HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-065 Additional .25% Real Estate Excise Tax Increase ORDINANCE NO. 2003- 65
AN ORDINANCE relating to the real estate excise tax of Chapter 3 79 of the City of
Yakima Municipal Code, imposing an additional quarter percent
(.25 %) real estate excise tax, restricting the use of the additional
quarter percent (.25 %) real estate excise tax to financing capital
projects specified in the City of Yakima capital facilities plan
element of the comprehensive plan, and amending Sections
3 79 010, 3 79 030, and 3 79 040 of the City of Yakima Municipal
Code.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1 Section 3 79 010 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows.
"3.79.010 Real estate excise tax imposed.
1 Commencing December 31, there is hereby imposed a tax of one -
quarter of one percent of the selling price on each sale of real property
within the corporate limits of the city of Yakima.
2. Commencing January 1, 2004, and in accordance with RCW 82.46 035,
and in addition to the excise tax on the sale of real property imposed by
subsection (1), there is hereby imposed an excise tax at the rate of one-
quarter of one percent of the selling price on each sale of real property
located within the corporate limits of the city of Yakima."
Section 2. Section 3 79 030 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"3.79.030 Consistency with state tax.
The taxes imposed by this chapter shall comply with all applicable rules,
regulations; laws and court decisions regarding real estate excise taxes as
imposed by the state under RCW Chapter 82.45 and RCW Chapter 82.46,
all of which shall apply as though fully set forth herein to the extent that
they are not inconsistent with this chapter "
Section 3 Section 3 79 040 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"3.79.040 Distribution of tax proceeds and limiting the use thereof.
The Yakima county treasurer shall place one percent of the proceeds of
the taxes imposed by this chapter in the county current expense fund to
defray costs of collection. The remaining proceeds from the taxes imposed
Page 1
(Ik)ord -reaI estate excise tax -pm
by section 3.79.010(1) this chapter shall be distributed to the city monthly
and shall be placed in a separate account within a city fund for capital
improvements and expended therefrom in accordance with RCW
82.46 010 the city's cumulative reserve fund for capital improvements and
expended therefrom for public works projects as provided by Chaptcr
3.80 of the city of Yakima Municipal Code, including those listed in RCW
35.43.040 The remaining proceeds from the taxes imposed by section
3 79 010(2) shall be distributed to the city monthly and shall be placed in a
separate account within a city fund for capital improvements and, in
accordance with RCW 82.46 035, shall be used and expended for
financing capital projects specified in the city's capital facilities plan
element of the comprehensive plan. This section shall not limit the
existing authority of the city to impose special assessments on property
benefited thereby in the mariner prescribed by law "
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its
passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 21 day of October,
2003
ATTEST lace, Mayor
City Clerk
Publication Date: 10 -24 -2003
Effective Date: 11 -23 -2003
Page 2
(Ik)ord -real estate excise tax -pm
-- The following spreadsheet details the revenue and
expenditures for a combined Public Works Trust fund
(PWTF — state loans) and REET (1) history --
Public Works Trust Construction Fund
Revenues and Expenditures
r -*1 Inception to December 31 2002
Revenues(1986 to 2002) 1986 195 1985 195 199' 1oa1 1 a
Local Real Estate Excise Tax 5184.715.4C 5195.660.85 51 4.78S.24 5165_ 0 57.:_ =- 5=1S.Z ,4 5225.005.7.
Interes• From. inves•nP^.K
5,67' 76 13.672. -7 3335.11 151 -. c -4 - ,_;15.5.5 3526a 5
!950 0 0
Gain From Lnves-nent_-
Counr PI
Reimbursements P14 ' - 5 0
ResiaualEautr TransterRVater /Wastewater _,4 1-5 i�
Residua Eauir Transfer P1455 50.000.0
Residual Eautr: Transfer P1473
16 5` tk
Operating Transier(Street 33'50 00
°petaan" Trarsier • L ^.ganon'
Pubu. Works Trust Loar 108,000.00 700,090.00 7 2.000.00 1 - 100 92 674 404.33 660.094.00 591.000 00
Overanne Transien Arterial 5tzeet 199284.00 147251.00 26.989.00
45.891.6
Operating Transier(P14 30.000.0
Department of Transportation P154
DOT Grant - Protect 149
Total Revenues 5298387.10 5912,4:3.00 5250,123.35 5559,793.63 51.096.652.5' 5947'31.00 51 490.169.70
Expenditures(1986 to 2002):
Debt ServicetP0653 Tieton Dr mat date -2006) 51,818.00 515,054.00 556,398.74 547,557.89 566.315 79 555515.79 5,54378. 94
Debt Service(P1.33 - Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007) 2,371 11' 11205.50 13,063.39 12,030.70 11,92745
3,745.47 0.00
ServicefP1355- Fruttvale Cal W astewav mat date -2009) 13,980.3E
Deb' Sen•ice(P136 - Resignaiizaton mat date -2009' 0.00
.Debt Service(P1455- Fruttvale Cnl Phase II mat date -2011) 40 000
40,000.00 40,000.00
Gperanng Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cnty Bnd mat date 2007 -09)
Operating Transfer -Deb* Sen Fd(1998 Street Bond mat dare 2008
Proi =065 5 Tieton Pa' mg 10th to 65th 985.698.51
Prole' 133 \ H RR Overpass Rehab 1; 2 -Faus 200:77.51 2.455 r
Prot #135: Resrgnaiiztng & Lighting Imp 8,733.55 131,798.99 786.81
Proi #1355 Fruirvale Canal Wastewav 3,485.02 131,72..72 10,181.60 9,724.87
Proi #1360 Tieton Dr 5th to 16th 13,900.13 348,459.93 308,429.76
Froi+e136 Resiena'. 56th & Summitvtew Inter Pwt 1,665.87 4555.71 113,406.21 919.60
Prot #1365 Resignal 3rd Ave & Mead Inter Pwt 41 29,802.18 144,708.80 252.70
Pre' #1365 Resignal S. 6th & Yakima Ave Int Pwt 170.30 9,806.56 71228.97 132.00
Prot#1367 Resignal 32nd & Tieton Inter Pwt 3,976.32 4,951.79 92,884.16 107,084.26
Proi#1368 Resignal 32nd & Summitview Inter Pwt 1567 19 5.255.01 79565.34 251.47
Proisi1369 Increase Luang Various 1..o Pwt 380.81 913.51 1,879.14 33,478.33
Proj#1370 Yakima Ave 1 -82 Interchange Study 3,750.00 1,552.91 60.00
Proj #1371 I -62 Corridor Study 7,176.00 1.41653 3,000.00
Prot #1366 City Hall Water System Replacement 11,800.00
Prot #1414 Hpr Study WA Ave & S Union Gap 156230
Proi #1427 SR24 152 -Moxee Vicinity Stuck 500.00
Prot+i1434 Linz B & Pierce Couplet Reevai 2578.62 17,157.30 514 98
Proi #1454 Rairuer Place Reconstr 44.79 465.67
Proie1455 Fruitvale Canal Phase 11 10,023.37 421.704.58
Proj #1460 City s Share Airport Improvement 30,000.00 30,000.00
Proj #14 Miller Poo: 81266.93
Proi #1473 8th St. & A St. Parking Lot 110,895.82
Proia1474 2nd St & B St Parking Lot 120,64033 57,168.87
Prot #154 Chesrerh Park & Ride Lot 31,729.68
Proi #1783 1996 Citv Hall Remodel
Prat #1815 Repair On Hall Sidewalk
Proj #1893 2000 Street Overiav(opt of)
Contingency
Total Expenditures' 51,818.00 51201,030.02 561.225.02 594,710.27 5481,673 54 51233.170.69 51221,653.31
Aalance Available 5296,569 16 (5268,607.02) 5188,898.33 5465,083.36 5614.978.97 (5285,436.69) 5268,516.39
LA /ERP 8/14/2003
Public Works Trust Construction Fund '.3:t.
