HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Regular Minutes - 05/17/2022 Approved
City Council Workshop
• Workshop Regular Meeting
KENT Minutes
WAS M IN G 7 0 N
May 17, 2022
Date: May 17, 2022
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Place: Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER
Councilmember Michaud called the meeting to order.
Attendee Name _ Title Status Arrived
Bill Boyce Council President Excused
Brenda Fincher Councilmember Present
Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present
Marli Larimer Councilmember Present
Zandria Michaud Councilmember Present
Toni Troutner Councilmember Present
Les Thomas Councilmember Present
Dana Ralph Mayor Present
II. PRESENTATIONS
1 2022-2027 Parks and Open Space Plan Terry Jungman 45 MIN.
- Final Draft
Parks, Planning and Development Manager, Terry Jungman presented the
Council with the Kent Parks and Open Space Plan 2022.
Jungman advised this is the final presentation on Parks and Open Space Plan
after over a year of work on this plan. Jungman expressed appreciation of
the City's consultants, staff and advised this plan is a reflection of what the
City heard from the community. Jungman advised the Kent School District
supports this plan.
Jungman reviewed the project process that included an overall timeline and
distinct phases. There was lots of information collection, engagement and
collected data statistics behind the engagement. The City now has over
3,000 touch points with the community.
The City did Geospatial mapping and has a full inventory of assets in GIS.
The City is currently in the Reporting and Final Engagement phase of the Plan
that covers where we are going and how we get there.
Jungman talked about the details of studying the system, including
benchmarking using the 2021 National Agency Performance Review that
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular May 17, 2022
Meeting Kent, Washington
Minutes
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
represents a broader set of data that was not used during the creation of the
2016 plan.
Jungman talked about the traditional level of service in comparison to the
performance-based levels of service. The City needs to look at both
traditional and performance based levels of service to develop a plan that
covers reinvestment, maintenance, development and acquisition.
Jungman talked about the geospatial mapping and layers of information to
inform strategic projects and potential areas of acquisition.
The Nature Score for amenity top priority investments was reviewed.
Next Steps:
Secure funding for Natural Resource Management
Update scoring and tie to geospatial mapping
The Athletic Capacity Study data was reviewed and Jungman advised the City
needs to focus investment in horizonal field space and also talked about how
to solve the problem of athletic field capacity.
Strategic moves could include:
Targeted potential Kent School District partnerships
Conversions from natural grass to synthetic turf
Smaller fields for youth sports
One use type - overlays
Upgrade lighting
Opportunistic land acquisitions
The goals of strategizing projects include:
Transparency and Communication
Physical access for all
Diversity of high-quality amenity
System resiliency
Outcomes include: access, programming, natural resources, athletics,
operations and maintenance, equity, strategic amenities, trails and
partnerships
Jungman talked about project priorities for near, mid and long-term projects
for the West Hill, Downtown Region, Green River Region, East Hill South
Region and East Hill North Region.
Jungman covered funding:
Capital reinvestment and operating and budget that meets need and demand
Operating budget that fails to meet need and demand
Capital reinvestment that fails to meet needs and demand
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 2 of 4
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular May 17, 2022
Meeting Kent, Washington
Minutes
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Jungman detailed the Capital funding need per year to maintain the existing
system, to implement new capital projects, the current funding and total
needed to implement all projects in the 2022 Parks and Open Space Plan (an
additional $4M per year).
Jungman detailed the operating and maintenance funding needed per year
for proposed strategic projects - current and to implement new capital
projects (an increase of $300k every other year).
Jungman advised that one option to fill the City's current operating and
maintenance and capital funding is for a voter-approved levy or voter-
approved Park District.
Jungman covered the next steps that will include:
Finalizing a Story map
Acquiring asset management software
Additional funding for operating and capital budgets
Nature score methodology
Goals and polices update
Hire full-time GIS position
Kent School District partnership
Parks strategic framework
CPRA accreditation
Michaud expressed appreciation of the Kent School District for their support
and for the entire Parks Department for their work on this plan.
2 Budget Discussion Paula Painter 45 MIN.
Finance Director, Paula Painter opened the budget presentation by talking
about factors impacting the 2023-2024 Biennial Budget.
Painter talked about the unexpected increasing inflation rates that are
hovering around 8%. The CPI is tied to salaries and benefits and employee
contracts. Personnel Costs are uncertain due to upcoming labor negotiations
and a non-represented salary.
Painter covered major general fund revenues. Twenty-five percent of the
General Fund is property tax which capped at 1% growth with new
construction.
