HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil July 19 20051
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
July 19, 2005
Council Chair Laurie Caskey- Schreiber called the meeting to order at 10:00
a.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND
RECREATION OPEN SPACE PLAN (AB2005 -201)
Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated there are
three things to discuss: financial strategies, programming costs, and the public
survey. Now, staff is still looking at the project list. The steering committee
discussed the financial strategies a little bit. In- house, they are working on the
capital maintenance and improvement list for existing facilities.
Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting, submitted a handout of maps showing
the proposal areas (on file). He submitted a prototype facility development costs
handout (on file). The handout projects potential capital improvement costs for the
next 20 years. The budgeting process only requires six years worth of planning.
However, the implications indicate that they need to have a handle on what they
expect the full plan to cost. The traditional marketplace costs are estimated. If
they are going to forecast plan proposals, these estimates are the methodology
they will use. Facilities are expensive. This estimate also shows what the facilities
are worth.
In the last few years, there have been estimates of existing County
structures, but those estimates are for construction costs, not replacement costs.
The handout includes his estimate of what the County assets are worth. The
estimates are preliminary. The table in the handout shows what the County has
now, the ratio against the current population, the ratio against future population,
and what the County will need in the future. He read through the estimates in the
table in the handout. If the County maintains its inventory and existing ratios of
land and facilities per capita, they will have a deficit in land and facilities totaling
$50 million by 2022 due to population growth.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roy asked if the funding deficit includes the Parks Department annual budget
amount. Beckwith stated he has not yet factored in the budget amount. He will
get to that. His estimates are theoretical, if the County doesn't change anything
from what it is doing now.
Page five of the handout shows the rations the County should have, given its
population and the existence of other providers. The ratio will also include the
ratios that should exist, including services provided by other providers in the
county. The existing level of service (ELOS) and proposed level of service (PLOS)
are only given for the County at this time. Later, he will add the levels for other
public agencies and private providers. Over the next 20 years, the County and all
other providers should add 1,057 acres of resource conservancy lands.
The Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC)
has standard ratios of facilities per capita for only some types of facilities. Their
model is based on age- specific rates. The IAC doesn't provide standards for land -
only facilities. Their issue is facility use.
The National Recreation Park Association (NRPA) put out benchmark
standards for certain facilities in 1983, but have since said that there really are no
nationwide standards. The issue is how a standard is measured. The NRPA
measures its standard by type of land, not size of park.
Determining what ratios are right for Whatcom County is in imperfect
science, and probably not relevant. The key issue is learning what facilities are
being used and what people want. When he is done developing the PLOS for this
handout, it will list everything the 20 -year plan says should exist. Then, he'll
compare that ratio with what the County has achieved and what other industry
sources say. The key question is what the County is willing to develop if people are
willing to fund the service. When this document is finalized, it will become the
County's standards.
Page seven of the handout includes the cost of the PLOS for 20 years. The
list is incomplete at this time. When complete, it will include costs for all service
providers, not just the County.
McFarlane stated the price estimates with the partners are not firm. Some of
the examples shown are carryovers from previous plans or have come up through
the community visioning process.
Beckwith stated his prototype costs are complete. The value of the facilities
today approximates to $2,000 per house. Every new house in the county has a
$2,000 charge on the park system.
not.
Nelson asked if it takes inflation into consideration. Beckwith stated it does
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
They've looked at other methods of determining the value of the County
facilities. In the end, it's a matter of defining the costs. If the County can't afford
what this price list comes to, decrease it, which decreases the level of service.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they should be charging a $2,000 impact fee for
every new home. Beckwith stated no. That amount is the value of the park system
to each home.
Roy stated every home has a $2,000 benefit of the County park system. To
keep the same level of service, each new home would need to come up with that
amount.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that is the investment the County would have to
come up with per new house, to keep the current level of service. Beckwith stated
that is correct. That cost could be collected through an impact fee. Impact fees
are allowed, but not for existing facilities. Impact fees were initially low, such as 25
percent of the value. Now, they are at about 50 or 60 percent of the value.