Revenues and Expenditures
From Inception to December 31., 2002
1993 1994
1995 1996 199- 1999 1999 200C Revenuesl198 to 20021'
Local Real Estate Fxdse Tax -
5274,065.00 5341,559.20 5262.507.35 5269,135 19 5360.001.53 5388526 9:. 584
30.3" 5370.057.6
21.784.93 19516 0' 14.608.6' 14.4'3.18 8.1375: 650 9 - 6.019.7 5.896.1
interest From lrtvestment< Transier(Water / 0 1,054.69 O.00 15.335 95
Gam From Investments
County P1763 13.000.00
Re 2;3x,00 24375.00 2;3'5.00 2;375.00 24375.0
Res burs Equit P1473 24375.00 2;3 0.00 24,3
Residual Equity /Wastewater)
Residual Equity Transfer P1455
Residual Equity Transfer P1473 16.875.00 16,575.00 16.675.00
16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 33,750.00 1687500
16,575.0 33 33,750.00 33.750.00
Operating Transfer(Street) 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.0 -
anon? 7;,716.36 0.00 OubratWg Works Trust Loa 191,250.0 Public Works Trust Loan 944.70 191,2
Operating Transfer(Arterial Street)
Operating Transfer(P
Department of Transportation P1547 034.88 5453.706.11 5456.983.85
DOT Grant -Protect 1493 538,4,794.63 5625, 380.80 5426,632.33 5358558.37 5443,139.05 54, -.
Total Revenues 7.9p 546.421.06 54528
Fx Debt ureice(P0 to 2002): 549,831.58 548,694.74 547 16201 11284.20
553 242.11 552.105. 9� 11,544.36 11,411.11 11 307.83
Debt Service(P1133- Tieton Or mat date -2006) 11,617.64 1,411.11 1301.0- 1
8,194.
Debt Service(P1355'Nob Hill Over Pass that date-2007) 19533.56 19.322.26 8,959.64 46576. 48,19
VJastewav mat date- 9533.56 9342- 9.150.93 46,997.80
45,145.07 49.670.12 41.939.73 47,840.81 47 419.30 66,416.28 4
Debt Servue(P1355- Fruitvale Cn1 67.059.67 85239.61
Debt Sery c e(P1 45 - Fruity al Cl P mat 11 mat date-20' 90351.51 88,879.7 �0 8041955 40,00r 40.000.00 40.000.00 40,000.00 40.000.00
Debt Operating Transfer-Gen Fd le Cnl Phase II mat date 20' 40,000.00 45,817.30 60,000.00 40.E
Operating Transter -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cnn• Bnd mat c 40.000.00 40,000.00
Operating Transfer -Debt Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond ma:
Proj#0653 Tieton Paving 10th to 65th
Prot#1133 N H RR Overpass Rehab 1/2 -Faus
Prol##1354 Resignalizutg & Lighting Imp
Proj#1355 Fruitvale Canal Wasteway
Proja1360 Tieton Dr 5th to 16th 11.07
Proj#1364 Resignal 56th & Summitview Inter Pwt
Proj#1365 Resignal 3rd Ave & Mead Inter Pwt
Proj #1366 - Resignal 5. 6th & Yalama Ave Int Pwt 358,329.31 51.88
Proj##1367 Resignal 32nd & Tieton Inter Pwt 7
Proj#1368 Resignal 32nd & Summitview Inter Pwt
Prof#1369 Increase Liting Various Lo Pwt
Proj#1370 Yalama Ave I -82 Interchange Study
Prol#1371 1 -82 Corridor Study 25,735.95 278,446.42 49,090.98
Proj #1386 City Hall Water System Replacement
Proj*1414 Hpr Study WA Ave & S Vruon Gap
Proi#1427 5R24 182 -Moxee Vicuuty Studv
Proje1434 Lim B & Pierce Couplet Reeval
Proi#1454 - Rairuer Place Reconstr 550.603.62 316.929.56
Prol*1455 Fruitvale Canal Phase II
Pro)##1460 City's Share Airport Improvement 30.000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 25.000,00 3,750.00
ProjU1471 - Miller Pool (817.66)
Proj #1473 8th St. & A St. Parking Lot
Proj#147; 2nd St & B St Parking Lot
Pro,#1547 - Chesterlv Park & Ride Lot 46382.34 27,938.94 523397.86 161,164.31 242,816.46
Prolp1763 1996 City Hall Remodel 4,118.39 1.492.66 2361'24
Proj#!1815 Repair Citv Hall Sidewalk
Proj#1893 2000 Street Overlay opt trf)
Contingency
T 51,185,754.80 5621373.60 5552.374.60 5357 ,399 44 5279,160.4 5764570.69 5459,532.71 S535,150.64
Total Expenditures __
Balance Available (5800,960.17) 57,007.20 (5125.542.33) 51,158.93 5163,978.5 (5292,535.81) 524,173.40 (578,166.79)
1_4. /ERP 8,1412003
Public Works Trust Construction Fund
Revenues and Expenditures
Fr Inception to December 31, 2002
Budget Budget
Revenues(1 to 2002•
2001 200: 200_ 2004 Tota
S366.996.62 5472.808.86 5425.000.00 55306.0 -39
Local Real Estate Excise Tax 5288.866.90
interest From Lnvesrmenit 2,619.65 1510.26 5.000.00 58.866.90
Gar, From Investments 518,535.95
Count P1763 513,000.00
Residual Eauir Transfer(Water /Wastewater 24,3 0C 243;x.00 24375.00 5292.500.00
sidua] omr ransf 5132.000.00
Residual Eau Transfer 513
Transfer P145�
Residual Eauir Transrer P1473 550,000.00
5202,500.00
Operating Transfer(Street) 16,873.00 16,875.00 16,675.00 5405.000.00
Operating Transferlirriganon! 33.750.00 33750.00 33750.00 0
5.0
00031 _
Public Works Trust Loan 53,55549,6031
Operating Traruier(Artenal Street) 5
Operating Transfer(P1473) 545
Department of Transportation P1547 00.00
DOT Grant- Proiect 149 50.00 510,708,638.78
Total Revenues 5444.616.27 5549319.14 5505.000.0
Expenditures(1986 to 2002• 5821,88131
Debt Service(P0653- Tieton Dr mat date -2006,
544,147.36 543,010.52 543579.00 5175,138.82
Debt Service(P1133 -Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007) 10,998.02 10.894.77 8 .77 ,946.00 1