Constraints include growth in property tax compared to growth in
expenditures.
Painter reviewed sales tax numbers and compared 2019-Feb, 2022.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 3 of 4
City Council Workshop Workshop Regular May 17, 2022
Meeting Kent, Washington
Minutes
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
The General Fund forecast was reviewed that did not include projections for
salaries and benefits. Ending in 2021 the City had a 44M fund balance.
Other factors that will affect the 2023-2024 budget include:
Insurance funds - rapid increases in expenditures
Fleet allocation
Other internal fund allocations
Internal cost allocation
During the Council's retreat, the following direction was provided:
Community engagement budget roadshows
Preserve and protect core services that the City must provide
No new initiatives or staff
No new taxes or unplanned increases to taxes
Use of some fund balance to preserve programs and services
Painter reviewed current and proposed splits of revenue and provided
forecasts if the revenues were shifted:
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Utility tax - Internal
B&O Tax
REET
Pros:
The majority of the revenue sources in the General Fund will be more aligned
with inflation
Still gives us a consistent revenue stream to maintain capital funding
Revenues will remain constant in times of recession - property taxes are a
source of stability
Slows the growth of the capital program.
Painter indicated code amendments to taxes will need to be made to ensure
council's intent for revenues are still being met.
Painter reviewed the 2023-2024 timeline for a status quo budget that will
include tapping into the fund balance.
Meeting ended at 6:05 p.m.
Ki4�1,ey A. Komcto-
City Clerk
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 4 of 4
KENT PARKS & OPEN SPACE PLAN 2022
PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL WORKSHOP
05/ 17/ 2022
r
,e77
r
�l ro I I n
A0.0
U
IL
G
#4#
PROJECT PROCESS
INFORMATION COLLECTION REPORTING 1
Themes & Vision 1
ENGAGEMENT 1
Stakeholder Strategic Project List 1
1
Interviews Operations & 1
It DATA Maintenance Suggestions 1
Statistically Valid CRUNCHING Funding Sources
SurveyQJ
j Athletic Capacity Survey
Public Survey & Q
Pop-up Events Current & Potential ENGAGEMENT
Recreational Value 1
Assest Life Cycle Confirm Findings with the 1
Assessment Public 1
1
Geospatial Mapping 1
1
1
PROJECT PROCESS
STUDYING THE SYSTEM :
y ..
BENCHMARKING
LEVEL OF SERVICE: ,
RECREATION VALUE VS TRADITIONAL
GEOSPATIAL MAPPING -
NATURE SCORE .
ATHLETIC CAPACITY STUDY
fi
STRATEGIC PROJECTS
FUNDING AND O&M
NEXT STEPS
West Fenwick Park
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : BENCHMARKING
City of Kent Metric NRPA (2021 ) Recommendations for Kent
7.81 Acres/ 1000 Residents Acres of Park Lurid 15,9 Acres/ 1000 Residents
0.4 Miles/ 1000 Residents Trail MITES 08 Miles/ 1000 Residents
�- Soccer Fields -----�
3 Fields (1 Field/45,900 Residents) 7 Fields(1 Field / 20,000 Residents)
��11hillm Baseball Fields
2 Fields (1 Field/68,850 Residents) 4 Fields(1 Field / 38,869 Residents)
----- Softball Fields ---
6 Fields (1 Field 22,950 Residents) 5 Fields (1 Field/28,081 Residents]
0 Fields Cricket Field 1 Field (1 Field/ 10,936 Residents)
Kent's population is around 137,000 which matches the
NRPA's 2021 National Agency Performance Review upper
quartile population of cities (populations of 100,000-250,000).
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : BENCHMARKING
City of Kent Metric NRPA (2021 ) Recommendations for Kent
Mr
Acres of Park Land
7.81 Acres/ 1000 Residents 15.9 Acres/ 1000 Residents
�
0.4 Miles/ 1000 Residents Trail Wes 08 Miles/ 1000 Residents
�- Soccer Fields -----�
3 Fields (1 Field/45,900 Residents) 7 Fields 0 Field 20,000 Residents)
��I&Om Baseball Fields
2 Fields (1 Field/68,850 Residents) 4 Fields(1 Field / 38,869 Residents)
----- Softball Fields ---
6 Fields (1 Field 22,950 Residents) 5 Fields (1 Field/?8,081 Residents]
0 Fields Cricket Field 1 Field (1 Field/ 10,936 Residents)
Kent's population is around 137,000 which matches the
NRPA's 2021 National Agency Performance Review upper
quartile population of cities (populations of 100,000-250,000).
