experience over tho years that this approach allows a more timely resolution of differences in opinion and results in decisions and policies that more accurately reflect the positions of all involved parties. We hope that all involved parties will now and in the future face these issues in a cooperative atmosphere that has proven effective for many years now. MCCARTHY,TONY / KENT70/F& HPDesk print. ----------------------------------------- Subject: GOLF COMPLEX PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL STATUS Creator: Tony MCCARTHY / KENT70/FN Dated: 01/18/91 at 1521. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1990, THE GOLF COMPLEX HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED A $700, 000 LINE Off' CREDIT TO PROVIDE CASH FOR OPERATIONS. THE LINE OF CREDIT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO ESTABLISH A MERCHANDISING INVENTORY ($167,366) , -COMPLETE THE ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS INCLUDING SOME COST OVERRUNS ASSOCIATED WITH FACILITY'S DEVELOPMENT ($220,850) , PAY GOLF COURSE DEBT SERVICE ($701,458) , AND PROVIDE FOR OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES INCLUDING $64,115 IN INTERDEPARTMENTAL CHARGES. CURRENT PLANS ARE FOR THE LINE OF CREDIT TO BE ELIMINATED WITHIN TWO YEARS. THIS WILL NOT BE EASY AND WILL REQUIRE SOME INNOVATIVE OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS. TO IMPROVE THE FINANCIAL PICTURE, BOTH THE EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE PICTURE MUST BE ADDRESSED: 1) COST FOR THE COURSE CONTINUES TO RISE DUE TO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS AND INFLATION COST INCREASES. TO AVOID LOOSING MORE GROUND, GOLF RATES TIED TO INFLATION MUST BE CONSIDERED. 2) CURRENT GOLF RATES INCLUDE THE AMOUNT FOR SALES TAX, APPROXIMATELY $175, 000 PER YEAR. THE SALES TAX RATE WAS RAISED IN KING COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 1, 1990 BUT THE GOLF RATES HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED. THIS ERODES A REVENUE BASE THAT ALREADY CAN'T MEET ALL THE EXPENDITURE COMMITTMENTS. 3) GOLF RATES ARE SENSITIVE TO PUBLIC PERCEPTION. IN ONE :SENSE GOLFERS SHOULD NOT BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC BUT SETTING THE RATES TOO HIGH•MAY DECREASE PLAY AND NOT GENERATE THE REVENUE ,NEEDED. THEREFORE THE LINE ,OF CREDIT CAN NOT BE ENTIRELY PAID OFF WITH REVENUE INCREASES ALONE. IN ORDER TO INSURE FINANCIAL STABILITY AT THE GOLF COMPLEX AND SATISFY THE REVENUE BONDHOLDERS, THE IBC RECOMMENDS BOTH REVENUE INCREASES AND A REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES. THE REVIEW OF EXPENDITURES SHOULD INCLUDE A STAFFING ANALYSIS. THE OVERALL REVIEW SHOULD DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CITY SUBSIDY SO THAT AMOUNTS CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET FORECASTING FOR THE EFFECTED FUNDS. City of Kent FILENAME: GOFMORPT Golf Complex 18-Jan-91 Statement of Revenues and Expenses For the 12 Months Ended 12/31/90 (PRELIMINARY) Driving Range Golf Golf Mini-Putt Admin Maint Riverbend Par Three Pro Shop Total REVENUE Green Fees $ $ $ 886,944 $ 205,704 $ $1,092,648 Driving Range Fees 408,974 408,974 Miscellaneous Revenue Mini-putt Fees 43,968 43,968 Golf lessons 71,043 71,043 Sale of Merchandise 43,948 10,975 94,231 149,154 Sale of Food 151,887 29,926 11,474 193,287 Rentals and Miscellaneous 83,855 15,405 19,145 118,405 Operating revenue 0 0 1,166,634 262,010 648,835 2,077,479 EXPENSES Salaries 82,239 235,280 172,733 34,995 97,868 623,115 Benefits 17,587 60,920 33,979 2,913 17,940 133,339 Supplies: Items purchased for resale(1) 