10,946.00
Debt Sen-tce(P1355- Fruiwale Cnl Wastewav mat date- 48, 47,811.78 47,9 00 5522.291.34
Debt Sen•ue(P1367- Resignalizaton mat date - 2009) 77,959.35 78,869.00 5926,306.04
' )eb• Sen•ice(P1455- Fruit 45
ale Cnl Phase II mat date -20' 7 43 00 5560,000.00
■peraung Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cnt• Bnd mat c ` 0,x.00 40,000.00 93 40,000.00 7 408600,000.00 5560,000.00
Operating Transfer-Deb' Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond ma 60,000.00 5300,000.00
Prat#0653 Tieton Paving 10th to 65th 528
Proit+1133 N H RR Overpass Rehab 1 /2 -Faus 0131935
Prm #135-1 Resignat & Lighting Imp 52 51 41 ,31935
Prot #135= Fruitvale Canal Wasteway 5155,
Proj #1360 Tieton Dr 5th to 16th 5120,558.46 672 47
Proi#1364 Resignal 56th & Summitview Inter Pwt 512,5586
Proi #1365 Resignal 3rd Ave & Mead Inter Pwt 171381.50
Pro,g1366 Resignal 5. 6th & Yakima Ave Int Pwt 7.72
Prof #136 Resignal 32nd & Tieton Inter Pwt 567246.72
Proj #1368 Resignal 32nd & Summitview Inter Pwt 586,646.49
Proj #1369 Increase Liting Various Lo Pwt
Prot #1370 Yak 36,65279
Yakima Ave 1-82 Interchange Study 555,56251
Prol #1371 I -82 Corridor Study 5511,592.5
5
Proj #1386 Ciry Hall Water System Replacement 65, .3 5
Prot #1314 Hpr Study WA Ave & S Uruon Gap 5500.00
Proi#1427 5824182- MoxeeVicuiityStudy 5255
0.00
Pro)#1434 Uric B & Pierce Couplet Reeval 550.90
Prot #1454 Rairuer Place Reconstr 5129 5 5510.46
Prof #1455 Fruirvale Canal Phase!" 5178,75 9 6 1.43 50.0
Proi #1460 City s Share Airport Improvement 8,3
Prot #1471 Miller Pool 558
Prot #1473 8th St. & A St. Parking Lot 51 46
Pro, #1474 2nd St & B St Parking Lot 531,80
Prot #1537 Cr..esterly Park & Ride Lot 51231,729940
.
Prot #1763 1996 Ciry Hall Remodel 85,076.91 34521.1 175,000.00
57 97219
Proj #1815 Repair Cin• Hall Sidewalk 50.00
Prot #1893 2000 Street Overlay opt trf) 50.00
Contingency
Total Expenditures 5373.738.09 5319509.36 5461,823.00 5000 510205,66831
Ralance Available 570,878.18 5229 ,809.78 $43,17.00 50.00 i 5502,980.4^ l
LA /ERP 8/14/2003
REAL ESTATE ExCLSE TAX RATES
R. /Sibt3E Rana Effocr:we April 1 2003
Please Note: Thu schedule u tevtsed 4uartaiy as needed TI ftiUawtog table show 17x1 lax rates arid the combined talc. mcauamc 1^._
state tax rate of 28% effecove m all locations. Use iormoa code whirs co pleamg foam 84 -0001B for chew ramie
Local Gran Let al L omit
Local Rama (C.at'd) ESE
Code ADANLS Rent Raw I s� GRA.'sT AMR ,�
010 Harm: 0.00% 128'. 1301 Come City 025°x: 1535. 1'=' Skvsocus 025% . S3•. 050'. 1.585.
010 Lind 0.73% 153% 1302 Electric Cm 025% 133% 1 1728 Stnquumtt 030. 1.78%
0103 Othello 025% 1.53% 1303 Ephrata 033% 133% 1 1779 Tusvnia
01067 k ir/Va le 025•.. 1.535. 1304 George 025% 133% 1735 Woodinville 0507 138%
3% 1305 Grind Coulee 025% 1.53% 1730 Yarrow Pots: 050% 1 71%
0100 Uwx
010`_ Uri c or F 0255. 1.535. 1306 Haardihe 025% 1.5 025% 133% 1700 Uhmcotp 050`. 1 785.
ASOTLs- 130 Logrp 0.00% 128% 1MM
020; Asotm t utv) 015% 2.03% 1308 Maattrara
025% 133% 1801 Bremermn 0.50% 1 78%
0.75% 2.03% 1309 Moses Late 025% 133% 1802 Port Orchard 0305. 1785.
0202 Clams=
ituoc m 0509: 1.78% 1803 Poolsbo 0.50% 1 785.
0200 BENCnrp 025'/. 153% 131 Royal 1 0.50'. 1785.
BEN-TO 1311 Royal City 025: 153 �. 1804 Bmlaid8e
0301 beacon City 015' /. 15351 1312 Sa+A Lake
050% 1.78% 1800 Uniocotp 0.50% 1 785.
1315 1 0.50'% 1 78% 1313 Warders 025% 1S3% �A 025% 133X
0302 Prosser 025 0 .00% 128% 1901 Oe Ebtm
0303 Prosser •/. 535. Wilson C7erJc
0304 Richland 0.50 0.25% 1.53%
025% 1575 190_2 Flleasbm8
' /. 1 78 °/. 1300 Uai>�p 1903 �� (try) 0.25X 1.535:
0.50% 1.78% GRAYS BARBOR 0 133
030 West
nusc lead
0300 Unmcotp 0255: 1.53% 1401 Aberdeen Aberdeen 015% 133% 1904 Roslyn
1102 Coraopolis 025% 133% 1905 South Cie EEh= 025% 153X
1402 Coraopolis 133% 1900 Unman 025% 1 S3%
0401 Can 025'/. 1530. 1403 E1ma 1409 Ocean 025 IS3X �( -�rAT
040= Cneian (city) 025% 1.53'/. 1404 Hopnam 025% 5% 133% 2001 1 Bingen IC1 025. 1 S3X
0403 Float 025•% 153% 1405 Mc�lesry 1406 Montesano 025% 133% 2002 Goldmdale 015 h 153%
0404 Leavenworth 02S% 1335e 02 1_53
O 30'!. 1.78'!. 1407 Oakville 025% 153% 2003 White Salmon 02 % 1.53%
040 W enatcbee 025% 153% 2000 UamehrF
0400 Unmcotp O0.50% °Ocean Shares 0250 133% LET
° 1408 Unineor orp 0.25% 153% 2101 Centralia 0.50% 1785:
0501 Forts 025•/. 133% 1400 Uniac
0502 Port Angela 0.507 1.78% ND 0.50% 1.78% 2103 Morena 025% 13% 5 2102 C3rbalis 030% 178%
%
0503 Sequtm 0.25% 133•!. 1501 Ccupevtlk 025% 133%
0.250. 133% 1502 Langley p 1.78% 2104 Moasymr'k 030% 1.78
0500 Uamcotp 1503 Oak Harbor 030% 1.78% 2105 Napavine
RR 030% 1.78% 2106 Pe III 025X 133%
060; Cork Grouted 0.50 1.78'!. 1500 .1 PERSON 2107 Toledo 025% 133%
0602 Camas 030'/. 1.78°/. 025X 1.53'/.
0603 La Center 0.2.5V. 133% 1601 Port Townsend 030% 138% 2108 Varier 025 133%
030% 1.78% 2109 Wmlock 0255' 1530.