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : LEVEL OF SERVICE
TYPE OF • DEFINITION
reinvest
TRADITIONAL _ the #ofACRE5maintain
LOS divided by the develop
POPULATION acquire
Q This is synonymous
Z with condition. reinvest
"' ` the QUALITY
PERFORMANCE = s �_ AKA of the This is inherently tied _ maintain
W Q a to the size of a park.
BASED L05 u a # OF AMENITIES Examples of amenities: develop
�, a grass Feld,
a q _
� playground equipment,
divided by the POPULATION apa�edpath.
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : LEVEL OF '
LOS Citywide
over Time 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
Residential 122,900 136,766 144,658 152,935 161 ,101
Population
RV * * 259.50 281 .28 306.28 331 .28 356.28
Acres 1 ,095.04 1 ,072.76 1 ,072.76 1 ,072.76 1 ,072.76
Traditional LO5: 8.91 7.84 7.42 7.01 6.66
acres per 1,000
Resiclents
Performance- 1 .62 2.06 2.12 2.17 2.21
Based L05:
RV per 7,000
Residents
Assumes no property acquisition or sales
** Assumes steady systern re nvestment leading to RV increase of 25 points every 5 years
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : LEVEL OF SERVICE
West Fenwick Park 2016 • • 2022 RV Clark • - Park 2016 • • 2022 '
2016 RV
2.3
Olb RV 2022 CRV
7.40 3.40
2022 CRV 2022 PRV
17.55 26.00
2022 PRV
22.50
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : LEVEL OF SERVICE
LOS by City Region Citywide By Region
East Hiil West Hill East Hill Down- Green
North SCA town River
Traditional LOS: 7.84 2.52 11 .61 6.13 16.58 16.35
Acres per 1,000
Current Performance-Based LOS: 2.06 0.60 1.71 1 .99 4.23 7.98
CRV per 1,000
Potential Performance-Based LOS: 4.91 2.16 4.68 3.92 11.02 13.42
PRV per 1,000
Acres of Parkland 10072.76 99.90 252.41 274.90 370.65 74.90
CRV 281.28 23.58 37.15 89.40 94.58 36.58
PRV 671 .25 85.50 101.75 176.00 246.50 61.50
Residential Population 136,766 39,604 211737 44,841 221359 4FS82
Note that city region populations depicted in this chart are roughly based on Census Tract data and
do not total to the citywide population number.
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : GEOSPATIAL MAPPING
Layers of Information
to inform Strategic • -
Population Transit
Service
...
G
d
Current RecreationalValue
Racial ij
I •
ity
Social Equity
' � 1 ■ P
Park Need
� a
RecreationalPotential
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : GEOSPATIAL MAPPING
... and potential areas of Acquisition - ------- --.
r
x 161
fff � y
l
East Hill North
i
99
f
L�
West Hit!
1 mile -.r------- /
N L East Hill South
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : NATURE SCORE
Amenity Top Priority Investments:
0 . O 100 150 200
o RESTROOMS
N t
m = NATURE TRAILS
= FARMER'S MARKET
EVENTS
�■�►PAVED WALKING&
N s BIKINGTRAILS
Key:
NEW—
o, — NATURAL AREAS/HABIT
` WILDLIFE HABITAT C14
PIZ All Respondents
o BOTANICAL
o GARDENS
Overall priority Score
out of 200
iiiiiiiii PARK SHELTERS&
o &GATHERING AREAS Respondents' Identified Race:
Imo► OFF-LEASH Black
of DOG AREA
Latino or Hispanic
AMENITIES FOR ALL Asian
AGES&ABILITIES White
Other
`r' ACCESS TO WATER
O a {RIVERS&LAKES)
OD L REGIONAL TRAILS&
CONNECTIONS
R PLAYGROUNDS
7.1
These parks have the highest natural resource and habitat potential with r __
large contiguous natural areas. These parks tend to include ponds, lakes,
streams, or rivers, have the potential for salmon or bird habitat, and be
o� contiguous to green corridors. Some city properties in Tier 1 include Clark _ ; : ; :• .` a;
~ Lake Park, Lake Fenwick Park, Mill Creek Canyon, and the GRNRA.
