Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 7-working draft JCPRAB 11.5.14 Page 1 Chapter 7 FUNDING / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Page 2 CHAPTER 7 x 11.5.14 JCPRAB FUNDING / CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Introduction The primary focus of Chapter 7 of the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is the identification of, and funding strategies for, specific capital improvement projects. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) focus on the next six years (2015-2020) as well as the future in 20 years. Prioritization was completed through analysis of the park system inventory in Chapter 4, and the assessment needs and demand and recommendations in Chapters 5 and 6. It also includes research conducted for the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP 2013) in the assessment of current outdoor recreation facilities and the projection of future needs for and challenges in providing County recreational services. As might be expected, the identified needs for Jefferson County parks and programing exceeds existing financial capabilities. Additionally this Chapter includes discussion of the annual operation and maintenance funding of the Parks and Recreation Parks and programs. This Chapter presents current and future annual department funding information. In 2012, the ERPRC1 evaluated and recommended new options for sustainable and coordinated service delivery as well as options for funding, including Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. The ERPRC final report presented to the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners and the Port Townsend City Council on June 19, 2012 is attached in Appendix B-6. 7.1 FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION OPTIONS Jefferson County is governed by a Board of County Commissioners. The three commissioners appoint the county administrator as the Chief Executive. Jefferson County was the first county in the State of Washington to establish a “council-manager” form of government by local ordinance. The Board of Commissioners, each of whom is nominated by district is elected by the voters of the entire county. The City and the County can enter into Inter-local Agreements (ILA) between other governing bodies such as school districts and special districts to work cooperatively to provide park and recreation services. They can also approve contracts, lease agreements and memos of understanding (MOU) with private and non-profit partners to provide facilities, programs or park maintenance. FUNDING Changes in economics at the local and national level have created new challenges for public parks and recreation agencies and their constituencies. One criteria that was used in the 2013 SCORP is looking at regional about levels of service and recreation needs. The SCORP looked at regional areas across the state of Washington. Jefferson County was combined in the “Peninsulas” (Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson, and Clallam) Region.2 They used measurement grades 1 Exploratory Regional Parks and Recreation Committee: This committee was tasked with providing the County and City with recommendations for long-term sustainability of facilities and programs. June 19, 2012 Recommendations: Appendix B-6. 2 2013 SCORP Appendix C: Tables C.2-5 page 167-171 Page 3 (A-B-C-D) for quantity, quality and access for the ten SCORP regions separately. Examples of some of the grades for the Peninsula Region are:  Percent of unmet demand for the number of parks and recreation facilities: Peninsulas 24% “C” Grade. Of the responses provided, regions most commonly received a “C”, and the statewide median grade was “C”. Two regions, the Southwest and the Northeast, scored an “A”.  Percent of facilities that support active recreation: Peninsulas 45% “C”. All regions scored “C” or better. Three of these regions received an A (Islands, North Cascades, and South Central) and two received a “B” (Northeast and Palouse)  Percent satisfied with park and recreation facilities distribution: Peninsulas 60% “B” grade which was in the mean of all regions. As noted in the implications of issues regarding economics and funding3, in the SCORP Chapter 5 it suggests, “adequate funding for outdoor recreation facilities and opportunities as well as for maintenance of existing facilities is problematic: local providers were asked about their agency’s funding goal for developing capital facilities for public outdoor recreation, and the mean percent of their responses regarding funding goals being met statewide is 27.1%. It will continue to be an ongoing challenge to ensure funding support during a period of limited grant funding in an era of budget cuts and renewed interest in austerity. All new mechanisms to fund the parks and recreation administration or public improvements beyond what is the current level of budget for Jefferson County will require legislative decisions and the will of the voters. The County itself cannot initiate or advocate for a ballot initiative, residents and supporters of parks and recreation services have the opportunity to directly influence funding. As recommendations and decisions regarding the future of the County parks and recreation, it will be important to employ public input. Education, outreach and polling will be essential before any specific funding mechanism is attempted beyond the current funding levels. However, recent ballot initiatives in support of parks and recreation have been passed. It is encouraging that between 2012-2014 of the six parks and recreation measures before the voters in Washington State, five passed for total funds of $1,156,000.00. Funding sources included real estate transfer tax, property tax or bond measure funding mechanisms)4 As stated in the SCORP, in the 2012 election, 46 of 57 issues in states, municipal and county ballot initiatives across the country concerning funding and support for conservation-related causes, passed at an 82% passage rate. In total, these ballot initiatives allocated about $2 billion toward the health and availability of parks, open spaces, and water quality, of which nearly $800 million was entirely new funding. SCORP goes on to say that “Given the continued support among Washington resident, mechanisms listed in the TPL Land Vote Database, it could prove critical in the future for increasing the percentage of funding goals met for land acquisition and capital facility improvement throughout the state.5 3 SCORP page 142 4 Trust For Public Lands: Land Vote Database 2014 5 2013 SCORP page 143 (source: Wildlife Management Institute, 2012) Page 4 PROJECT GUIDE TO CIP PRIORITIES Jefferson County Parks and Recreation uses the parks and facilities Project Criteria Guide criteria in making decisions of prioritization. The Parks and Recreation staff and the Jefferson County Park and Recreation Advisory Board worked to complete the criteria for prioritization in 2012. The criteria includes: 1. MAJOR MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS  Improvements that preserve existing assets.  Projects that improve public safety and accessibility.  The maintenance of existing grant, deed restrictions, or use agreements.  Projects that help maintain the existing level of service.  Projects that reduce annual maintenance and operations costs.  Projects that increase maintenance and operation of parks and facilities by volunteers or partners.  Projects that mitigate hazards or attractive nuisances in the park. 2. DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENT OF LAND OR PARKS ALREADY OWNED BY JEFFERSON COUNTY  Development of campgrounds in order to increase revenue.  Development of existing undeveloped sites.  Development of projects that meet accessibility (ADA) needs in all parks.  Projects identified by the public and in the 2011 public questionnaire.  Redevelopment, renovation and replacement at existing developed parks.  Changes or enhancements to existing develop parks that increase their capacity. 3. STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS BASED ON IDENTIFIED FUTURE COUNTY NEEDS AND UNDERSERVED AREAS  In the future acquire new sites that serve the identified need or enhances geographic equity needs.  Sites that contain unique characteristics or help create a connected system. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT RELATED TO FUNDING The results in the Community Questionnaire Results Report (Appendix B-1) reflects citizens input on satisfaction, participation, observations and expressed current and future priorities for parks and recreation provided in Jefferson County. Public input received and points of prioritization includes the following: 1. Additional trails (unpaved or non-motorized use) walking, running, cycling and fitness. 2. Indoor swimming pool (existing City of Port Townsend facility). 3. Programs for outdoor/environmental adventure, horseback riding, before and after school activities, fitness and special events. When asked “how much would they spend of $100.00 divided between types of projects” the top three priorities were: 1. Maintain existing sites and facilities. 