Brenner asked if that value includes the percentage of taxes people pay for
houses that end up going into parks. People are contributing to parks already
through their property taxes. Beckwith stated that is correct.
Brenner asked the standard recommended ratio. She asked if the County is
high, low, or average compared to the minimum level of service. Beckwith stated
Whatcom County, given its size and urban development, is low in conservation
lands, very low in resource parks, and very low in recreational facilities. However,
the nature of park financing has changed, and those numbers are probably okay
today. The key issue is the number of resource parks, which is low.
Nelson asked if they consider the state and national forest lands. Beckwith
stated they are considered in the industry averages on a gross scale, depending on
the distance between the jurisdiction to the forestland.
Nelson stated no county would meet Mr. Beckwith's criteria. Beckwith stated
it's not a statistical game. It's a process of inventorying what they have and
deciding what they want to protect.
Nelson stated each county is different. The ratio is determined by what the
citizens want. Beckwith stated that is correct. It's also determined by what the
County has and is willing to protect.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any correlation between growth rates of
counties and how much parkland is available. A higher level of service could be a
conflict by drawing growth to an area. Beckwith stated the plan will determine the
model that fits the county. For instance, King County no longer provides regional
and athletic parks. Instead, King County conserves the conservancies in lands
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
beyond the urban growth areas. Now, they are having a hard time justifying their
role to the people in other areas of the county. Snohomish County and Pierce
County decided to go the other direction by preserving regional parks that residents
can visit and use.
Caskey- Schreiber stated Whatcom County has a recreation area at Mt. Baker.
A question is whether the County is doing the best it can with Mt. Baker, and if it
would be beneficial to build up that tourism industry. Beckwith stated that in his
experience, he knows those assets are not going to grow in size. Therefore, local
residents can't get to those facilities because of increased population, so they start
looking toward the State and local parks for places to go. There is more demand
for areas like Silver Lake Park to be developed at Cherry Point and the Nooksack
River. They are resident parks.
Nelson asked if there was discussion on the effect of condominiums and
timeshares on park use over the years. He assumes it has increased. Beckwith
stated they're inventorying everything that is recreational- based, not just County
recreation facilities. The County must engage all those other recreation facilities to
meet the demand.
Nelson stated a concern is with a lot of recreational housing going in at Birch
Bay, which pressures the County to provide the entertainment. Beckwith stated
that if they attract a certain age group, it changes the factor even more.
Roy stated the community services looked at what the citizens of this county
want, including people who live in condos and in areas all over the county. She
assumed that the recommendations from the community would reflect their overall
desires. It isn't specifically the people at Birch Bay who are determining the need.
The recommendations are on an overall need from people all over the county. She
asked if the people living near the Nooksack River dictated the recommendations
for the Nooksack River. Beckwith stated the recommendation does not consider all
participants yet, but it will. The survey is not over yet.
Beckwith submitted a financial strategies handout (on file). This is how the
County can get the money and what it can afford. There are three scenarios,
divided into parks and recreation. The handout also considers regional versus local
facilities. The scenarios shows trends, conditions, and how the County could
possibly meet the scenarios. Each scenario has three alternatives. The same
structure is on each page. The top box on each page shows proposed
expenditures. The rate of population growth is 1.5 percent per year.
Nelson asked if this is a six -year plan. Beckwith stated it is, because the
County does a six year capital project plan.
Nelson asked if the dollars reflect a proportional percent based on six years.
Beckwith stated it does, for park administration.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the growth rate for the last ten years is 1.6 percent.
She asked if the growth rate is divided between the county and cities. Beckwith
stated the growth rate is given countywide.
Fleetwood asked if the $1.65 million administrative cost over six years is per
year or above the budget. Beckwith stated that amount is a per year total. This is
the cost to provide administration for the next six years, based on 2004 trends.
This is a zero -based budget. He read the expenditure items in the top box for
scenario 1A.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Beckwith continued to state that if they maintain the 2004 park system
trend, and add $14 million of new facilities, the County will need $35 million over
the next six years. This is alternative 1A.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what the County is currently spending. Beckwith
stated the County is spending the amount indicated, minus the $14 million for new
facilities and their operations and maintenance costs for that added $14 million in
facilities.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County can use the real estate excise tax
(REET) 2 for maintenance. She doesn't know if they are doing that this year.