0604 Vancouver 0507 1.78% 1600 Grp 2100 Uninoorp
0605 Vancouver 0.50' /. 1.78'/.
0606 Washougal 025% 133% 1701 Algona 030% 1.78% LINCOLN
030% 1 78% 2201 Almtra 025%
133
0607 Yacolt 02 153% 1702 B nB
0600 C OLU 0.5(P /. 1.780. 1703 Beaus Arts V1B 0.25% 1.53% 2202 Creston 030% 1.78% 2203 Davenport 0.25% 1.53%
COLUMBIA 1704 Bellevue 025'!6 iS3%
0701 Dayton 015% 133% 1705 Black Diamond 030% L78% 2204 Harlington
Bothell/King 030% 1.78% 2205 Odessa 025'!. 1.53%
0702 U 0.00 128% 1706 030% L78% 2206 Reardan 0251. 133%
0700 Uwacarp 0.00'!. L28% 1734 Bin 030% 1.78% 2207 Sprague 0.25% 133%
�OWLTiZ 1707 Cativdon 0255, 1.530.
0801 Castle Rack 025/. 133% 1708 Clyde Hill 030% 1.78'/. 2208 W aObaa
. 030% 1.78%
0802 Kalama 0.251: 137 h 1712 Covington 2200 Uni000rp 025% 1.53%
0803 Kelso 025% 1.53% 1709 Des Moira 030% 1.78% 0.50°A. Leal
0804 Longview 0.25% 133% 1710 Duvall 0.50% 1.78% 2301 Shelton
0805 Woodland 030% 1.78Y. 1711 Enumclaw OSO' /. 1.78•/. 2300 Unmootp
O30% 1.78%
0800 Unincoxp 025% 133% 1732 Federal Way 030% 1.78% OKANOGAN
DOUGLAS
1713 Htmts Point 050% 1.78% 2401 Brewster 025% 133% 0901 Bridgeport 025•J. 1S]• /. 1714 Issaquah 030% 1.785: 2402 ConcmuUy 025•/. 1.53'/.
0902 East Wenatchee 0.25% 133% 1738 Keamme 030'% 118% 2403 Coulee Dam 0.50•/. 1 78%
030'!. 1 78% 2404 Elmer CIT./ 0.00• /. 128!.
0903 Mansfield 025°/. 133% 171 S Kent 030% 1280.
0904 Rock Island 025/. 133% 1716 Kirtland 0300. 1.78°/. 2405 Nespe1
0905 Waterville 025/. 1.53% 1717 Lake Forst 030% 1.78% 2406 Manages (city) 0.25% 1.53%
0900 Unmcorp 023 ° % 1530. 1720 Maple Valley 03 0% 1.78'/. 2407 Omsk
025% 133%
ffj_R_Y _ 1718 -Medma 025/. 133% 2408 Otoville 025•!. 133%
OS0l. 178% 2409 Pataetoa 025% 1.53%
1001 Republic 0.250• 1.53 °% 1719 Maser Island 0_50% • 025X 1.530.
1000 Unincorp 025% 133% 1731 Milani/King 030% 1 78% 2410 Riverside
FRANKLIN 1736 Newcastle 030•/. 178!. 2411 Tooasket 025% 133%
Park 0 30'!. 1.78% 2412 Tansp 025•!. 133%
1101 Connell 025% 1 SS % 1721 Normandy °% 025 �. 1 %
S3
1102 Kahlows 0.00•/. 128% 1722 North Beod 030% 1.78'!. 2413 Winthrop 025 �. 1
1103 Mesa 025 133% 1723 PaeifitlKing 025% 153% 2400 Uoiaetap
1104 Pasco 025% 1.53•!. 1724 Redmond 030% 1.78% 3'ACIYIC
1100 Unmcorp 0.25%. 133% 1725 Renton 030!. 178% 2501 Lunen 025'/. 1.53'/°
GARFIELD 1739 S®mamish 030% 1.78% 2502 Lang Beach 023% 153%
.
1201 Pomeroy 025% 133% 1733 Sea Tae 025% 1.53% 7503 Raymond 025% 1.53%
1200 Unincorr 025% 1.53% 1726 Sande 030% 1.78% 2504 South Bead
REV 84 0013 (3- 28-03) 1777 Shnrslinf. 0 SMG 7 78°J. 7500 13nintrrn 0 74% LEM
n '1 '. , 1 1 1x`4' -_
£ Ci..s i /CEO%) Id C. '
C... PEED OREO LE 11 g I * m c... wiaArcom AAzr >
26G Cusicc 0 005. i28. i 3106 Gnld Bar ' .0305. 'E5. 3'0 Bctln 0. SC -
26C2 lone 0.25'.: 1375: I 310' Gramm Falls 910:5&. 1 781. 37C Blame 0.50'
26..E M ::a::n- 0 00% 1285. 3108 loom 0501. 1.78•.. 370: EvCSOC n - 0' 1
26124 Mete Fa... 0.00 .185. 3109 Lace Stevens 0.50'.. 785. 3704 Fe :noa:e t. •l`
260= Newport 030• 1.78% cc. 3110 Lynwood 0.25% 1_53% 3705 Lynam
260(.. m
Unco. ^. C._5°.. 1.53% 311! Maysville 0.505. 1785. 3706 030•,. 1 '8• r Nooasatk- 0.50% 7 8
PIERCE 1 3119 Mill Crack 0305. 1.78•.6 1 370" Srmmas 0.5' 1.535.
2 Aunma.71 ice 0.50% 78% I 3112 Monroe 030'0 1 785. 3700 Unmoor 0155. 1335.
27C Bonney Lace 0505. 1 78% I 3113 Motmdaitc 0305. 1 785. WHITMA.'•
' - C' Bucce' 0.505 1 78•.° 3114 Muidltto 0305: 1 78!. 38C Aim= 025•.. L53%
2'C. Carbonic: 0155. 1.53% I 3115 Saonomis5 0.50% 1785. 3802 Codas 01 .53'
2704 Du Pon: 0.50'1 1.78% I 3116 Stanwood 030. 1/8% i 3803 Cohan 0.00'.. .28%
270. Earonvtite 0.25% 1.53% 1 3117 Sultan 0305. 1.78% 3804 Enduo"_ 0.255. 1.53'..
272C Eagewood 025/. 1.53% 3118 Woodway 0.50°/. 1.781: 3805 Facmtngtan 0.00'.. 285.