These parks have smaller natural areas, tend to have some ?.ar;�•`.�'.''y. "r .
m potential for habitat, and tend to connect to green cvrridars_
.:
These parks have some to little natural areas and lower potential for habitat. These parks
Z tend to not be contiguous to green corridors. These sites still have value and maintenance
needs for our Urban Forest. Kent Parks is finalizing a Parks Urban Forest Management ;
Plan to factor this into workload planning for the proposed Natural Resource group.
Next Steps-
7 _
1. Secure funding for Natural Resource Management
2. Update scoring and tie to geospatial mapping
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : ATHLETIC CAPACITY STUDY �.M
City of Kent Metric NRPA (2021 ) Recommendations for Kent
7.81 Acres/ 1000 Residents Acres of Park Lurid 15,9 Acres/ 1000 Residents
0.4 Miles/ 1000 Residents Trail MISS 08 Miles/ 1000 Residents
�- Soccer Fields -----�
3 Fields (1 Field/45,900 Residents) 7 Fields(1 Field / 20,000 Residents)
��11hillm Baseball Fields
2 Fields (1 Field/68,850 Residents) 4 Fields(1 Field / 38,869 Residents)
----- Softball Fields ---
6 Fields (1 Field 22,950 Residents) 5 Fields (1 Field/28,081 Residents]
0 Fields Cricket Field 1 Field (1 Field/ 10,936 Residents)
Kent's population is around 137,000 which matches the
NRPA's 2021 National Agency Performance Review upper
quartile population of cities (populations of 100,000-250,000).
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : ATHLETIC CAPACITY STUDY �.M 0
City of Kent Metric NRPA (2021 ) Recommendations for Kent
7.81 Acres/ 1000 Residents Acres of Park Lard 15,9 Acres/ 1000 Residents
0.4 Miles/ 1000 Residents Trail Miles ;FiId,
s/ 1000 Residents
�- Soccer Fields -----i `
' 3 Fields (1 Field/45,900 Residents) (1 Field / 20,000 Residents) '
��Ilhilllm Baseball Fields
1 2 Fields (1 Field/68,850 Residents) 4 Fields(1 Field / 38,869 Residents)
' ----- Softball Fields --- '
6 Fields (1 Field/22,950 Residents) 5 Fields (1 Field/28,081 Residents)
� � � � � � fif•
0 Fields CriC�et Field 1 Field [1 Field/ 10,936 Residents)
Kent's population is around 137,000 which matches the
NRPA's 2021 National Agency Performance Review upper
quartile population of cities (populations of 100,000-250,000).
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : ATHLETIC CAPACITY STUDY
City of Kent Metric NRPA (2021 ) Recommendations for Kent
3 Fields 0 Field/45,900 Residents) 7 Fields I1 Field f 20,000 Residents)
lll=� Adult Socceroqjllr --�
538 Reservations
2 Fields (1 Field/68,850 Residents) 4 Fields 1 Field/ 38,889 Residents)
�
6k 215 Reservations Adult Baseball
6 Fields (1 Field/ 22,950 Residents) 5 Fields (1 Field/28,081 Residents)
i---� � Adult Softball ---i
i 521 Reservations
l
City of Kent Number of Reservations per Year per Field
averaged 2015-2019 Metric
3 fields, all synthetic turf The most reservations and
179 Reservafor[s per Field per Adult Soccer All overlays with other sport types the least number of fields
147 Reservations per Field per Year Baseball2 fields, 1 synthetic turf, 1 natural turf Fields 1 overlaid with other sport types
86 Reservations per Field per Year Adult Softball 6 fields, all natural turf
No overlays with other sport types
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : ATHLETIC CAPACITY STUDY
Strategic Moves:
Natural grass ==� Synthetic turf
• extends daily and year-round useI
• decreases O&M burden — 'I r-r�-
Smaller fields Youthsports f 9
• frees up larger fields for full-size use
One use type Overlays
• multiple uses on one field to allows shifts in trends
Upgrade lighting
• extends evening use
• decreases O&M burden ��
fifl j
11
School partnerships
- , -r �
• O&M efficiency
• shared development costs
• largely opposite use hours adds fields to system
• focus on locations that accommodate tournament use T
Opportunistic Land Acquisition v Kent Parks
• adds fields to system 9 Targeted potential KSD partnerships
STUDYING THE SYSTEM : ATHLETIC CAPACITY STUDY
Strategic Moves:
Natural grass Synthetic turf
• Hogan Park fields #2 — 5I
• KMP, dependent on school partnerships
• Service Club dependent on long term trends
-
. - I
One use type mmar Overlays -
• Hogan . .Ark fields #217J�_
• Uplands
• any new synthetic turf facility
Upgrade lighting t
• Hogan Tarr ' !