Nelson stated there are many ways that $14 million in expenditures can be
done. There is capacity in the County to do that. These are the types of
administrative costs that would exist if they increase facilities. Beckwith stated
they need to look at the overall cost and how to best fund that overall effort. An
enterprise of $35 million is major.
He continued to read the handout on proposed revenues for scenario 1A.
The County could get additional revenue of only $6 million, which is not enough to
keep the department alive for six years.
Nelson stated remove the $14 million from the total proposed expenditures,
which could be from something like a bond mechanism. The numbers could be
distracting. Beckwith stated the entire budget would still be about $20 million.
Dedicated sources will only generate $6 million.
Nelson asked if administrative costs could be reduced if they don't spend the
$14 million on new facilities. Beckwith stated the operations and maintenance
(O &M) cost would be reduced, but the administrative costs would not be reduced.
McFarlane stated they've been really falling short in the repairs column. The
backlog continues to grow.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are putting forth proposals for REET 2.
McFarlane stated he is working on those proposals.
Beckwith stated there are six identified funding strategies for option 1A. The
first option is to continue using general funds. Since there is a one percent limit on
property tax increases, this option will begin to squeeze the budget. Plan on the
budget for discretionary items declining.
The second option is to charge an impact fee of about $1,600 per house.
However, homes in a municipal area can't be charged the fee, and the fee can only
be collected for facilities. The potential value is $12 million countywide over six
years, but much less to the County. Impact fees can only be used for new
development, not operations and maintenance. Also, the fees must be spent
locally, not on a countywide facility.
Roy asked how a local area is defined. Beckwith stated a local area is
probably the place that is nearest the homes that has amenities such as
playgrounds and ball fields. A regional facility is defined by the environment, such
as Silver Lake, trails, and the shoreline. They are used by people countywide. A
playground is not used by people countywide. When collecting an impact fee, the
fee can be defined as being for regional facilities only. Then, they don't collect fees
for a playground.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the impact fees are bound by subarea plans.
Beckwith stated the impact fees for local facilities must be spent against the local
plan.
Brenner asked if the County would have the most flexibility if it defines the
impact fee as being for regional facilities. Beckwith stated it would. Some counties
collect fees countywide, and then distributes the funding to each jurisdiction that
wants to participate. There would have to be an interlocal agreement between the
County and each jurisdiction.
The third option is to go for REET 3, with voter approval of 50 percent plus
one. REET 3 can be collected and used for operations and maintenance as well as
capital acquisition. It would be worth $9.6 million over the next six years. The
proposition to the voters would be to apply 100 percent of REET 3 funds collected
to regional parks.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she supports going for REET 3. People would accept
that tax to protect the community's amenities. Beckwith stated the survey will ask
people if they will support REET 3.
Brenner asked if there is an option to increase the sales tax. Beckwith stated
the retail sales tax revenue is $8.3 million annually, but the County doesn't give
any of that to the Parks Department. This alternative doesn't propose increasing
the sales tax for the purpose of parks.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
The fourth option is to go for a local option vehicle license fee. Counties,
with voter approval, may add up to $15 per license for capital projects. Charge
that fee and invest the revenue in trails and open space. That would be worth $18
million over the next six years.
The fifth option is to do the same thing with the local option fuel tax.
Counties, with voter approval, may add 2.3 percent to gasoline sales. That would
be worth less than the license fee.
He's found that people are more responsive to the license fee, especially with
what has happened with gas taxes. If the fee only gets residents, the fuel tax will
get tourists.
This alternative does not propose options four or five.
The last option is to go to a bond, which requires 60 percent voter approval,
or property tax to put into acquisition and development. A levy requires 50 percent
plus one voter approval, and can also be spend on operations and maintenance.