2706 Ftic 0.25°! 153% 3100 Vnincorp 0.50% 1.78% 3806 Garfield C.55 .53%
2"0" Ptrzres: 0.50%. 1 7850 I SPOKANE 380' La Crosse 0 255. 53•.
270E Gig Harbor 0.505. 1 78% 1 320 Airsiav Heigna 0.25% 1.53% 3808 Lannon: 0.005 28°
Lakewood 0.50%. 1.78% 3202 Limey 030% 1.78% 3809 Malden 025%. 1.53%.
2709 Miitoo/Pterm 0.50°1. 1.78% 3203 Deer Pak 03056 1.78% 3810 Oakesdale 025%° 1.535.
2'1C Or 025%. 1.53% 3204 Fac6eld 0.00% 1.28% 3811 Paiouse 0.23% 1.53•,.
- 'L PacificPrerce 0.25% 133% 3205 Lash 0.00% 1.28% 3812 Pullman 0.15'. 1.535
271 Puyallup 0.50'/. 1.78% 3206 Medical Lake 0.25% 1.53% 3813 Rosalie 0.25%. 1.53 %.
2'1 Ro• 0.25' /. 1.53% 3207 Millwood 0.00 L28% 3814 St John 0.005. 1.285.
2713 Ruston 0.50°1. 178°1: 3208 Rockfvtd 0.25/. 133% 3815 Telma 0.25% 133%.
2714 South Frame 0.5056 1 78°1. 3209 Spangle 025/. 1.53% 3816 Uniontown 025%6 1.53%.
Steliacoorn 0.505. 1 78% 3210 Spokane (city) 0.50% 1.78% 3800 Ut ncorp 025%. 1.53%.
2716 Sumac 0.50% 1.78% 3213 Spokane Valley 030% 1.75' /.OA Y
271' Tacoma 0.50°16 1.78% 3211 Waverly 0.00' /. 128%. 3901 Grandview 0.25•/. 1535.
2710 W ilkeson 025% 133% 3232 Liberty Lake 030% 1.78'/ 3902 Granger 025% 1.53%
2719 Umversiry Place 0.50% 1.78% 3200 Uniaeorp 030% 1.78•/. 3903 Harrah 0.25!'. 1.53%
2700 Unmoor 0.505. 1.78% STEVENS 3904 Mabtoc 030% 178.1.
SAN J UAN 3301 Cbewelah 025% 1.53% 3905 Moue City 0.255. 1.535:
2801 Friday Harbor 1.50% 2.78/. 3302 Colville 0.25% 1.53% 3906 Nachos 0.25 %. 1.53%
2800 Utuncmp 125'/. 2.53% 3303 Kettle Falls 0.25% 1.53% 3907 Seth 0.25% 1.53%
SKAGIT .3304 Marcus 025% 133% 3908 Sunnyside 025% 1.53%
290 Anacortes 0.50% 178/ 3305 Nortnport 025% 1.53% 3909 Timm 015% 1.53%.
2902 Bums aura 0.50' /. 1.78% 3306 Sprmgdalc 0.23% 1_53%. 3910 Toppenish 025% 1.53•/.
2903 Concrete 0301 1.78% (B) ' 3300 Uainmrp 0.23% 133%6 3911 Union Gap 0.25% 1.53%
290 Hamilton 0.50% 1 78° / THURSTON 3912 Wapato 025% 1.53%.
2905 La Conner 0.50% 1 78% 3401 Bucoda 0.50'/. 1.78'/. 3913 Yakima (city) 025% 1.53%
29045 Lyman 0.2.5% 1.53% 3402 Lacey 0305'. 1 78% 3914 Zillah 0.501 1.78%
29G Mt Vernon 0.50'/ 1.78% 3403 Olympia 030% 1.78% 3900 Uninmrp 0.25% 1.53%
2908 Scdro Woolley 0.50'/. 1.78% 3404 Rainier 0.25% 133%
2900 Utuncom 025°/. 133% 3405 Teaiao 0.50% 1.78•/.
SKAMANIA 3406 Tunwater 0301. 1.78%
300' h. Bonneville 0.25% L53% 3407 Yelm 023•!. 1.535'. For tax assistance, visit httpJ /dor wa.gov or
3002 Srevenson 015•/. 153°/. 3400 Uninmen 0307. 1.78% call (800) 647 - 7706. To inquire about the
3000 Unincom 0.00' /. 1.28% WAIDCLAKUM availability of this document in an alternate
SNOHOMISH 3501 C 025% 1.53% format for the visually impaired, please call
3101 Arlinzton 0.50% 1.78% 3500 Uneaten 0.00' /. 128°/. (360) 486 -2342. Teletype (TTY) user's may
3120 Btmennmmnish 0.50% 1.78% WALLA WALLA call (800) 451 -7985
3102 Brier 0.50% 1.78% 3601 Collars Place 025% 1.539
3103 Darrmtton 0.25% 153% 3602 Prescott 0.001. 128%
3104 Edmonds 0.50°/. 1.783/4 3603 Watabra4 0255'. 1.535'.
3105 Everea 0.50% 1.78 %. 3604 Walla Walla 023% 1.53%
3600 Unineorp 015•/. 133% (A)
REV 84 0013 (3- 28 -03) (A) Eff. 1/1/03 (B) Efi 8/1/02 (C) Eft: 1/1/03 (D) Eff. 1/4/03 (E) Eff. 4 /1 /03 (F) Eff. 4/1/03
Real Estate Excise Tax
Revised April. 2002
This page includes a discussion of the real estate excise tax. Also included are links to
(1) the state laws authorizing the real estate excise tax, (2) frequently asked questions
and (3) various documents. mcluding sample ordinances to levy the real estate excise tax
The State of Washington is authorized to levy a real estate excise tax on all sales of real
estate. measured by the full selling price, mcluding the amount of any liens, mortgages
and other debts given to secure the purchase at a rate of 1.28 percent. C\ levied and the
e
locally- unposed tax is also authonzed. However, the rate at which
to which it may be put differs by city or county size and whether the city or county
is planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). All cities and counties may le«
a quarter percent tax (described as "the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax"
or "REET 1 ") RCVS 82.46.010 Cities and counties that are planning under GMA have
the authority to levy a second quarter percent tax (REET 2). RCW 82.46.035(2) Note
that this statute specifies that if a county is required to plan under GMA, or if a city is
located in such a county, the tax may be levied by a vote of the legislative body If,
however the county chooses to plan under GMA, the tax must be approved by a majority
of the voters.
How Can the First Quarter Percent -- REET 1 — Be Spent"
Cities and counties fall into three categories 1) those that are not planning under GMA,
2) those that are planning under GMA, but have a population under 5,000; and 3) those
that are planning under GMA and have a population of 5,000 or over
Cities and Counties That Are Not Planning Under GMA and Those That Are
Planning But Have a Population Under 5,000. Both groups of entities have the
same restrictions on their spending of REET 1 revenues. They must use these
funds "for any capital purpose identified in a capital improvements plan and local
capital improvements, including those listed in RCW 35 43 040 " RCW
82.46.010(2) RCW 35.43.040 lists local improvements that can be funded
through a local improvement district (LID), including streets, parks, sewers, water
mains, swimming pools and gymnasiums, etc (■ote that in chapter 272, Laws of
1994, the legislature clanfied its ongmal intent that "local capital improvements"
was intended to include the acquisition of real and personal property associated
with such local capital improvements. This means that land acquisition for parks
is a permitted expenditure.)