sr
• KMP tennis courts A�
lu fEl•xrsa s
51B r
• Service Club
yffields �'� ���� :
• Wilson Pla s �`�� � � — �' � '���
s,a
School partnerships
• Meridian Middle School ` - -
�4 i J
• Kentridge High SchoolIL
`Y
• Kent-Meridian High School
S -
Opportunistic Land Acquisition v
• West Hill Sports Facility Kent Parks
9 Targeted potential KSD partnerships
STRATEGIC PROJECTS
TRANSPARENCY PHYSICAL ACCESS
• COMMUNICATIONALL A& Q UALITYAM E N ITY •
Natural � Operations &
Access Programming � Athletics
Q Resources 1� Maintenance
•
Strategic re
• Equity �J� iti Am n Trails r� Partnerships
Amenities ��
STRATEGIC PROJECTS _AA
Project Prioritization:
Project Outcomes + Complexity/Cost near, mid, long term
Project Outcomes:
Y
Access Programming Natural �(� Athletics Operations &
Q Resources v Maintenance
• 1 1 1-2 1 1-3 '
Strategic
eon Equity G Trails Partnerships
G Amenities ��.
1-3 1-3 ... 1-2 1
Project Priority:
near-term = projects in progress or top projects for next 6 year budget cycle
mid-term = projects not currently funded but good candidates future funding
long-term = projects not currently funded and have significant barriers to implementation (ex. O&M funding, acquisition, etc)
*Mid- and long-term projects may become more feasible as appropriate funding becomes available
and partnerships progress or may have aspects that can be accomplished in the near term.
**All project priorities are subject to change based on competing priorities.
oc
ec
STRATEGIC PROJECTS Jr
. .e� ey Quo •�1
P� .:ICA `' �
fie ot` ,�•q f
NG `y 'lam e�y `L o - -
eyy -'NA No io e-'s �5 ,caio ego wo •`e
Priority Project Name �'`�o Qte� Pam` Ito, �o OQ Qot Qtc
c Linda Heights Park 0 0 ! $$
c �' Salt Air Vista Park 0 000 $$
............. .............................................................. .. ...... .......... ................................ ...._............... ......
Connect West Fenwick and Lake Fenwick Parks0 00 $$ -
Connect West Fenwick Park to the Green River Trail 0 0 $$
Evergreen Middle School Partnership0 0 $$ j
} Glenn Nelson Park $$
West Fenwick Park 0 • • $$ i
West Hill Land Acquisition • • $$ __,_99 `
Lake Fenwick Park0 0 11111 •
West Hill Neighborhood Park 0 $$$ I'
...................E Midway Neighborhood Park
..................
.. $$$
Valley Floor Community Park $$$ /"'T
c West Hill Sports Facility Development I♦ $$$ '-_---_-------,-- =-
Midway Neighborhood Park
J� 1 mile
N
�STRATEGIC PROJECTS A
O�
e�
O �� y Q�e+
Qom ` e`' flay C
y ��` a��
aye
Priority Project Name
7b7
E 4th and Willis Greenway $$
} Commons Neighborhood Park $$ ;
mKherson Park $$ i
Earthworks and Mill Creek Canyon ® $$$
............................................................................................
Foster Park
Russell Woods Park 0 0 $
E Old Fishing Hole +♦ 0 0 $$ -'
Uplands Playfeld and Uplands Extension Renovation $$ 1 '!
Downtown Park Improvements 0 $$$ i J
Riverview Park • • • • • i $$$
Signature Pointe $$$
.............................. ...................................... ........................................... ..... ....
Scenic Hill Park $ ? i_
--
L. Downtown Central Park Development r♦ $$$ � ---
Hogan Park at Russell Road0 00 00 $$$ , mile
o Kent Memorial Park 0 0 0 • • $$$ N
Town Square Plaza 0 0r♦ $$$
�e
o�
er
STRATEGIC PROJECTS _d M1
oJi`ey`��br �et;C1
ey 0 o Q
Priority Project Name
River Region
E Boeing Rock • • $$
V
c 2' Van Doren's Landing Park • • $$$ '`� i
-a E Briscoe Park $$
Three Friends Fishing Hole $$ +s�
..................................................................................................................... ....................... ...................... ......... . ......
ci E Green River Natural Resource Area0 0 • $$$
o a+
161
1 mile
N
�o
O'c
STRATEGIC PROJECTS A
e�
4110
.10
o�y o�Q
041
Priority Project Name Q�` Sao h��Q Qto�
'East Hill South Region
E Campus Park $$
A.