2. Support adding new facilities (play areas, sports fields, buildings, swimming pool) to existing parkland. Page 5 3. Making existing program entrance fees less expensive and offering new recreation programs. 7.2: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The following Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a priority list and funding strategy for implementing the action plan outlined in Chapter 6. Proposed projects, estimated costs and potential revenue sources are shown in Table 7.1. It is important to remember that over time priorities change, new funding sources become available and existing funding sources shift. Also, opportunities to develop a project or acquire land can arise. These factors may change the proposed CIP. As a requirement under the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), the County identifies current and future acquisition and major capital improvements. Jefferson County annually updates the 6-year Capital Improvement Plan through adoption of the annual budget. Table 7.1 CIP Proposed Projects for 2015-2020 & Future Years + JEFFERSON COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2015-2035 Asset Capital Maintenance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2035 FUNDING SOURCE System Wide Comprehensive Signage New Logo, Sign Replacement and Park Branding 24.0 Co. General Fund North Beach Park Shelter Replace 1 post, replace 0.5 45.0 Co. General Fund Restroom Restore and reopen, replace 3.0 50.0 Co. General Fund Boat Ramp Remove, restore beach 25.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Park Partitions Replace 6.0 Co. General Fund & donations Parking Lot Grade + Install Stops 5.0 Co. General Fund Memorial Field Asset Capital Maintenance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2035 FUNDING SOURCE Stadium Remove and Replace Roof 250.0 200.0 Co. General Fund & donations Stadium In - House Spalling Repair 2.0 2.0 2.0 Co. General Fund Maintenance Shed Paint, insulate, heater 8.0 Co. General Fund Concession Repair Siding and paint 2.0 20.0 Co. General Fund Dugouts In - House repairs 2.0 5.0 Co. General Fund Wash St Fence Replace Washington St 125.0 Co. General Fund & donations Back Fence Remove - use plants 75.0 Co. General Fund & donations Page 6 Field Lighting Replace 400.0 25.0 Co. General Fund & donations Courthouse Park Tennis Court Resurface and Repair Fence 40.0 Co. General Fund & donations Indian Island Park Shelter Restore, then Replace 3.0 75.0 Co. General Fund & donations Portage Parking Lot Grade & Partition - 4.0 Co. General Fund Lagoon Parking Lot Restore, modify access 250.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Toilet Repair and paint 2.0 Co. General Fund Irondale Community Park Toilet Paint, repair door 0.5 Co. General Fund Pump house Paint and repair 0.5 Co. General Fund Playground Repair, then Replace 4.0 4.0 45.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants B-Ball Court Repair and re-surface 2.0 24.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Backstop Repair 2.0 Co. General Fund East Beach Park H.J. Carroll Park Restroom Building Paint interiors 3.0 Donations Courts Repair tire damage, Resurface 1.4 45.0 Co. General Fund Playground Replace older elements 4.0 Donations Athletic Field Repair irrigation 2.5 2.5 2.5 Co. General Fund & grants Perimeter Path Gravel and grade 1.4 3.0 General Fund BMX Track Rebuild 3.5 5.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Third Field Install 155.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Entrance Safety Traffic Calming/Signage 35.0 General Fund Asset Capital Maintenance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2035 FUNDING SOURCE Park Specific Signage Comprehensive update 4.0 Co. General Fund ADA Improve parking and paths - 12.0 Co. General Fund Oak Bay Park Lower Toilet Paint inside 0.5 Co. General Fund Electric Safety, capacity, location 14.0 10.0 Co. General Fund Water Safety and capacity 14.0 4.0 5.0 General Fund Page 7 RV Dump Install Co. General Fund & donations Landscape Surfaces, plants, borders 22.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 General Fund Furniture Tables, grills, fire rings 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Boat Ramp Remove Grants Gibbs Lake Park Caretakers House Electrical system repairs 4.0 Co. General Fund Generator Building Remove 4.0 Co. General Fund Derelict Buildings Remove 27.0 Co. General Fund Existing Trails Drainage, tread, layout 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 General Fund New Trail Network Build 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Park Specific Signage Comprehensive update 4.0 Co. General Fund Chimacum Park Forest Safety Remove root rot firs 10.0 Co. General Fund Grounds Restore grounds/reconfigure 25.0 Co. General Fund & donations Shelter Clean/new tables Co. General Fund & donations Toilets Remove derelict toilets 2.0 Co. General Fund Lake Leland Park Grounds Restore grounds/tables 19.0 Co. General Fund Campground Utilities Water and power 100.0 Co. General Fund donations & grants Day Use Toilet Clean and paint 1.0 Co. General Fund Dock Repair 2.0 23.0 Co. General Fund Boat Ramp Grade 1.0 Co. General Fund Hicks Park Toilet Door, roof, repair and paint 3.0 Co. General Fund Parking Lot Grade 0.5 Co. General Fund Quilcene Camp Ground Asset Capital Maintenance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2035 FUNDING SOURCE Shelter Roof repair, treat for beetles 2.0 2.0 12.0 Co. General Fund Courts Resurface and paint 25.0 Co. General Fund Playground Wood Chips - then Replace 5.0 40.0 Co. General Fund & donations RV Dump Install 35.0 Co. General Fund & grants Page 8 Campground Utilities Water and Power 20.0 20.0 Co. General Fund & grants Safety Light Repair, replace 0.3 1.5 Co. General Fund Port Townsend Recreation Ctr. Gymnasium Repair or Replace 1,500 Co. General Fund & donations Games Room Paint, treat floor, equipment 12.0 General Fund Playground Fence, Maintain then replace 3.0 10.0 25.0 Co. General Fund & donations Irondale Beach Park Native vegetation Restore forest and shoreline 8.0 7.0 4.0 Co. General Fund & donations Picnic Tables/Shelter/Grills - Co. General Fund & donations Parking Lot Grade/partition - Co. General Fund & donations Interpretive Signage, displays, trails 12.0 12.0 Co. General Fund & donations Toilet Vault toilet - 10.0 Co. General Fund & donations Paths Build and improve park paths 4.0 Co. General Fund & donations Landscaping Drainage, walls, dirt 4.0 Co. General Fund & donations Trailhead Park Forest Release thin for park values 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Co. General Fund & donations Trails and Skills Bikes, horses, hikers 8.0 8.0 Donations Equestrian Park Fencing and Trails Install N. Perimeter + Trails - Donations & grants Event Ring and Toilet Install - Donations & grants Race Course Install - - Donations & grants TOTAL $323.2 $277.9 $526.5 $446.5 $64.0 $1,566 $610.0 $340.0 Six Year Total $3,204.1 Long Range Total $950.0 Grand Total $4,154.1 In Washington State there are existing and potential funding and financing options for acquisition, development and maintaining of park, facilities and recreational programs. Page 9 The following listing of existing and optional sources identifies and describes current and potential revenues sources which might be used to offset projected funding needs. The park, facilities and programming needs assessment and as anticipated, the cost of meeting those parkland and recreation needs could exceed the anticipated financial capabilities looking into the future. 7.3 FUNDING OPTIONS 7.3.1 EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES 7.3.2 OPTIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO MEET PROJECTS SHORTFALL 7.3.3 ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT & MAJOR CAPITAL 7.3.4 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS 7.3.1: EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES General Fund: The County’s primary source of funding is operating revenue from the general fund. The general funds come from taxes levied on property or derived from the combination of special revenue, debt service or enterprise funds. General funds are used to finance operations, staff, equipment and maintenance. Fees collected through the park and recreation system, such as recreation program fees or other facility rental fees are also returned to the general fund. These revenues are generally thought to return to the County park and recreation budget, but in practice the revenue number is only a point of justification of the annual budget and has no direct connection to the level of funding. It is commonly termed as a “fee -reimbursed revenue” to justify the expenditures and costs in operating budget. In some instances capital projects are funded through annual allocations of the General Fund. Table 7.1(CIP Proposed Projects for 2015-2020 & future years+) provides a listing of the anticipated capital funding needs for the next six year and beyond. It lists those projects with the General Fund identified as the funding source. In addition to the CIP, (Appendix A) provides descriptions of each individual park descriptions. Included in the focus on each park includes the Goals for the facility, Capital Improvements and the Maintenance and Operation Plans for the site. The annual budget for Jefferson County Parks and Recreation for 2013 actual, 2014 adopted and the 2015 request are presented in Table 7.2 The Jefferson County 2015 proposed budget of $591,921 includes $88,540 from the City of Port Townsend Sales and Use Tax (Proposition One) which terminates May 31, 2015. The annual budget has declined over the past three years and will continue with the loss of the Prop-One partnership funds. Budget Goals for 2015 include:  Implement the PROS Plan using grants, donations and local funds  Provide the services detailed in the amended Memorial Field and PT Rec Center Inter- local Agreement with the City of Port Townsend through the terminations of the agreement on May 31, 2015  The transition will be in a gradual manner with the least possible impact to the community.  