Capital projects not listed in the LID statute (for example, a fire station, city hall,
courthouse or library) are also permitted uses as long as they are included in the
city's or county's capital improvement plan. Expenditures that are not allowed are
such things as the purchase of police cars. Accountants may consider these to be
"capital" for accountmg purposes, but they are not "capital purposes" or "local
capital Improvements " See corresponcence between Allen R. Hancock. DenLr
Prosecuting Attorney of Island Count\ and Philip H Austin. Senior Debut\
Attorne' General
Cities and Counties V%ith a Population of 5.000 or More That Are Planning
Lnder GMA. These junsdictions must spend the first quarter percent of their real
estate excise tax receipts solely on capital projects that are listed in the capita.
facilities plan element of their comprehensive plan RCV 8, 4b 010( 2'( h RCV
8: 46 010(6) defines "capital projects" as
those public works projects of a local government for planning.
acquisition. construction. reconstruction. repair replacement
rehabilitation. or improvement of streets roads. highways. sidewalks.
street and road lighting systems. traffic signals. bndges. domestic water
systems. storm and sanitary sewer systems parks recreational facilities
law enforcement facilities. fire protection facilities. trails. libranes.
administrative and judicial facilities.
Spending the Second Quarter Percent — REET 2
This part of the real estate excise tax maN only be levied bw cities and counties that are
required to or choose to plan under the Growth Management Act. All cities and counties
that ley this tax face the same provisions. whether their population is greater or less than
5 000
For this quarter percent of the real estate excise tax. "capital project" means those
public works projects of a local government for planning, acquisition,
construction. reconstruction. repair, replacement. rehabilitation, or improvement
of streets. roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting systems. traffic
signals, budges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and
plannuig. construction, reconstruction. repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of
parks RCV 82.46.0 5(5).
Note that acquisition of landSor parks is not a permitted use of REST 2 receipts. although
it is a permitted use for street. water and sewer projects
What's the Half Cent Tax Shown in RCVN 82 46 010(3Y'
Cities and counties that are not levying the optional half -cent sales tax under RCV
82.1 -= .030(2) have the option of levying an additional one -half percent real estate excise
tax These receipts are not designated for capital projects The are a general fund
revenue for city operating expenditures. Only two cities. Asotin and Clarkston. have
chosen to do this. From a financial standpoint. the optional half -cent sales tax will
probably bnng in more revenue than this additional one -half percent real estate excise
tax. For border clues and counties. however who do not feel the are able to le« the
optional sales tax, this tax is a revenue option.
The imposition of tlus tax. a change in rate. or repeal of the tax is subiect to the
referendum procedures given in R 8 2.46.021.
One Percent Real Estate Excise Tax for Conservation Areas.
A count} legislative authonty may submit ale ofreal property to
at for
rate not to
additional real estate excise tax on each sale
exceed 1 percent of the selling price. The revenue �fr� Conservation areas are defined in
acquisition and maintenance of conservation
RCW 36.32.57 as.
land and water that has environmental, aicronel aesthetic,
for rural,
existing
scientific, histonc, scenic, or low - intents ty ec
and future generations, and includes, but is not Limited to, open spaces,
wetlands. marshes. aquifer recharge areas, shoreline areas. naturals areas,
and other lands and waters that are important to preserve flora and fauna.
The property buyer, rather than the seller, pays this tax. RCW 82.46.070, Only San Juan
County has levied this tax to date
Accounting for These Funds
Because this revenue source has a dedicated purpose, it must be accounted for separately
in a capital projects fund. Those cities and counties that are planning under GMA and
levying both REET 1 and REET 2 need to keep track of each of these revenues separately
because the uses to which they may be put are different. the t 2.46.030(2) and RC
acc
82.46.035(4) Although no special direction given
for funds collected under RCW 82.46 070 for conservation areas, these should be kept in
a separate fund also
Reference Sources
• Statutes
• MRSC Inqumes_
Documents
• March 2. 1984 letter from Alan R. Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of
Island County To Kenneth 0 Eikenberry, Washington State Attorney General
• March 6. 1984 letter from Philip H. Austin, Senior Deputy Attorney General to
Alan R.Hancock, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise
tax for cities that are not planting under the Growth Management Act (GMA) or
for cities that are planning under GMA but which have a populanon of 5 00u o-
less
• MRSC sample ordinance to ley. the first quarter percent of the real estate excise
tax for all cities that are planning under GMA and have a population of more than
5 000
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the second quarter percent of the real estate
excise tax rates for clues planning under GMA.
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise
tax for counties that are not planning under the Growth Management Act (GNLA
or for cities that are planning under GMA but which have a population of 5 000 or
less
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the first quarter percent of the real estate excise
tax for all counties that are planning under GMA and have a population of more
than 5 000
• MRSC sample ordinance to levy the second quarter percent of the real estate
excise tax rates for counties planning under GMA.
• Real estate excise tax rates ( 126kb) from the Washington State Department of
Revenue
Case Scenarios State Real Estate Tax (1.28 %1 Real Estate Excise Tax #1 (0.25 %) Real Estate Excise Tax #2 (0 25 %) Total Arnount Tax Paid
Case No 1 (State Tax Only) $1,280 00 $0 00 $0 00 $1,280 00
Case No. 2 (State and REET 1) $1,280.00 $250 00 $0 00 $1,530 00
Case No. 3 (State, REET 1 & 2) $1,280 00 $250 00 $250 00 $1,780 00
Costs based on $100,000 house
Resolution Calling for a Public Vote to
Increase the Tax on Private Utilities
electricity, telephone, natural gas and
(electricity,
cellular phone) from 6% to 7
•
•
RESOLUTION R -2003-
A RESOLUTION concerning taxation of private utilities, calling for a special election
to approve a 1% increase in the utility tax rate on electrical energy,
telephone, natural gas, and cellular /wireless telephone service
businesses to fund rebuilding, improvement and mamtenance of
arterial streets within the City of Yakima.