For a levy or bond of $14 or $15 per year, the County would invest it's target
budget of $35 million. For a levy or bond of $25 per year, the County would also
be able to invest $15 million in new land and facilities. If they use the mixture of
strategies he recommends for 20 years, they can invest from $60 million to $70
million in new facilities. Scenario 1A looks at all the regional parks. It is possible to
fund the facilities if the County does this.
Roy stated the survey will indicate whether the community is willing to pay
for this. The public may say it is not interested in any more fees or taxes because
of other recent increases for the jail and gas tax. Beckwith stated that if that is the
survey result, he will revise the financial strategies. Then the County will have a
real plan that reflects the citizens' wishes.
Nelson stated the citizen meetings discussed only a wish list. They didn't
include a discussion of financial impacts. He's sure the plan will be somewhat
scaled back. Beckwith stated it may or may not be.
Scenario two is the same as scenario 1A, but with a different combination of
options and revenue. In past budgets, open space was purchased with
conservation futures funds, but not through the park plan. Some of those
acquisitions should be in the park plan, and those funds should flow through the
park plan.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the County has purchased property with
conservation futures funds in the past, with other partners. She asked if that land
is not considered parkland because it was purchased with conservation futures
funds or because it is conservation land. Beckwith stated they will still use the
same partners and conservation futures funds, but the purchases will be in the park
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
open space plan. It is like an accounting change. These need to be in the parks
plan, and the funds should be identified as a park project.
Nelson stated the Council needs to start addressing the issue of buying up
land that is put in conservancy, but is not planned for park or recreational use. The
Council needs to start discerning for what the funds are used. The public expects
those funds to be used for recreational and park activities.
Roy asked what are the public expectations for use of the conservation
futures funds. She always thought open space and conservation of critical areas,
not just parks, is a part of the fund. Also, the County needs to prioritize the use of
the funds. She asked if this proposal suggests that the County would commit 25
percent of the conservation futures funds to parks use. Beckwith stated the
percentage is dedicated to open spaces that are in the parks plan.
Roy stated the County is purchasing land in the Lake Whatcom watershed,
working on conservation easements, and working on protection of agricultural land.
She asked if the County can ask for more from the voters for conservation futures
funds. McFarlane stated the County is almost at the limit.
Fleetwood stated the ballot measure at the time was whether the fund would
be to support open space, farm protection, and other things. There was no
delineation of specific expectations. A number of things were listed in the ballot
title. Beckwith stated conservation futures can't be used for active recreation, such
as ball fields. However, a property can usually be packaged so conservation futures
funds are used for open space, and campsites or other active recreation would be
purchased with park money.
Nelson stated the State statute is specific that the funds be used for
conservation of open space for future generations. The public had a wide variety of
perceptions of what that meant. They need to have better coordination on how to
use the land for recreational use and public access.
McShane asked if they anticipate using funds from other funds. Beckwith
stated they will pull from the options listed in the handout.
McShane stated it seems like there are policy issues about the percentage to
set for each fund. Beckwith stated conservation futures funds, timber sales, and
road fun monies can be used on the parks plan in some aspects. Therefore, there
should be a better accounting of the flow of money from those funds through the
park plan.
He continued to read scenario 2, which would create $43 million to $46
million in six years for acquisition. That's too much money. Over 20 years, the
amount generated would be $165 million to $180 million for acquisition.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated a lot of administration goes into the development and
implementation of this plan at that level. He asked if that was considered.
Beckwith stated it was.
Nelson asked if there are other resources in the county to add or assist with
development of the plan at that level. Beckwith stated some of this money may
flow to other jurisdictions or trusts. At a level of $165 million, they would have to
start adding staff.
Scenario 3 reallocates the funds similar to scenario 2, without impact fees or
a bond. They can still generate $67 million for the proposed level of service.
Between the three scenarios, repackaging the programs to flow through the parks
plan, it's possible to maintain an aggressive regional park system in the county.
The survey will indicate what the public is willing to pay for.
Scenarios one through three are for regional facilities. A local park facility,
such as in Birch Bay, would be done through the establishment of a local recreation
area. The people who live in that local area would vote on the creation of the local
recreation area.