Increase alternative and fee revenue. Page 10  Increase the sustainability of the volunteer system.  Track and report use rates at both Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center indoor and outdoor spaces  Continue to support and utilize a high level of park maintenance by volunteers  Encourage and support park repairs and projects by donations.  Maintain and support efficient professional parks maintenance through funding changes to keep the current level of service. Table 7.2 Parks & Recreation Budget 2013-2015 2013 Actual 2014 Adopted 2015 Request REVENUE: Beginning Fund Balance $ 45,325 $ 104,607 $ 107,029 Beginning Reserved Fund Balance $ 72,992 $ 69,186 $ 64,000 Recreation Programs $ 83,917 $ 25,840 $ 31,000 Parks Improvement Transfer6 $ 35,000 20,000 $ 20,000 General Fund Revenues $ 367,300 $ 376,800 $ 382,908 Intergov Rev-City of PT $254,170 $ 212,500 $ 88,8407 Total Revenues $ 778,624 $ 674,368 $ 554,548 EXPENDITURES: By Object Salaries/Benefits $ 381,391 $ 382,123 $ 347,191 Supplies/Small Tools $ 32,744 $ 44,400 $ 30,517 Professional Services $ 42,234 $ 6,900 $ 4,000 Other Services/Charges $ 112,877 $ 82,700 $ 78,900 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 Inter-fund Payments $ 103,048 $ 115,639 $ 110,980 Transfer to Construction/Renovation $ 47,047 $ 60,100 $ 20,333 Total Parks & Recreation $ 719,341 $ 691,862 $ 591,921 By Program Recreation $ 322,635 $ 289,556 $ 240,578 Memorial Field $ 80,919 $ 99,170 $ 105,767 Parks Maintenance $ 268,740 $ 243,036 $ 225,243 Transfer to Construction/Renovation $ 47,047 $ 60,100 $ 20,333 Total Parks & Recreation $ 719,341 $ 691,862 $ 591,921 Ending Fund Balance $ 104,607 $ 87,113 $ 69,656 Ending Reserved Fund Balance $ 72,992 $ 69,186 $ 64,000 STAFFING 2013 Actual 2014 Adopted 2015 Request8 6 The County Parks Improvement Fund was established with revenues from overnight camping, federal entitlements, contributions from the General Fund and miscellaneous grants and donations. These revenues are the primary source for minor capital improvements to county parks. 7 City Agreement/Prop-One. terminates May 31,2015 8 Prop-One City funds end in May 2015. The fund totals for staff from city funds includes: Recreation 0.81, Memorial Field 0.50 and Park Maintenance 0. Page 11 Recreation 5.08 3.84 2.83 Memorial Field 0.33 1.18 1.19 Parks Maintenance 1.77 1.72 1.57 Total Parks & Recreation PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Number of Parks in Portfolio 20 parks 20 parks 20 parks Acres of Habitat Protected 859 acres 859 acres 859 acres Miles of Shoreline Protected 9.4 miles 9.4 miles 9.4 miles Shoreline Access Areas Provided 11 acres 11 acres 11 acres Miles of Trails Maintained 6.2 miles 6.2 miles 6.2 miles Households with Website Memberships 2887 3471 3500 Total non-General Fund Revenue $398,224 $ 349,488 $ 169,642 Donations of Volunteer Labor $ 168,382 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 7.3.2 OPTIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO MEET PROJECTS SHORTFALL The following Funding sources are presented to provide information and background for future analysis as potential options. PROPERTY TAX: In the Revised Code of Washington state statute Section 84.52.043, the maximum levy rates for taxing districts (state, county, city, fire districts and various junior taxing districts etc.) is established. The county can levy up to $1.80 per $1,000 of assessed value and any city shall not exceed $3.375 per $1,000 of assessed value. Any county can increase its tax to a maximum of $2.475 per $1,000 of assessed value for general county purposes if the total combined levies for general county purposes and the road district purpose do not exceed $4.05 per $1,000 of assessed value and no other taxing district has its levy reduced as a result of the increased county levy. Regular property tax levy increased require 50% plus one, simple majority, voters. The regular property tax legal limitations are: 1. 101% revenue limit: With the passage of Initiative 747, there only two ways for a jurisdiction to increase property taxes by more than one percent. Regular property taxes annually are limited to lesser of 101% of the highest levy in the past three years, plus the amount allowed for inflation.9 2. Constitutional Limitations: The total regular property tax levy may not exceed $10.00 per $1,000 of assessed value of property as per Article VII, Section 2(a), (b) or (c) of state constitution and RCW 84.52.050. Taxing limitations rarely approach the constitutional limitation but if exceeded junior taxing districts are proportionally reduces through a prioritization listed in section 84.52.050.10 3. Aggregate levy Limit: The aggregate levies of junior and senior taxing districts may not exceed $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed value under the $10.00 per $1,000 limitation; 9 RCW 84.55.005 10 Washington Department of Revenue: Tax Reference Manual Page 12 excluding the Conservation Futures levy.11 Exceeding this limit junior taxing district are proportionally reduced or eliminated under a prioritized list.12 VOTER APPROVED UTILITY TAX INCREASE: Citizen voted increases in utility taxes is an option as a Parks and Recreation Facilities Funding Measure. The funds can provide an on- going funding source of dollars dedicated to specific capital funding projects, e.g. City of Olympia measure of 3% provides $2,000,000 annually for park capital projects. The Primary revenue source options for annual operating budget, major repairs, park development and capital acquisition are detailed and summarized for the following: SALES AND USE TAX: Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have levied the full one percent tax capacity. Out of 39 counties, 36 counties levy the full one percent tax, including Jefferson County.13 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (REET) Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have REET taxes which are dedicated to public works and trail projects. The City of Port Townsend Comprehensive Plan includes a policy that 35% of REET money be dedicated to non-motorized projects such as pedestrian and bicycle projects. In the past years the City has seen $55,000 a year. The funds are performing very poorly for both the City and the County, which is reflected in home sales and real estate value, and therefore the funds are barely able to cover the annual existing bond payments. CONSERVATION FUTURES: In July 2002, the county commissioners approved Conservation Futures Ordinance No. 06-07080-02, now codified at Jefferson County Code Section .08.030(7), in accordance with the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 84.34. The ordinance establishes goals for the county’s Conservation Futures Program and an allocation process for the conservation futures tax levy. The purpose of the CF Program is to acquire open space lands, including green spaces, greenbelts, fish and wildlife habitat and trail rights-of-ways proposed for preservation for public use by municipalities, special purpose districts, and private non-profits corporations within the county. Each spring, the Conservation Futures Citizen Oversight Committee provides funding recommendations to the county commissioners who then decide which projects to fund. Projects may include fee-simple or any lesser interest or development right with respect to real property as well as operation and maintenance (O & M) activities. O & M projects must be linked to CF-funded acquisitions. The mission of the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program is: “to provide a system of public open spaces, those open spaces being necessary for the health, welfare, benefit and safety of the residents of Jefferson County and the maintenance of Jefferson County as a desirable place to live, visit and locate businesses.” 