WHEREAS, after studying the issues for much of 2002, the Capital Facilities
Committee finds that the rebuildmg, improvement and maintenance of arterial streets is
critical to the future of the City of Yakima, and
WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Committee recommends a number of options
to fund said arterial street rebuilding, improvement and maintenance, including a 1%
increase on pnvate utility taxes imposed pursuant to YMC 5 50 050; and
WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a tax on the total gross income of the
following utility businesses at the following rates, as provided by the following sections
of the Yakima Municipal Code:
electrical energy 6% YMC 5.50 050(A)(1)
telephone 6% YMC 5.50 050(A)(2)
natural gas 4% YMC 5.50 050(A)(3)
cellular telephone 6% YMC 5 50 050(A)(5),
and
WHEREAS, the natural gas business (Cascade Natural Gas Corporation) m
Yakima is subject to a franchise agreement with the City of Yakima under which the
City collects a 2% franchise fee, which franchise fee is, pursuant to RCW 35.21.860,
combined with the current utility tax (4 %) authorized by RCW 35.21 870, to establish
the upper limit of utility tax (6 %) which may be imposed under RCW 35.21.870 without
approval of a majority of voters of the City, and
1
(Ik) res cfc uuhty tax increase 8-14-03 pm
WHEREAS, RCW 35.21.870 allows the City to impose a tax which exceeds 6 0%
on the utility businesses listed above if the rate m excess of 6.0% is first approved by a
majority of voters of the City voting on such a proposition, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City and
the greater Yakima community that a special election be called m the City of Yakima to
seek the voters' approval of a 1% increase in the tax rates under YMC 5 50 050 on the
utility busmesses of electrical energy, telephone service, natural gas energy, and
cellular /wireless telephone service m order to fund rebuilding, improvement and
maintenance of arterial streets within the City of Yakima, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1. It is in the best interests of the City of Yakima to rebuild, improve
and maintain arterial streets and to fund said improvements in part by a 1% increase m
the rates of taxes imposed pursuant to YMC 5 05 050 on the utility businesses of
electrical energy, telephone service, natural gas energy, and cellular /wireless telephone
service.
Section 2. Definitions.
"Business" means, collectively, electrical energy, telephone, natural gas, and
cellular telephone businesses. Business means any one of such businesses.
"City" means the City of Yakima, Washington.
"Council" means the City Council of the City of Yakima.
"Tax" means, collectively, the taxes imposed by the City pursuant to RCW
35.21.870 under Yakima Municipal Code 5.50 050 on the privilege of conducting
an electrical energy, telephone, natural gas, or cellular /wireless telephone
business.
Section 3. Tax Rate Increase. If a majority of voters of the City approves a 1%
increase in the utility tax on electricity, telephone, natural gas, and cellular telephone
business imposed under YMC 5 05 050, the Council shall be authorized, pursuant to
RCW 35.21.870, to increase by 1% the Tax on the privilege of conducting electrical
2
(1k) res do utility tax mcrease 8- 14 -03.pm
energy, telephone, natural gas, and cellular telephone business up to a total utility tax of
7 %, including, m the case of natural gas pursuant to RCW 35.21.860, the 2% franchise
fee The 1% increase m the rates of such Tax shall be enacted by the Council by
ordinance only if the 1% increase is approved by the voters.
The revenue derived from such voter - approved 1% increase in the rate of Tax
allowed under RCW 35.21.870(1) shall be used to fund rebuilding, improvement and
maintenance of arterial streets within the City
Section 4. Special Election. The City Council hereby formally requests the
Yakima County Auditor to deem, as specified by RCW 2913 020(2), an emergency to
exist, and to call a special election in the City of Yakima on the day of the first Tuesday
after the first Monday m February 2004, to submit to the qualified voters of the City of
Yakima the proposition of whether or not the City shall increase by 1% utility taxes on
electrical energy, telephone, natural gas, and cellular /wireless telephone businesses to
fund rebuilding, improvement and maintenance of arterial streets within the City of
Yakima, and to do so in the following form.
Proposition No
Rebuilding, Improvement and Maintenance of Arterial Streets
Shall the City of Yakima increase by 1% the current tax rates on electrical energy,
telephone, natural gas, and cellular /wireless telephone businesses to fund rebuilding,
improvement and maintenance of arterial streets within the City of Yakima, all as more
fully provided in Resolution 2003 -R- of the Yakima City Council?
For the Proposition Yes / /
Against the Proposition No / /
The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to deliver a certified
copy of this resolution to the Yakima County Auditor and to take all other necessary
3
(Ik) res do utility fax increase 8-14-03 pm
and proper steps to present to the Yakima County Auditor any and all documents the
Auditor may determine are necessary or convenient to set the special election and
accomplish the purposes of this resolution.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _ day of October, 2003
Mary Place, Mayor
ATTEST
Karen S Roberts, City Clerk
4
(Ik) res dc utility tax increase8- 14 -03.pm
2003 MAJOR POLICY ISSUES /
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUESTS
DEPARTMENT Community and DIVISION Engineering
Economic Development
POLICY ISSUE TITLE. Budget Proposal to Create an
Arterial Street Program Utilizing
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Loans/
Matching Funds — Unbudgeted
(Council Request)
1 Proposal/Fiscal Impact -- Prepare a package of arterial street projects amounting to
So,500,000 in capital improvements in 2004 -2006 using the statewide competiti\ e
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Loan Program. Timelines tor this would be to
submit an application to PWTF in Jul\ 2003, the selection process would be
completed in October 2003, and the PWTF rnone\ could be a\ ailable in 2004 The
debt sera ice tor this loan would probabl} begin in FY2005 These funds, if
approved, would be programmed tor the (1) Nob Hill extension, (2) Rudkin
Road /East Mead Reconstruction, (3) 40th Avenue /Fruitvale Boulevard Extension,
and (4) selected grind and overla\ street projects (list attached)
2. a. Proposed Funding Source — Appl\ to the Public Works Trust Fund for a 1/2%
(0 5 %) loan of 55,525,000, and provide the 15% match trom a 10 vear, 51 million
Councilmaruc Bond (which will net $975,000 for projects atter issuance costs)
S120,000 in debt service on the 10 vear Councilmanic Bond would be funded
trom an allocation from the Contingency Budget Reduction Plan 5320,000 of
annual debt service tor the Public Works loan could be tunded tor the next 20
years, beginning in 2005 by implementing further reductions from the
Contingency Budget Reduction Plan. The total annual debt service needed
from contingency budget reductions is 5440,000 for the first 10 years, and
5320,000 tor the following 10 vears
b. Public Impact — The public would benefit in convenience and satet\ trom the
proposed street improvements The public ma\ not benefit trom the programs
reduced or elimnated (round in the Contingenc\ Budget Reduction Plan) to
fund the package of street improvements
c. Personnel Impact -- Design services tor these protects would come from in-
house Engineering staff and / or design consulting firms
d. Required Changes in City Regulations or Policies -- None
e. Legal Constraints, if applicable — None.