Roy stated the Birch Bay area is a regional facility. Many people who come
to Birch Bay are from out of the area. Beckwith stated he's not talking about the
shoreline. He's talking about things such as playgrounds and ball fields.
Roy asked if there is any measurement of the use of different areas in the
county. She asked if the County keeps data on public use of park facilities.
McFarlane stated staff tries to in some areas. Regarding local versus regional park
use areas, a community park at Bay Horizon would be an example of a local park.
Fleetwood asked if some of the tax increases are required through a vote of
the people in 2006. Beckwith stated some options, such as REET 3, the license fee,
the fuel tax, and the property tax, would require a vote of the people. That is one
purpose of the survey, to see what the citizens are willing to pay for.
Nelson stated they should wait until they see the survey results before
putting forward a proposed tax. First, have a plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Beckwith continued to state that this process anticipates the questions that
will come up when the County asks for a levy, bond, or whatever.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the level of service will decline in the future, given
the population increase, if the County doesn't do something.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Beckwith stated areas within the county can have their own local facilities
through a recreation service area. They don't have to create another jurisdiction
and elect officials. The County can do it for the area, but it would be expensive.
Pages nine and 10 of the handout are about recreational programs. In 2004,
it cost almost $500,000 per year to run the programs. These programs bring in
revenue that is less than half of the cost. There are three options. One option is to
increase the fees, but some programs will go away. A second option will be to
continue to subsidize the programs from the general fund. A third option is a
property tax levy to generate money for programs. If they can increase the
recapture rate, the general fund subsidy becomes manageable.
Lee Springgate, The Point Wilson Group, submitted the recreational pricing
strategy handout (on file). Most public agencies are undisciplined and illogical in
pricing recreational services. The first question they must ask is whether the
recreational programs are consistent with their mission. Most programs aren't
consistent. The next question is whether the County or someone else should
provide a particular service. If the County doesn't have to provide the service
directly, it can partner with another organization, subsidize the service for low
income residents, or offer a referral to the other organization. More and more
jurisdictions are choosing to spend less of their energy on providing the service
directly. Instead, they ensure that someone else in the community provides the
service.
Nelson stated most communities must balance providing the service with
partnering with other agencies. Springgate stated jurisdictions may facilitate the
service, help with scholarships, and offer referrals. The County's job is to put some
energy and effort to make sure recreational services are provided by and through
others where possible.
Brenner stated one idea is to have people pay based on their ability to pay,
but was told it would cost too much to facilitate. She asked if the cost of
scholarships includes the cost of administering the scholarships. Springgate stated
it does. It is up to the Council to decide on whether the program is important
enough to facilitate scholarships. In his experience, they can confirm eligibility with
a minor amount of verification. Some people may take advantage of the
scholarship, but ultimately it's a better system.
If the County is going to deliver the program directly, it must decide how to
price the program. He read the handout on the recreation services pricing policy.
Jurisdictions price their services somewhere along the range from a full subsidy to
benefit the public good, such as offering parks to resident at no charge, to
collecting a profit for the private good, such as private golf and tennis clubs and the
gun range. The Council must make policy decisions on what programs it may want
to subsidize.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Nelson stated jurisdictions have to consider why it may subsidize a program.
One reason to subsidize the rifle range, for example, is so people don't go shooting
in areas such as gravel pits or other areas. The Council must also measure the
benefit that can't be measured financially.
Brenner stated the deputies use the gun range, also.
Springgate read the handout on alternative pricing strategies. The
administrative model is more related to pricing according to the cost of the service.
The Council should take a hard look at that strategy, which is rational and coherent.
Nelson stated the Park Advisory Board could be more involved in considering
cost effectiveness if the County uses the administrative model.
Brenner stated there was an issue about why the County has to have a
person at the park to collect the user fees, instead of putting up a fee drop box.
She was told that it wasn't a legitimate way to do that. McFarlane stated there are
staff people who collect the user fees at the parks now. They also have self -
registering containers. Staff is available during peak times to help the public and
also provide other services.
Springgate stated many originations do a hybrid pricing strategy. When
they're all done, make sure the primary pricing goals are reached. The net result of
the pricing strategy should be to improve efficiency and equity.