11 84.52.043 12 84.52.010 Some jurisdictions have taken less than the maximum increase they could have in the past and have "banked" capacity that they can use. A jurisdiction that does not know whether it has banked capacity should ask its county assessor. 13 MSRC: Revenue Guide for Washington Counties Page 13 The Jefferson County Environmental Health Department manages the program and the annual tax revenue is $200,000. Table 7.3 shows the current rate of 0.035 and calculations of Tax Rate increases. Table Example 7.3: Revenue and Existing Costs of Jefferson County-wide Conservation Futures Property Tax * Tax Rate Increase Assessed Valuation Annual Revenue Cost/Avg House Median house value $250,000 Median house value $250,000 $ 0.035 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 204,847 $ 4.38 $ 250,000 $ 0.0625 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 365,798 $ 15.63 $ 250,000 $ 0.10 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 585,277 $ 25.00 $ 250,000 $ 0.15 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 877,916 $ 37.50 $ 250,000 $ 0.20 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 1,170,555 $ 50.00 $ 250,000 $ 0.25 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 1,463,193 $ 62.50 $ 250,000 $ 0.35 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 2,048,471 $ 87.50 $2 50,000 *1% limit and capped by I-747 after 1st year; 15% revenue can be utilized for maintenance and operation of property acquired with the funds. LEVY LID LIFT: One exception to the one percent rule is the levy lid lift.14 Taxing jurisdictions with a tax rate of less than their statutory taxing rate may ask the voters to “lift” the levy lid by increasing the tax rate to some amount equal to or less than their statutory maximum rate. The proposed tax rate must be stated in the ballot measure.15 A simple majority vote is required. Any levy lift may not exceed the maximum $1.80 amount, meaning that Jefferson County potentially has the capacity for a lift of up to $0.46 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The following tables provide examples of revenue and cost county-wide: Table Example 7.4: Estimated Revenue and Costs of Jefferson County-wide Property Tax Increase Tax Rate Increase Assessed Valuation Annual Revenue Cost/Avg. House Median house value $250,000 Median house value $250,000 $ 0.10 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 585,277 $ 12.50 $ 250,000 $ 0.15 $ 5,852,773,913 $ 877,916 $ 37.50 $ 250,000 $ 0.20 $ 5,852,773,913 $1,170,555 $ 50.00 $ 250,000 $ 0.25 $ 5,852,773,913 $1,463,193 $ 62.50 $ 250,000 $ 0.35 $ 5,852,773,913 $2,048,471 $ 87.50 $ 250,000 $ 0.46 $ 5,852,773,913 $2,692,276 $115.00 $ 250,000 In the example, a $0.20 per $1,000 property tax levy would generate approximately $1.2million annually at a cost of $50.00 per year to the average home owner in the County. 14 84.55.050 15 84.55.050 (1) and (2)(a) Page 14 BONDS: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS BONDS: Limited Tax General Obligation (LTGO) Bonds are Bonds that may be issued without voter approval by the Council for any facility development purpose. The total amount of all outstanding non-voted general obligation debt may not exceed 1.5% of the assessed valuation of all city/county property. UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL (UTGO) BONDS: Approved by at least 60% of resident voters during an election with a turnout of at least 40% of those who voted in the last general election. The bond may be repaid from a special levy, which is not governed by the one+-percent statutory limitation on the property tax growth rate. Table example 7.5 provides borrowing rates, estimated average annual payments related to examples of 20-year bond size. 7.4: SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS In Washington State, separate from a city or county government, special purpose districts can be created as limited purpose local governments. They generally perform a limited number of functions or a single function purpose. Additionally there are Assessment Districts that are not political subdivisions. Special Purpose Districts provide a number of services which include those currently existing in Jefferson County such as fire and EMS, hospitals, parks and recreation, libraries, cemeteries, utilities as well as stadiums and conventions centers. Special Districts, created by the Legislature enable nearly 100 special purpose districts to serve a specific need that may be new or a higher level of taxation of an existing service. These districts 20-YEAR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS Table Example 7.5 Non Bank-Qualified (over 10MM) Bond Size: $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 Estimated Total Interest (1): $729,112 $1,094,253 $1,825,543 $3,645,316 $6,048,731 $8,070,103 Average Annual Payment: $136,456 $204,713 $341,277 $682,266 $1,052,437 $1,403,505 Est. Net Borrowing Cost (1): 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.55% 3.55% (1) Preliminary and subject to change. Using the recent Shoreline Water District (AA-) Revenue Bond interest rate scale plus 0.20% for budgeting purposes. For the Bond Sizes over $10,000,000, we added 0.30% to the Net Borrowing Rate to reflect the "Non Bank-Qualified" status. Prepared by: Martin Nelson and Company, Inc. – Public Finance Department – Phone 1-888-342-6864 Page 15 are quasi-municipal corporations, are narrowly defined purposes from the legislature and generally derive revenues from real property taxes (i.e. taxing districts). There are three special purpose districts that provide an option for potential for developing a separate limited purpose local government for parks and recreation. They are a Parks and Recreation District (RCW Chapter 36.69), Park and Recreation Service Area (RCW 36.68.620) and a Metropolitan Park District (RCW Chapter 35.61). The Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) provides a description comparison report of recreation districts.16 7.4.1 SPECIAL PARK DISTRICT: The following funding tables provide examples to show a scenario of geographic areas to define the special district if they were considered for Jefferson County. Detail of a Park and Recreation District (PD), Park and Recreation Service Area (PSA) and a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) are described following the funding table examples. Currently Park District #1 is the only special park district in Jefferson County. Table 7.6: Estimated Special District for the entire East Jefferson County geographic area Example Tax Rate Increase Assessed Valuation Annual Revenue Cost/Avg. House Median house value $250,000 $0.15 $4,498,666,667 $674,800 $37.50 $250,000 $0.25 $4,498,666,667 $1,124,667 $62.50 $250,000 $0.35 $4,498,666,667 $1,574,533 $87.50 $250,000 $0.45 $4,498,666,667 $2,024,400 $112.50 $250,000 $0.55 $4,498,666,667 $2,474,267 $137.50 $250,000 $0.65 $4,498,666,667 $2,924,133 $162.50 $250,000 $0.75 $4,498,666,667 $3,374,000 $187.50 $250,000 In the example, a $0.35 per $1,000 of dedicated tax would generate approximately $1.6 million annually at a cost of $87.50 per year to the average home owner in East Jefferson County. 16 MRSC: http//.www.mrsc.org/subjects/parks/prcompare.aspx Page 16 Table 7.7: Estimated Special District East Jefferson County w/out Port Ludlow AV ($456,333,120.00) Example Tax Rate Increase Assessed Valuation Annual Revenue Cost/Avg. House Median house value $250,000 $0.15 $4,042,333,547 $606,350 $37.50 $250,000 $0.25 $4,042,333,547 $1,010,583 $62.50 $250,000 $0.35 $4,042,333,547 $1,414,817 $87.50 $250,000 $0.45 $4,042,333,547 $1,819,050 $112.50 $250,000 $0.55 $4,042,333,547 $2,223,283 $137.50 $250,000 $0.65 $4,042,333,547 $2,627,517 $162.50 $250,000 $0.75 $4,042,333,547 $3,374,000 $187.50 $250,000 Table 7.8: Estimated Special District for Port Townsend/Chimicum School Districts w/out Pt Ludlow Example Tax Rate Increase Assessed Valuation Annual Revenue Cost/Avg. House Median house value $250,000 $0.10 $3,768,666,880 $376,867 $25.00 $250,000 $0.20 $3,768,666,880 $753,733 $50.00 $250,000 $0.30 $3,768,666,880 $1,130,600 $75.00 $250,000 $0.40 $3,768,666,880 $1,507,467 $100.00 $250,000 $0.50 $3,768,666,880 $1,884,333 $125.00 $250,000 $0.60 $3,768,666,880 $2,261,200 $150.00 $250,000 $0.75 $3,768,666,880 $2,826,500 $187.50 $250,000 Page 17 Tables 7.7 and 7.8 shown in this Plan were requested by the ERPRC to show additional examples of special district taxation without the assessed value of Port Ludlow (AV: $456,333,120.0017) 7.4.2 PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT (PD): Chapter 58 authorizes class AA counties to establish Park and Recreation Districts. According to a report from the RCO (IAC 1982) most were formed to provide general recreation services or were formed solely to finance a new swimming pool or finance an existing one.18 The purpose is to provide leisure time activities and facilities and recreation facilities, of a nonprofit nature as a public service to the residents of the geographical areas included within their boundaries as a municipal corporation.19 Formation:  By petition signed by not less than 15% of registered voters within the area  Requires resolution of city approving inclusion of the area with the corporate limits of city.  