Morrill Meadows Park $$
Q
c Springwood Park $$$
....................................................... ..... ... ............... ................................. ................ ....
E Lake Meridian Park and Soos Creek Trail Connection $$ ,-
�, Sun Meadows Park 6, '• ".--'} $$
Clark Lake Park $$$
East Hill Southwest Park Development $$$
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
132nd Ave Park $$$
272nd Park • • • $$$ --- --------
} Eastridge Park '
C1 $$ East Hill Southwest 1 mile
— W ----
o Service Club Ballfields • $$$ Pork Development N
Wilson Playfields $$$
STRATEGIC PROJECTS
O'c
. .e`' ey ago 1
oJtc•
-P 'iQet o��o
Priority Project Name O Q� Qt
'East Hill North Region
0090060 Grp. SO
Chestnut Ridge Park 0
0 Garrison Creek Park00 0 0 0 $$
0 East Hill North Community Park aka Huse Property 00 0 • 0 0 $$$
C North Meridian Park $$$ J
............................................................... r
Park Orchard Park
E00
0 Turnkey Park • $$ }
East Hill North Neighborhood Park aka 00 0 0 $$$ r
..Mati.n.jussi Property -
........................ ... .....................................................................
E E. East Hill North Park Development $$$
o
}
East Hill North Park Development I mile
N
�P pw
10tj G� �G
RECREAT10 4
• •p� rc, .-p` Y LU CAPffAL�
-• Preventative maintenance extends asset life �� 'FUNDING
. M FUNDING
• Parks are safe, clean and inviting 0& • Assets fail
• Parks are used by more residents and workers • Preventative maintenance doesn't happen • Recreational value drops
• Increase in athletic field use and revenue • Restrooms close, garbage and graffiti accumulate • Negative use outweighs
• Assets are replaced before they fail • Parks are less safe, clean and inviting positive use
• Recreational value keeps up with need ' Athletic field conditions drive away use
and revenue
• Positive use in parks drives out negative use
1 >
time time time
Capital Reinvestment and Operating Budget Operating Budget Capital Reinvestment
that meets need and demand that fails to meet need and demand that fails to meet need and demand
FUNDING - CAPITAL
Capital Funding Need Per Year
Current: Current capital funding is $6M per year.
To maintain the existing system: OQ1&p,
Need: Capital reinvestment needed for the current system is Q
$6.5-7M per year. To keep pace with the existing system
an additional $1 M per yea is needed. O a��0
RECREATION
V I_U E CAg 1jA�-
To implement new capital projects: - -FUNDING
Need: Implementation of the new capital development projects
proposed in the 2022 P&OS Plan needs $60M over 20 • Assets fail
Recreational value drops
years, Or • Negative use outweighs
an additional $3M per year. positive use
Total need:
To implement all projects in the 2022 P&OS plan -
an additional $4M per year of capital funding is needed. time
Capital Reinvestment
that fails to meet need and demand
FUNDING - •
.111111011
O&M Funding Need Per Year
for proposed Strategic Projects, not including proposed system expansion
Current: Current O&M funding is $7M per year.
To implement new capital projects: OQ�tiP�
Need: To implement all proposed projects utilizing existing 4
properties an increase in O&M budget of $3M per year
to
is needed. Spread over 20 years the need is VGCF-A'� qL(�
an increase of $300k (approximately 1 FTE)
every other year.
.O&M WND1NG
• Preventative maintenance doesn't happen
► Pestrooms close,garbage and graffiti accumulate
■ Parks are less safe, clean and inviting
Athletic field conditions drive away use
and revenue
ti
time
Operating Budget
that fails to meet need and demand
FUNDING - •
.011111111111
O&M Funding Need Per Year
for proposed Strategic Projects, not including proposed system expansion
Current: Current O&M funding is $71VI per year.
To implement new capital projects: OQ�tiP
Need: To Implement all proposed projects utilizing existing 4
properties an increase in O&M budget of $31VI per year
to
is needed. Spread over 20 years the need is VGCF-A'� qL(�
an increase of $3001k (approximately 1 FTE)
every other year.