The Whatcom County Parks Department has a budget of about $3 million.
The recreational programs account for about 16 percent of that budget. That's not
an onerous amount for the department to have. Of that 16 percent, the overhead
costs for running the program are $171,000. That amount should be lower.
Compared to other jurisdictions, Whatcom County is in the middle in terms of
recreation cost recovery. Staff will work on all program costs and cost recovery.
Then, the County will know the implications of fee changes for different cost
recovery rates. Also consider the variables, such as reduced participation due to
higher fees. He read the handout on policy options. Everyone is facing budget
crises, so they are subsidizing programs less.
Nelson stated outside dollars are also supporting the services. Springgate
stated that is true. There are other policy options.
McFarlane read the recommendations on the last page of the handout. He is
closely watching what the cities do to provide services, also, to minimize duplication
of services. The department has already begun to expand the teen adventure
program (TAP). Use has doubled in 2005. He has already started the process to
transition certain programs, such as out -of- county trips, to the private sector. The
County has a huge investment in equipment and liability for some of the programs.
He would like the department to serve as a clearinghouse or referral for some of
these programs. Redirect general fund subsidies to interpretative and recreational
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
programs that are appropriate for the parks and other community areas. Through
a private grant, the department has elected to offer some free programs to kids.
There is no magical level of cost recovery for all programs. It depends on the
programs. Cost recovery recommendations and strategies will come forward to the
Council in the future.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she and Mr. McFarlane have worked out a summer
activity schedule two days per week for kids in the Kendall area.
Beckwith submitted an opinion survey parameters handout (on file). The
most effective survey type is a mail out, phone back survey. He will randomly
recruit people to participate by calling them on the phone to ask them the
participate. He uses two key phrases to ask what people want in the future and
what they want to pay for it. To those who agree to participate, he will mail a
written survey with all the graphics that illustrate what they are trying to do. There
will be up to 100 questions, which is a large survey. Because the participants have
time to read over the survey, the questions can be fairly sophisticated. After a
week and a half, they will call the participants on the phone and ask them to read
their answers. When they reach the desired sample size, they will thank the
remaining participants and allow them to mail in their surveys.
Nelson stated the survey sample size seems too small. He is concerned
about getting those results back. He asked the number of surveys that are mailed
out. Beckwith stated he will mail out twice as many surveys as they want to
respond. The thank you letter to all participants is critical.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they would survey only residents in the
unincorporated area. Beckwith stated that is an option. In the past, they've
surveyed residents countywide because they are asking about countywide priorities.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the survey sample size is very small. Beckwith
stated the handout includes the margin of error depending on sample size and
survey result percentage.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she works with the survey center at Western
Washington University. They don't do surveys that small. Beckwith stated it
depends on the type of survey. When survey results are mailed back, there must
be more participants. With a phone -back survey, they can do with fewer
participants.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she disagreed. Beckwith stated it also depends on
the sample group. If they want to compare subgroups within the survey, such as
county residents versus city residents, the sample size would have to be larger.
For the purpose of this budget, he proposes a sample survey of 300 participants
countywide, which will produce an accuracy rate of about 5.8 percent.
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Another thing to consider with the accuracy rate is how they are going to use
the results. Since they are prioritizing programs from top to bottom, a program
that receives about 50 percent in favor will be questionable. They'll want to go with
programs that receive a huge amount of support. In that case, the accuracy level
can be less than something like a political election, with a straight yes or no
response.
Roy asked if the percentage is the error margin, not the accuracy. Beckwith
stated the confidence level is the number of people who participated and if the
random sample group is legitimate. The rate is an accuracy rate of what a typical
person will say. The accuracy result of a 300 - person survey sample will be 5.8
percent, plus or minus, of what a typical resident would say.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it will be hard to base policy on a survey sample
that small. Beckwith stated there won't be a question if a program comes in with a
60 or 70 percent approval.
His assumption is to survey 300 registered voters countywide. The Council
can change those assumptions.