The Board of County Commissioners holds a hearing on petition within 60 days of receipt. Following the hearing, the Board designates the name or number of the district and fixes boundaries.  Requires review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review as a nonprofit action. WAC197-11-704(2)(b)(iv) Election to Form District:  Ballot proposition authorizing the district is submitted to the voters in the next state general election (60+ days after board fixes boundaries)  Initial park and recreation commissioners are elected at the same time.  Ballot shall be stated so voters can indicate yes or no to form the district.  Proposition for initial capital or operational costs can be included at same general election to create district. Governing Body:  Board of five commissioners elected from designated districts for staggered, four year terms. Functions and Powers:  Acquire, construct, maintain, repair, add to and operate recreational facilities and make improvements or acquire property by the local improvement method.20  Acquire and dispose of property, grant concessions, charge fees and contract for recreation program services (private or public government).  Operate jointly facilities with other government units and hold in trust or manage public property. Finance-Revenue Authority:  Regular property tax (maximum of $0.60 per $1,000 assessed valuation) for a six-year period authorized when 60% of voters in an election vote “yes” with a voter turnout equal at least to 40% of those voting in the last general election.21 17 Jefferson County Treasurer 2/14/2012 18 Recreation Resources: A Heritage for the Future, IAC 1986.#54/56 19 RCW 36.69.010. 20 RCW 36.69.130. 21 RCW 36.69.145. Page 18  Limit on regular levy: Park and Recreation District will have levy capacity diminished if aggregate of junior and senior taxing districts exceeds the $5.90 limit.22  County treasurer is treasurer of the district.  District Commissioners must compile an annual budget. Excess Levy and Bonds:  Annual excess tax levy proposition for operation funds, capital outlay funds and cumulative reserve funds is authorized under RCW 84.52.052.  May issue general obligation debt, equal to 1-1/4th% of the assessed value; 3/8% may be non-voted (councilmatic) and the rest must be voted with 60% approval with at least 40% of turnout of last general election.  May issue LID bonds and revenue bonds. Existing Parks and Recreation District in Jefferson County: Parks and Recreation District #1 (2011 Assessed value 163,526,215 with total assessed value 2010 OF $2,268,733)23 7.4.3 PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICE AREA (PSA): Chapter 218 give all counties authority to establish park and recreation service areas with the ability to also fund zoos and aquariums24in unincorporated areas within the county. The purpose is to finance, acquire, construct, improve, maintain or operation any park, senior citizen activity center, zoo, aquarium, and/or recreation facilities as defined in RCW 36.69.010 which shall be owned or leased, and administered by a city or parks and recreation service area (RCW 36.68.400). It also is created to provide a higher level of park services (RCW 36.68.590). Park and Recreation Service Area are Quasi-municipal Corporation and taxing authority with usual power of a corporation for public purposes. Formation:  In any unincorporated area by resolution adopted by county legislative body or by petition of 10% of registered voters in area. May include incorporated cities approved by resolution for inclusion. Elections to Form District:  If satisfactory finding are made as outlined in RCW 36.68.460, the county legislative authority orders an election of the voters in the proposed service are to take place at the next general election or at a special election.  Ballot proposition form is in RCW 36.68.470  Proposition for initial capital or operational costs can be included at same general election to create district. Governing Body:  Members of county legislative authority, acting ex officio if within county. If a city included, the Service Area is governed by an inter-local cooperation agreement. Function and Powers:  Acquire, construct, own or lease, operate parks, senior citizen activity centers, zoos, aquariums and recreation facilities (RCW 36.68.400).  Impose and collect fees and charges.  Contract for recreation programming.  Accumulate reserves for capital purpose. 22 RCW 84.52.043(2)(a) 23 2011 Assessment for 2012 Taxes/Preliminary Valuations: Jefferson County Assessor 24 Added in 1985. Page 19  Hire employees and may fund salaries and benefits of city and county employees who perform work within the service area. Finance-Revenue Authority:  Regular property tax (maximum of $0.60 per $1,000 assessed valuation) for a six-year period authorized when 60% of voters in an election vote “yes” with a voter turnout equal at least to 40% of those voting in the last general election.25  Limit on regular levy: Park and Recreation Service Area will have levy capacity diminished if aggregate of junior and senior taxing districts exceeds the $5.90 limit.26  County treasurer is treasurer of the service area.  Annual budget required and may contract with county for purchasing and can transfer revenue proceeds to county and/or reimburse county for changes incurred for expense of service area. Excess Levy and Bonds:  Annual excess tax levy proposition for operation funds, capital outlay funds and cumulative reserve funds is authorized under RCW 84.52.052.  May issue voted general obligation debt, equal to 2-1/2 % of the assessed value; 3/8% may be non-voted (councilmatic) and the rest must be voted with 60% approval with at least 40% of turnout of last general election. 7.4.4 METROPOLITIAN PARK DISTRICT (MPD): RCW Chapter 35.61 RCW allows all cities and counties to form metropolitan park districts (MPD’s) that include territory in portions of one or more cities or counties as a municipal cooperation.27 The purpose is to provide for the management, control, improvement, maintenance and acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards and recreation facilities. Formation:  When created or enlarged may include territory located in portions or all of one or more cities or counties.  Can be initiated by petition of at least 15% of the registered voters in the area and submitted to the county.28  Can be initiated by the governing body or bodies of city and/or county which includes a portion or all of the area in the district.  Petition or resolution submitting the question to the voters, shall describe composition of the initial board of commissioners29 and shall list a name for the district. Election to Form District:  Where no Boundary Review Board Exists:  Proposition authorizing creation of MPD shall appear at the next general election or next special election occurring sixty days after the last resolution is adopted or the date the county auditor certifies the petition.  Where Boundary Review Board Exists:  Notice of the proposal shall be filed with the boundary review board 25 RCW 36.69.145. 26 RCW 84.52.043(2)(a) 27 RCW 35.61. 28 RCW 35.61.020. 29 RCW 35.61.050. Page 20  A special election is held on the date as specified under RCW 29A.04.330 that is sixty days or more days after approved by the boundary review board.  No boundary review board review required if the proposed district only includes one or more cities.  Ballot proposition to contain words specifically defined.  Election of five Commissioners at formation. Governing Body:  The MPD’s may be composed in any of the following alternatives:  Five commissions at election to create district.  For district located entirely within one city or county, the legislative authority the city or county can act as the metropolitan park board.  For district located in multiple cities or counties, each legislative authority may appoint one or more members to serve as the board. Function and Powers:  Acquire, condemn lands within or without park district boundaries.  Issue and sell warrants, short-term obligations or general government bonds.  Petition for local improvement district.  Employ council and employees and establish civil service for employee.  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.  Power to authorize, conduct and manage: letting of boats or other amusement apparatus; operate bath houses; purchase and sell food stuff; give concerts and other entertainment; manage and conduct forms of recreation and business for benefit of public or produce revenue for expenditure of park purposes.  