.O&M NNNNG
Maintenance Average Average 2019 2022 Plan O&M increase/
'• Preventative maintenance doesn't happen
LOS O&M O&M Number Number of year for all • i2estroams close,garbage and graffiti accumulate
cost/year hours/year of Parks Parks* * 2022 Strategic ■ Parks are less safe, clean and inviting
per ark* per ark* Pro'ects * * ► Athletic field conditions drive away use
A $182,596 1640 6 23 $3,104,132 27,874 andrevenue
B $70,850 776 21 26 $354,250 3,882 time ti
C j $26,517 j 238 j 24 1 10 -$371,232 -3,337 Operating Budget
* Based on 2019 data $3,087,150 28,419 by 2042 that fails to meet need and demand
* Includes development of undeveloped parcels;
It does not include proposed land acquisitions
As tired parks and failing assets are replaced, we anticipate an increased use of each
park which will trigger the need for additional O&M resources (ex: West Fenwick)
ROCKS! Major funding options to fill our O&M and Capital funding buckets!
Voter-approved Levy N
Voter-approved Park District
` Moo GHQ �F
U10=00
• Preventative maintenance extends asset life
- Parks are safe,clean and inviting
• Parks are used by more residents and workers
an empty + ROCKS + PEBBLES + SAND a filled • Increase in athletic field use and revenue
Funding big, reliable less sustaining little Funding `
Bucket sources sources sources Bucket! Assets are replaced before they fail
• Recreational value keeps up with need
• Positive use in parks drives out negative use
time
Capital Reinvestment and Operating Budget
that meets need and demand
e
NEXT STEPS
t
STORY MAP `
ASSET MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
City of Kent
,w.
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OPERATING Space
ANW-1
AND CAPITAL BUDGETS parks & Open Plan 2022
NATURE SCORE METHODOLOGY
GOALS AND POLICIES UPDATE ~
v .
HIRE FULL-TIME GIS POSITION
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP
f
PARKS STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
CAPRA ACCREDITATION
•
r
0�1
IL -�
G
�
A..w� -New
'00, qw"A'
01 s s.
BUDGET
Paula Painter, Finance Director
662 ■ 1
•
'• . • ■ r
i + • • ■ r
■ 41
♦ •
■ ■ ■ ■ •
■ ■ ■ • r
♦ ♦1 if ■
Al
10
r ♦ 1 ■ ■ ■ 1
x,
.P,
4WANk.ism �
mph. f �
4Awp
oiFACTORS IMPACTING
��� l � '
THE 2023 - 2024
BIENNIAL BUDGET
� r r
� � r
r•
I WMA I It 0
m a a DDI DMIMAI I p 01
1 . 2 .4 2 .6 2 .0 2 .5 2 .3
3 .7 3 .3 3 .0 4.0 33
3 .5 3 .5 3 .6 2.7 3 .4
2 .5 2 . 1 1 .7 2 .0 2 . 1
2 .6 1 .5 1 .0 1 .6 1 .9
1 .7 3 .7 6 .3 7 .8 4.8
8 . 1 8 .5
♦ ♦ • • •
♦ ♦ •
44
TEAMSTERS 117
Cir
,.
Nonrepresentedl
' Licenses and Permits,
$7,400,610 , 6%
Intergovernmental
0
Charges for Services,
$6,309,570 , 5%
$1,172,910 , 1%
Misc &Transfers In
$16,511,850
13%
r PR' ROPErY
TA;:4X
$ in Millions
120
10.09% -0.16% 5.40%
9.11% -5.80%
100 4.37%
80 ■
60 ■
40 ■
30.30% 2.55% 2.09% 2.16%
2.36% 2.07%
20
2016 2017 2018* 2019 2020 2021 Prelim
0 Property Tax ■ GFExpenditures
♦ ♦ 1
$ in Millions
3.0
2.5
2.0 I
I
1.5
1.0
� ,� --' �, � �, pp � U � .�.. �+
w da. ti v, Z A w �� ti v, Z A ti w
2019 2020 2021 2022
I IN ' It • • , •
Adjusted
, .
(in thousands) Actual Actual Actual ActualAkP- relim Budget M&Forecast 7
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 19,988 21,595 23,750 33,990 41,970 47,433 45,253 41,303 34,703 27,763
Total Revenues 100,919 111 ,486 119,402 110,809 113,807 127,540 116,580 117,390 120,950 122,020
Total Expenditures 99,311 109,334 109,164 102,829 108,344 129,720 120,530 123,990 127,890 131 ,810
Chanqe in Fund Balance 1 ,607 2,151 10,238 7,980 5,463 (2,180) (3,950) (6,600) (6,940) (9,790)
ENDING FUND BALANCE 21 ,595 23,746 33,988 41,970 47,433 45,253 41,303 34,703 27,763 17,973
22% 22% 31% 41% 44% 35% 34% 28% 22% 14%
• Insurance Funds
• F le e t Allo c a t io n
:::
• Other Internal Fund Allocations °°°
• Internal Cost Allocation
• As we enter the 2023 -24 '
budget, we will have agap
of several million dollars
each year.