Roy asked if the accuracy rate is that there is a five or six percent chance
that the survey represents the rest of the residents in the county. Beckwith stated
it is not. The percentage is a range within which the result is accurate. The range
will go up and down that percent.
McFarlane stated the contract was originally to survey 200 residents, but the
review committee felt that number was too low, so they changed it to 300. If the
Council wants a larger sample, now is the time to decide that.
Brenner asked the cost to survey more people. Beckwith stated the survey
cost is $50 per completed survey.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they've thought about contracting out the survey
service elsewhere. She knows of one company that can do it for less. Beckwith
stated he uses GMA Market Research, which is the biggest and most efficient in the
region. The $50 cost per survey person includes the design of the survey and
mailing list, publication and mailing, phone calls, collation of results, and his time to
analyze the results.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Roy stated the wording of the questions have to be done correctly. She
asked the increase in error rate by increasing the sample size. Beckwith stated that
the rates are in the table on page four.
Roy asked what error rate is about average, when news polls are taken.
Beckwith stated four percent is about average for political purposes. In cities,
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
they've done a sample size as few as 100. For counties, they usually do between
200 and 400. It's a question of what the Council is comfortable with.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there has been analysis of the correlation between
a survey's accuracy rate and the result of the decision that was made. Beckwith
stated that they're trying to prioritize what has the most support down to what is a
gray area. As they categorize their project proposals and financing strategies,
those results are kept in mind. Projects that aren't ranked by a large majority
would be things that should be done at another time or left for someone else to do.
When they make proposals about things such as passing a levy or tax, they want a
higher margin. This is stage one of the process. An actual campaign is stage two,
when another test must be done.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the cost of increasing the survey size from 300 to
400. Beckwith stated the additional cost would be $10,000. The cost is $50 per
complete survey.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that when the survey comes in and it indicates the
direction the Council should take, she must consider how much weight the survey
should have when making their decisions. Beckwith stated that first,
Councilmember Caskey- Schreiber has to be comfortable with the survey. Second,
he has to be able to defend the survey. He can defend the statistics on any sample
size. Someone will always question the statistics, but they are accurate.
McShane stated the issue with surveys is how the questions are asked, not
what the survey numbers are. So far, he is confident the right questions will be
asked.
Roy stated that even she, as a policy maker, will be looking for the projects
that receive a priority rank from 60 or 70 percent of the survey participants. The
information they want is where the priorities are. It seems that is the information
the Council will get. It wouldn't be very smart to put something on the ballot that
only has 54 percent. Once they know what the margin of error is and what they
are looking for, they will be able to make the decisions.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the survey size is a very small representation of the
entire County population.
Roy stated the statistics are valid.
Caskey- Schreiber stated a survey sample of 300 people isn't really valid for a
county with this population. She works with people who do surveys all the time. It
is not a good representation.
Beckwith stated that no matter what the probabilities are, the
councilmembers have to decide what they'll be comfortable with. The question
they're asked most is not about the survey size, but whether they create
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
subgroups, such as incorporated versus incorporated areas. If the Council decides
to look at subgroups, he will have to survey 400 people.
Brenner stated she would like to see the questions ahead of time, in case
anyone is uncomfortable with the wording. Beckwith stated that, depending on
what the Council wants, he can either send the survey out, give the Council the
ability to design the survey, or give the Council the survey before it's sent out, for
information.
Brenner stated she wants to review the survey questions, in case there is
something that jumps out at her. Beckwith stated he will draft a survey for the
Parks Board to review, with a mailing date in three weeks.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she doesn't need to see the questions.
McShane stated he would like to see the questions, just for information, but
the Council should not make any changes to them. That would be risky.
Beckwith stated that he has to deal with all the councilmembers or none of
them when he designs the survey.
Roy stated she agrees that the Council should not change the survey. The
Council has no business messing with what a professional statistician decides to do.
They need professional people to design the survey. This is not the Council's area
of expertise.
ADJOURN
A quorum of the Council left the meeting at 12:30 p.m. Discussion
continued.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on August 9 , 2005.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council - Parks Plan, 7/19/2005, Page 15