Sell exchange and dispose property and annex territory. Finance-Revenue Authority:  Two regular property tax levies available -50 cents/$1,000 assessed valuation and one 25 cents. They are considered one levy for the purposes of the levy limits in RCW Chapter 84.55, but they have different rankings in the pro-rationing statue.  County treasurer is the ex-officio treasurer of the district or another designate. Excess Levy and Bonds:  Authorized to levy general tax in excess of its regular property tax levy or levies when authorized to do so at a special election.30  May issue general obligation debt in an amount equal to 2-1/2% of their assessed valuations. Of this, ¼% may be non-voted debt, the rest must be voted.  Can petition city for LID improvements.  May issue revenue bonds. 7.4.5 STATUS QUO: City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Departments: Cities and counties can create departments of parks and recreation which are funded through the General Fund. Currently Port Townsend and Jefferson County function with Park and Recreation Departments/Divisions providing public programs and services. Maintaining the status quo is an option for funding and administrative analysis. 30 RCW 35.61.210 & 82.52.052. Page 21 Function: Some functions can be viewed through a prism of social, economic and management perspectives. The example bullet points listed below that National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) recently profiled as a special report provides options across the field that can provide opportunities, challenges or conflicts:  Departments can function as providers of programs, services, facilities and lands or P&R Departments can function as facilitators of public, nonprofit and private recreation opportunities in the community.  Department can use public employees to provide operations, maintenance and programming or Departments can use non-profit, private vendors, and contractors for the operation, maintenance and programming.  For cost-effective operations and maintenance, Departments could eliminate smaller parks or for child health and obesity issues the goal is to eliminate transportation barriers by creating smaller neighborhood parks.  Departments can provide targeted programs and services for vulnerable populations, such as senior and youth or continue reduced federal, state and local funding thus reducing department’s ability to provide for vulnerable populations. NRPA continues to look nationally on behalf of parks and recreation as programs and services continue to be a major positive force in the local community’s health, culture and economy. 31 7.5: WASHINGTON STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING OPTIONS & SOURCES 7.5.1 STATE FUNDING: Special Excise Tax: This tax is levied as a special excise tax of 2% on lodging as allowed under RCW Chapter 82.08. The funds collected are placed in the “Tourism Activities Fund” to be used solely for tourist promotion, acquisition and operation of tourism-related facilities or all other uses authorized under RCW Chapter 67.28. 7.5.1.1: GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS: These are voter-approved or Councilmatic bonds with the assessment placed on real property. The money can only be used for capital improvements not maintenance. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 20-30 years). Passage of a voter-ratified bond requires a 60%, majority vote, while Councilmatic bonds require only a majority of the elected City Council or Board of Commissioners. One disadvantage of using this type of levy may be the interest costs. 7.5.1.2VOTER APPROVED UTILITY TAX INCREASE: Citizen voted increases in utility taxes are an option as a parks and recreation Facilities Funding Measure. The funds can provide an on-going funding source of dollars dedicated to specific capital funding projects, e.g. City of Olympia measure of 3% provides $2,000,000 annually for park capital projects which includes trails. 7.5.1.3 GROWTH IMPACT FEES: Park Growth Impact Fees are fees imposed on new development to mitigate the impact of new development on the city or county park system. Impact fees can be used only for parkland acquisition and/or development. Cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act, in title RCW 82.02.050 (2) can impose, collect and use impact fees. 31 2012 Parks and Recreation Special Report NRPA (www.nrpa.org) Page 22 7.5.1.4 CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION (COP): This is a lease-purchase approach where a city or county COP’s to a lending institution and does not require a public vote. The governing body then pays the loan off from revenue produced by the facility or from its general operating budget. The lending institution holds title to the property until the COP’s are repaid. 7.5.1.5 HUD BLOCK GRANTS: Grants from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development are available for a wide variety of park projects (5% of total). With existing lower income areas in the city and county, park improvements and facility upgrades can benefit from Community Development Block Grants. Grants can fund up to 100% of the project. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access projects for parks and playgrounds are eligible for this funding. 7.5.1.6 DONATIONS: The donation of labor, land or cash by service agencies, private groups, or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money or reduce the cost of capital development of a park. Under RCW 35.21.278, the community service organizations and associations providing service in the local area can provide, without regard for public bid, design plans, improvements to a park or public square, installing equipment or artworks, or providing maintenance services for the facility as a community or neighborhood project. Within one year, the cost cannot exceed $25,000 or $2.00 per resident. The contracting association may use volunteers in the project. 7.5.1.7 LIFE ESTATES: This is an agreement between a landowner and the city or county where the government buys or receives, through donation, a piece of land and they then give the owner the right to live on the site after it is sold for the lifetime of the owner. 7.5.1.8 PRIVATE GRANTS AND FOUNDATIONS: Private grants and foundations provide funds for a wide range of projects. In many instances the foundations are required to provide the grant funds through a non-profit entity. The City and County can establish a non-profit “Parks Foundation” with the purpose of securing capital funds from private foundations and trusts. 7.5.2 STATE FUNDING: Washington State provides various grants for public recreation acquisition and development through the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY) programs. 7.5.2.1 RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE (RCO): The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board (RCFB) administers several grant programs for recreation and habitat conservation purposes. Depending on the program, eligible project applicants can include municipal subdivisions of the state (cities, towns and counties, or port, utility, park and recreation, and school districts), Native American tribes, and state agencies and in some cases, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. To be considered for funding assistance, most grant programs require that the proposed project will be operated and maintained in perpetuity for the purpose for which funding is sought. Most grant programs also require that sponsors complete a systematic planning process prior to seeking RCFB funding. Grants are awarded by the RCFB Board based on a public, competitive process which weighs the merits of proposed projects against established program criteria. http://www.rco.wa.gov/ The grant categories include: Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP): Funds the acquisition and development of conservation and recreation lands. The Outdoor Recreation Account of the WWRP provides matching grant funds for local and state park projects, which include active parks, Page 23 playgrounds, sports fields, water access sites, trails, natural areas, urban wildlife habitat and farmland preservation. The RCO accepts grant applications by May 1st of each even year. The successfully scored projects are presented to the Governor, who recommends them to the legislature for capital funding the following year. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Grant Program: This grant-in-aid supports the purchase, improvement, or protection of aquatic lands for public purposes, and for providing and improving access to such lands. It is guided by concepts originally developed by Department of Natural Resources, including re-establishment of naturally self-sustaining ecological functions related to aquatic lands, providing or restoring public access to the water, and increasing public awareness of aquatic lands as a finite natural resource and irreplaceable public heritage. Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF): The program was approved by Washington voters as part of Referendum 48, which provides funding for the Seattle Seahawks stadium. The purpose is for acquiring, developing, equipping, maintaining, and improving youth and community athletic facilities. Eligible grant recipients are cities, counties and qualified non-profit organizations. Grant recipients must provide at least 50% matching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. An initial $10-million was contributed by the Seattle Seahawks “team affiliate” sources for the grant program. Firearms and Archery Range Recreation Program (FARR): This funding is used to acquire, develop and renovate public and private non-profit firearm range and archery training and practice facilities. To qualify for funding, ranges must be open on a regular basis to law enforcement personnel, hunter safety education classes, and the general public. Grant recipients must provide matching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. Funding comes from $3.00 for each concealed pistol license fee. Acquisition, development, renovation projects, capital equipment purchase, safety and environmental improvements, noise abatement and liability protection are all funded through this grant program. Salmon Recovery Grant Program: Funding is for protection and/or restoration of salmon habitat. It also supports feasibility assessments for future projects and other activities. Applicants must provide at least 15% matching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. State funding has been provided through fund shifts from other funding accounts and general obligation bonds. Federal funds are appropriated through the Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries (NMFS). Working with the Watershed Resource Area (WRIA) 16/17 as lead agency, projects and funding can be identified for various salmon habitat projects. 7.5.2.2 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE: Building of the Arts: Building for the Arts awards grants to 501c3 nonprofit performing arts, art museums, and cultural organizations to defray up to 20 percent of eligible capital costs for the acquisition, construction and or major renovation of capital facilities. This is a reimbursement- style grant, and operating costs are ineligible. Direct Appropriation: Direct appropriations are placed in the state budget by the Governor or legislature. The Department of Commerce Capital Programs has no role in the selection of grant recipients. These types of grants may be used by designated local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations throughout the state to acquire or construct a variety of capital projects. Each project funded under these programs stimulates the state and local economies by providing construction-related employment and associated revenues. Humanities Washington: Humanities Washington supports public programs that have as their primary purpose the presentation of insights gained from the humanities. Humanities Washington offers two types of grants. Quick Grants are available year-round to small or rural Page 24 organizations for program planning or implementation. Project Grants are usually awarded twice a year through a competitive grant process for larger projects. 7.6 FEDERAL FUNDING: On the Federal level, Congress appropriates funds through a variety of programs that may provide potential funding sources for various capital projects. These include the Environmental Protection Act, Land and Water Conservation Fund Account, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Funding (EDI), Community Block Grant HUD, Environmental Protection Act with Brownfield’s clean- up funding, United States Department of Agriculture low interest loans and through direct Congressional Appropriation (see specifics regarding each grant below). Links to government grant sources can be found at firstgov.com and grants.gov. 7.6.1 CONGRESSIONAL GRANTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD INITATIVES: These are received annually and are by invitation only through your congressional Representative or U.S. Senator. The FY 2013 invitations will come out in the spring and are administered under the Homes and Communities Division of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 7.6.2 FY 2015 CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION: Annually, U.S. Senators and House Members accept letters of proposals and applications for appropriation requests. Project descriptions and letters of request for appropriation are due March 1st. 7.6.3 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF): Program funds come through Congressional appropriation in recreation resources including, but not limited to parks, trails, wildlife lands and other lands and facilities desirable for individual active participation. Grant recipients must provide at least 50% matching funds in either cash or in-kind contributions. A portion of the Federal revenue is derived from sale or lease of off-shore oil and gas resources and is re-appropriated to projects through the U.S. Congress to the Department of the Interior under the National Park Service (NPS). The program is administered in Washington State by the RCO. Sites purchased or developed with LWCF funds are deed protected for outdoor recreation purposes and are defined through the use of “6f” federal map delineation. 7.6.4 RIVERS, TRAILS AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RCTA): RCTA is a technical assistance program of the National Park Service (NPS) that implements the natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation mission of the NPS in cooperation with local communities and the state agencies for trail planning, greenways, water trails, and special recreation projects. Through the RTCA program, the National Park Service has launched nationwide to goal to encourage healthful outdoor physical activity in National Parks and in local communities to demonstrate practical approaches for public land managers and community leaders who want to encourage active lifestyles. The National Park Service promotes benefit support information through the NPS’s Pathways to Healthy Living: Promoting Physical Activity in Parks and Communities. The data and support documentation reiterates the close-to-home value of recreation on neighborhood trails and greenways that is vital for improving America’s public health. Working with the National Park Service, grant seekers will realize the value of the current work and understand that as a value to local communities, the NPS is ideally positioned to respond to this urgent need to increase Americans’ level of physical activity. 7.6.4 NATIONAL RECREATION TRAILS PROGRAM (NRTP): The National Recreational Trails Program (NRTP) provides funds to rehabilitate and maintain recreational trails and facilities that provide a backcountry experience. Eligible Projects: Maintenance of recreational trails, development of trail-side and trail-head facilities, construction of new trails, and operation of Page 25 environmental education and trails safety programs. Revenue Source: Federal gasoline taxes attributed to recreational non-highway uses. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Federal Highway Administration and in Washington State by the RCO. 7.6.5 THE BOATING INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAM (BIG): This federal program provides funding for recreational transient boating facilities, targeting the needs of recreational boats 25-feet and larger. This program is administered through the RCO. 7.6.6 TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21st CENTURY: Enacted in 1998, provides funds for programs that increase alternative modes of transportation, enhance recreation, and protect the environment. The new "Transportation Alternatives" federal transportation funding authority recently passed amid bi-partisan compromise. The issue of paying for long-term transportation improvements was left for the next Congress. Transportation Alternatives: Under the new agreement, funding for key bicycle and pedestrian programs such as Transportation Enhancements and Safe Routes To School is eliminated. A new program, "Transportation Alternatives," consolidates the current twelve eligible activities under six new headings. These are the six eligible categories for types of projects (see details in the "Transportation Alternatives" language from HR 4348 below): 1. "on-road and off-road trail facilities" — Construction, planning, and design of bike/ped infrastructure 2. "safe routes for non-drivers" — Also bike/ped infrastructure, specifically mentioning children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities 3. "abandoned railroad corridors for trails" — Conversion of rail corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists, or other non-motorized transportation users 4. "turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas" — Apparently roadside facilities previously included in the scenic byways program 5. "community improvement activities" — Rights-of–way improvements: billboards, historic and archeological preservation, and vegetation management and erosion control. 