1,089 593372 18,814 138,707 217,982 Other 7,766 46,459 35,177 8,325 95,570 193,297 Services and Charges City Allocations, 64,115 64,115 Golf Administration Allocation (205,201) 82,082 200519 102,600 0 Golf Maintenance.Allocation (450,487) 300,316 45,049 105,122 0 Other 32,405 107,828 106,057 130367 86,473 346,130 Depreciation 176,549 4,253 26,729 207,531 Operating expense 0 0 966,265 148,235 671,009 1,785,509 Operating income $ 0 $ 0 $ 200,369 $ 113,775 $ (22,174)$ 291,970 (1) Overhead Admin charges were for golf publications which are distributed on an as needed basis to retail areas. Citi of Kent 5�latemen of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Working Capital qq 1990 1989 1990 1990 990 Andersen 1991 REVENUE: Actual Budget Prelim (Act) Full ost Forecast Budget C arges For Seryices: Green Fees-9 Hole 87,198 221100,0000 gg205,97044 gg205,7 2p8,081 16,200 1300,000 reen ees-Riverbend64,135 416;000 486'974 48© ' 3' 1'510;000sceJaneous Revenue 293:284 568:447 5775:857 57 397 1,032,711 Operating Revenue 1,406,600 2,106,647 2,077,479 2,077,479 1,554,595 2,954,711 EXppEN$ES: Salarles 3816,2228 62 ,000 623,115 623,1 5 320,002 621,288 5enefies (1) 229'533 15 '138 131 339 133,3 156�547 146,928 u pp 77, 22,8g688 411 22279 441p1,2 200 489,5148 depreciation Charges 239;135 165;070 207;531 207 '62 H7,697 265:070 Operating Expenses 993,760 1,902,848 1,785,509 1,785,509 968,776 1,963,448 Operating Income 412,840 203,799 291,970 2919970 585,819 991,263 NONOPERATNG REVENUE & (EXPENSES): Interest income - , 44,067 4 ,309 43,563 4 66 0 42,362 they Non-Operating Income 3,091 , 00 2,93 , 33 0 3,000 AIntergst �xpensfe ( 67, 30) (q2 ,37I) (4J6,458) ( �7, J,) (418,237) (452,823) mortization o Interest 11,388 1 8 ) ( 1,388 0 11,388 Total Nonop. Rev.& Exp. (231,760) (393,350) (391,347) (663,981) (418,237) (418,849) Net Income (Loss) 181,080 (189,551) (99,377) (372,011) 167,582 572,414 OT ER FINANCIAL SOURCES (USES) Ad back-pepre�iatjon 39,135 26 ,pp70 2p7,531 2p7, 197,697 265, 7 -Amortization 11,388 1 ,388 11,388 11, 0 11, 8$$ ppr ncjpa ggg' Rev. Bond (135,000) (13 ,000) (135:00 ) (135, 0 (135,008) (145,000) Prnclpa 86'G.O. Dent 0 0 8 75 0 . 0 0 8 'G 0. Debt 0 0 pp 195: 0 0 jrra9C$1qPar,85�G.6. Debt 140,000 14420,gg000 114400,008 8 , (14© 000 (140 000 Increastign Inventoryl Assets f342,488I 167;366j €Jjq:852 �2jq.jjn (14;7003 (20;000� Total Other Sources (Uses) (566,965) (386,758) (444,297) (474,897Y (92,003) (28,542) Increase (Decrease) In Cash (385,885) (576,309) (543,674) (846,908) 75,579 543,872 Line of Credit from General Fund 700,000 700,000 700,000 0 0 Beginning Working Capital717,859 509,284 331,974 331,974 16,248 En escrvoZ DeettSIervice 382,811 560,I20 560,120 5 i 560,120 preserved (50:837) 72, 55 (71,820) (3i ,; Total 331,974 632,975 488,300 1$ E ' 560,120 (1) Excludes Supplies for Resale in year end inventory for 1990 of $167,: 6. RIVERBEND GOLF COMPLEX CURRENT AND PROPOSED FEES - 1991 INCLUDING SALES TAX CURRENT PROPOSED INCREASED REVENUE ( PAR 3 COURSE GREEN FEES Weekday First 9 holes 4.00 5. 00 S cond 9 holes 3 . 00 4 . 00 Seniors Over 62 and Students Under 16 First 9 holes 3 . 00 4 . 00 19, 500. 00 Second 9 holes 2. 00 3 . 00 Weekend and Holiday First 9 holes 5. 00 6. 00 Second 9 holes 4.00 5. 00 CLUB RENTAL 3 .00 5. 00 5,229. 00 BAG RENTAL , 1. 00 3 . 00 42 .00 PULL CARTS 1. 00 2 . 00 2, 943.00 TOTAL $ 27, 714. 00 DRIVING RANGE BUCKET, OF BALLS 3 .50 4 . 00 60, 936. 00 CLUB RENTAL 1.00 2 .00 5, 016. 00 MINIATURE GOLF -Adults 2.50 3 . 00 Children- under 12 1.50 2. 00 7, 544 . 00 Seniors over 65 1.50 2 .00 TOTAL $ 73,496.00 GRAND TOTAL $196,675.00