�i�aD04�a�
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MAY 17,2022 10
Elk
• Community Engagement - Budget Roadshows
• Preserve and protect core services that the City must provide
• No new initiatives or staff
• No new taxes or unplanned increase to taxes
• Use of some fund balance to preserve programs and services
\ \
CURREN T S P LIT PROPOSED SPLIT
GENERAL CAPITAL GENERAL CAPITAL
FUND RESOURCES FUND RESOURCES
FUND FUND
P RO P ERTY TAX 1 1 ' , 1 ' ,
SALES TAX : 1 ' , 1 ' , 11 ' , 1 ' ,
UTILITY TAX - INTERNAL • ' , ' , • 1 ' , 1 '
B&OTAX 11 ' , 1 ' , 11 ' , 1 ' ,
REET 1 ' , 11 ' , 1 ' , 11 ' ,
4WANk.ism �
mph.
AWF
4i ��� l � '
General
2017 20181 • 2020 2021 20221 124 2025 2026
Revenues - Current Forecast 100,919 111 ,486 119,402 110,809 113,807 127,230 116,580 117,390 120,950 122,020
Expenditures - Current Forecast 99,311 109,334 109,164 102,829 108,285 127,930 120,530 123,990 127,890 131 ,810
Fund Balance - Current Forecast 21,595 23,746 33,988 41,970 47,492 46,792 42,842 36,242 29,302 19,512
■� *. Revenues - New Forecast 100,919 111 ,486 119,402 110,809 113,807 127,230 107,840 108,630 112,140 113,150
+� +, Expenditures - New Forecast 99,311 109,334 109,164 102,829 108,285 127,930 107,720 1 1 1 ,130 114,580 118,430
Fund Balance - New Forecast 21,595 23,746 33,988 41,970 47,492 46,792 46,912 44,412 41,972 36,692
■
■
! ! General CapitalResources •
! r2017 20181 • 2020 2021 20221 124 2025 2026
•
�} Capital Projects - Current Forecast 3,300 8,232 8,871 14,483 7,861 9,410 13,480 13,480 8,480 10,480
♦�+� Other Expenditures 9,508 9,307 8,756 6,667 3,824 3,910 3,900 3,990 5,620 4,140
Fund Balance - Current Forecast 11 ,721 12,997 12,585 7,597 16,301 18,300 15,590 12,380 12,200 10,650
■
r+
Capital Projects - New Forecast 3,300 8,232 8,871 14,483 7,861 9,410 12,100 12,100 5,600 5,600
B&O Projects - New Forecast - - - - - - 11 ,000 11 ,230 11 ,460 11 ,690
Other Expenditures 9,508 9,307 8,756 6,667 3,824 3,910 3,900 3,990 5,620 4,140
Fund Balance - New Forecast 11 ,721 12,997 12,585 7,597 16,301 18,300 13,120 7,450 6,350 5,940
PROS AND CONS
f
• Pros
• The majority of the revenue sources in the GF will be more
aligned with inflation .
• Still give us a consistent revenue stream to maintain Capital
funding .
• COriS
• In times of recession, property tax are a source of stability.
• Slows the growth of the capital program .
. A* F
'
LA
♦♦
2023 -24 TINIEUNE
1
Phase May Jun Jul
• Sep Oct Nov -
Operating Budget
Council Workshop - Budget Update May 17
Review Forecasts - Finance > > >
Budget Kickoff Meeting May 25
Review Baseline & Critical Needs - Departments > > > > > >
2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan
Depts Update Project Lists > > > > > >
Review Funding Forecasts - Finance > > >
Review & Update 2023-24 Funded List > > >
Review & Balance Budget
ELT Retreat July 21
ELT Notification of Final Decisions > > >
Biennial Budget
Prepared by Finance > > > > > >
Mayor's Budget Message Sept 20 ,
Budget Workshops > > > > > >
Public Hearings ' Sept 20 Oct 18
Council Actions
Review & Deliberations > > >
Operations & Safety Committee Nov 1
Council Adoption Nov 15
COUNCIL RETREAT FEBRUARY 4,2022 16