6. "environmental mitigation" — Storm water management, wildlife mortality, and " connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats" Transportation Alternatives funding and administration: The new program will receive about $780 million for Transportation Alternatives projects across the country, which is believed to be about a 26% reduction from the current $1.2 billion spent on programs. Under the bill, states will sub-allocate 50% of their TA funds to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and communities for local project grants. States could use the remaining 50% for TA projects or could spend these dollars on other transportation priorities such as air quality improvement projects. Section 1509 no longer exempts transportation alternatives from the transferability clause, so state DOTs may transfer their half of the reserved funding anywhere in the state to other programs, and MPOs and states can agree to transfer their portion as well. According to "States that sit on their TA money long enough can use it for things like truck stop electrification systems, HOV lanes, turning lanes, and diesel retrofits."32 32 Tanya Snyder of Streetsblog, Page 26 The states and MPOs will continue to "develop a competitive process to allow eligible entities to submit projects for funding." Eligible applicants are defined as "any other local or regional governmental entity with responsibility for or oversight of transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization or a State agency)." It is not clear whether this leaves out the ability of States to fund their own state park trail projects, for instance. See State-specific maps of Transportation Management Agencies (TMAs) for MAP-21 funding implementation, by Rails to Trails Conservancy Funded programs include: Recreational Trails Program is continued at the current funding levels— $ 85 million a year— through the end of fiscal year 2014. However, States may opt out of the recreational trails program by request of the governor. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program remains essentially intact, providing funding eligibility for a range of projects that may include bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Wallop-Breaux sport fishing program, which some communities and States have used for trails along streams, lakes, and other water features where fishing access is a key benefit. A new Federal Lands Transportation Program rolls all the transportation programs for the FWS, NPS, USFS, BLM, and Corps of Engineers into a $300 million per year program. It allocates $240 million to the NPS, $30 million to the FWS, and lets the FS, BLM and COE compete for the remaining $30 million. The Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program and the Forest Highway Program will be replaced by the $250 million per year Federal Lands Access Program. Trails are eligible for funding under all the programs, but will need to compete with the infrastructure needs and deferred maintenance backlog pressures the Federal land management agencies will have. 7.6.7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Brownfield’s Economic Development Initiative (BEDI): The BEDI program provides funding to local governments to be used in conjunction with Section 108 loan guarantees to finance redevelopment of Brownfield’s sites. Information about the program is available at: http//www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/bedi/index.dfm Environmental Protection Agency: Brownfield’s Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Pilots: The BCRLF program allows states and local governments to receive loan funds for environmental clean-up of Brownfield’s. The purpose of the program is to enable states and local governments to make low interest loans to facilitate the clean-up and re-development of Brownfield’s properties. Contact: www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/rlflst.htm or check for additional grants at http//www.epa.gov/owow/funding/governments.html National Endowment for the Arts Grant: In working with the Washington State Arts Commission, grants are available in January. Sign up notification from webmgr@arts.endow.gov 7.6.8 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES: /The NEH is an independent grant-making federal agency dedicated to supporting research, education, preservation and public programs in the humanities. View grant opportunities at http://www.neh.gov 7.6.9 NATIONAL TREE TRUST: National Tree Trust provides trees through two programs: America’s Tree Ways and Community Tree Planting. These programs require trees to be planted by volunteers on public lands. Additionally, the America’s Tree Way program requires a Minimum of 100 seedlings be planted along public highways. 7.6.10 THE ENFIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): EPA offers Low Impact Development Storm Water Management Grants (LID) providing financial assistance through the Page 27 Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program http//www.ecy.w.gov One of the most effective ways to manage storm water-runoff pollution is to Minimize how much run-off occurs in the first place. LID-designed sites have fewer impervious surfaces and use vegetation, healthy soils, small-scale storage and dispersion/infiltration techniques to manage storm water. This grant program began as a pilot in 2006. If successful and federal funds continue to support the program, park improvements such as shoreline enhancements, parking roadway and walkway replacement with pervious surfaces would all meet the criteria of the LID grant goals. An example of a successful LID waterfront park grant recipient is Lions Field Park located in the City of Bremerton which was an original LWCF federally funded development project. Contact: http//www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/rlflst.htm 7.6.11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD): Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Economic Development Funding (EDI) program administers the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) provides block grants to eligible local governments. Approximately $100-million of CDBG funds are utilized annually for park and recreation projects which often are initiated along with more comprehensive community redevelopment initiatives. In addition to the capital facilities plan project, grant funding is available from a variety of sources for community recreation programs. Special health and youth related grant information can be obtained from the National Center for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Nutrition Service. 7.7 PRIVATE FUNDING: 7.7.1 DONATIONS: The donation of labor, land or cash by service agencies, private clubs, corporations or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects. The private funds are critical to show commitment of non-government dollars and as a positive result can elevate the standing of the grant proposal. Such service agencies as the Kiwanis and Rotary often fund small project improvements in partnership or provide the donated labor match to bring the project to fruition. Environmental groups such as the Trust for Public Lands or Cascade Land Conservancy organize and in partnership provide volunteer labor for habitat restoration which can serve as a value for consideration toward the local match requirement on specific grants. Principle property tax payers in the city and County area such as Safeway or Kroger Foods are sources of local contributions for civic and environmental benefits. As a partnership opportunity they should be contacted, provided with collateral project information and approached with regard to an initial request for partnership support funding. As with all grant programs, grant agencies are looking to local communities to work with local advocates, sponsors and private partners to bring the project to a funding level. Community advocates can elevate the level of project scores in a competitive funding cycle. In some grant programs, grants require private partnerships as a condition of application. 7.7.2 CORPORATE FUNDING: Example: The Nick “Let’s Just Play Giveaway”: Nickelodeon is a unique grant-giving program that brings much needed dollars to enhance recreation. A Page 28 community nominates and each month 20 winners receive a grant which includes funding to build playgrounds. Contact publicaffairs@nick.com 7.7.3 FOUNDATIONS & GRANTS Many private foundations provide money for a wide range of projects. Grants are available for children, cultural enrichment and heritage preservation. In many cases, foundations require grant requests from non-profit 501c3 organizations. On all phases of park projects, staff should work with or create a partnership with private non-profit organizations and seek opportunities to secure grant funds from private non-profit foundations. There are over 100 IRS 990 non- profits listed in the Port Townsend area.