Police Issues 2003 Eller /P11 Art .Res.St.Proe . doc
— .2 o /G: 2.3 A11
III -5
f Viable Alternati' es --
•
Continue to sa\ e gas tax re\ enue and pa; cash 10r the ^roles'- o- = -
ou -go basis, or use the cash to 1eN erage gran *.s from the State rein-..
funding agencies -- this \ti ould sigruricanti\ extend tne umetrame tor prole.
runain '
� since Ar t Stree rune_ are near; al' committed or o'r <
Arterial
protects and debt service ror man\ < ears
• Continue to explore and then aecide or the matter o_ implementing tne
second 1 '4 percent (0.25%) Real Estate Excise Tax vv hick \\ ouid generate ar
estimated S350,000 per year aedicated to street and transror tatior
impro\ ements
• Use a oted debt option b\ de\ eloping a S6 5 million bond issue prorosa' to
replace the recentl\ retired bond levies Propert\ taxes w ould pa\ the debt
service
• Seek legislative support, tor a local share ot an\ new transportation funding,
package for the State
3 Conclusion -- A Sl million Councilmanic
would be
annuall� ould be needed
million Public Works Trust Fund Loan.
the amount ot 5440,000 tor 10 vears, and S320,000 annuall\ tor another 10 years to
repa\ both the bond issue and the Public Works Trust Fund Loan
In the absence ot anN neti resources the funding source, to pa\ these debt service
obligations, must come from implementing a portion ot the Contingent\ Budget
Reduction Plan as selected by the Council
Utilizing the Contingency Budget Reduction Plan to pay for the matching funds
and debt service over the next 20 years would require that a major portion of the
Contingent\ Budget Reduction Plan be allocated tor this policy issue, and would
necessitate a new plan be developed tor future service reduction needs In
addition, the cost reductions in the Contingency Plan clearly impact municipal
service delivery and may not be desirable choices at this time
4. Recommendation -- With all due respect to the Council's desire to maximize the
use ot the Public Works Trust Fund, start recommends referring this plan to the
Capital Facilities Committee tor turther stud\ and analysis in conjunction with
their reviey% ot the Arterial Street Program needs and request a recommendation
b% March 2003 to appl\ tor the 2004 Public Works tunding cycle in Iu1N ot next
year
�ouc issues Zoo? cner PI \TF Art .Res.StProg.coc
_ _ c'0_ .._: AM
III -6
Public Works Trust Fund
Project List
Prolec',
Description Cost Estimate
Nob Hill Bh d Reconstruction I\ iden Curb & Gutter Siaev. alt.
LIghting Storm Drainage 5=.500 000 0
d'na Ave to 68th Ax e 0 0
Rudkm Road Reconstruction Reconstruct with Curb & Gutter Side%% all, 000 0
East Mead to \ Iola Ave Lighting Storm Drainage Add one lane 51 - 85
40th Ave Fruit ale Blh d Intersection cme sovem is to add one lane
to on-ramp a
Includes WSDOT Participation
51.215 000 00
Grind and Overlax Street Projects Continue this necessan street maintenance ' Sl 000 000 00
Improvement program
56,00,000.00
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Poiic• Issues 200_ .ngr /P1\ T: Art.Kes.St Prog.no.
— 12 0 /02 °._s AM
III -7
Excerpt from December 10 2003 Budget Wrap -Up Meeting
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING — Council Added
Create an Arterial Street Program utilizing Public Works Trust Fund
Loans/Matching Funds. BARNETT MOVED AND GEORGE SECONDED TO
REFER THIS ITEM TO THE (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS/FACILITIES) CIF
COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THEIR
STUDY The motion carried
unanimous voice me to start forming aepub�cn son
commented that now is a good Involvement plan
SECTION 1
Summary of 2003 Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures for Street
Maintenance & Operations/Rehabilitation et al
Beginning 2003 of 2003 of Ending Fund
Description Fund Bal Revenues Rev Expenditures ReN Balance
1. Fund 141 - Street & Traffic Operations
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $923,160
Revenues.
Property Taxes & Co Rd Tax fr Annex $2,970,644 71
Gas Tax 1,145,000 28
Intergovernmental Revenues(grants / entitlements) . 500 0
Charges tor Services(str & curb permits /internal) 24,000 1
Miscellaneous Revenues 20,050 0
Expenditure's:
Traffic Engineering Operations $1 741 678 42
Equipment - Signal Controllers, Sign Fabricator /Plotter 22,500 1
Street Maintenance & Operations(sealcoat, snow
removal, potholes, wheel path, preservation, etc.) 2,684,618 65
Debt Service (Fruitvale Phase 2 -mat date 2011) 16,875 0
Debt Service (1994 1-82 Bond -mat date 2013) 50,000 1
Debt Service(1998 Street Bond -mat date 2008) 122,000 3
Debt Service(Pub Wrks Trst Ln- Yakima Av -mat date 2011) 20,000 0
Contribution to Fd 392 - 2003 Grind & Overlay Project
(trom '02 beginning fund balance) 100,000
Service Vehicle - 0 0
Total Street & Traffic Operations $923,160 $4,160,194 100 $4,757,671 114 $325,683 (1)
(1) Cash flow contingence ,snow removal, and reserve tor matching future grants.
2. Fund 142 - Arterial Street
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance $130,191
Revenues:
Arterial Street State 1/2 cents Gas Tax $525,000 11
Intergovernmental Revenues(Federal Hwy Adm-
Washington Avenue /Downtown Sidewalk etc.) 4,334,737 87
Miscellaneous Revenue 18,500 0
Other Financing Sources:
Operating Transfer(fr Street & LID Assmnt) 40,372 1
Residual Equity Trf(debt sery cont fr Utility funds) 57,199 1
Expenditures:
Debt Service(Tieton Dr 5th mat date -2006) $39,378 1
Debt Service(No Ist St mat date -2011) 54,468 1
Debt Service(Fair Ave mat date -2015) 60,174 1
Debt Service(Pub Wrks Trst Ln- Yakima Av mat -date 2011) 128,620 3
Debt Service(SIED Loan County- Yakima Av mat -date 2011) 5,476 0
Contribution to Fd 392 - 2003 Grind & Overlay project
(trom '02 beginning fund balance) 0 0
Operating Transfer to Debt Sery Fd(1994 1-82 Bnd) 70,000 1
P1796 Valley Mall Boulevard 3,000 0
P1867 Traffic Calming Project 10,000 0
P1872 Annual Bridge inspection 10,000 0
P1875 Sidewalk Program 50,000 1
P1901 Washington Avenue Expansion 2,514,936 51
P1915 Washington Ave Exp 40th to 48th Ave -Cnty 1,585,000 32
P1919 Mead Avenue Improvement 381,243 8
P1944 River Rd N 16th Av to Fruitvale 75,000 2
P1957 Washington Ave Exp 48th to 64th -Ave-Cnty 15,000 0
P1958 Washington Ave Exp 64th to 72nd Ave -Cnty 15,000 0
P1964 Englewood and 16th Ave Signal 65;000 1
P2006 Nobhill 68th to 80th Ave 1 0
P2007 Zier Rd 72nd to 75th.Sidewalk 1 0
Total Arterial Street $130,191 $4,975,808 100 $5,082,297 . 102 $23,702 (1)
(1) Cash flow /Debt service reserve.
erp 8/27/03 3:21 PM bud - 141- to- 392.xls
SECTION I
Summary of 2003 Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures for Street
Maintenance & Operations/Rehabilitation et al
Beginning I 2003 % of 2003 `,-, of Ending Fund
Description Fund Bal Revenues Rey Expenditures Rev Balance
3. Fund 143 - Transportation Improvement 5113 (1)
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance
Revenues. $0 n/a
Miscellaneous Revenue
Expenditures: $� n / a
1 -82 Gateway Projeet(Stage c - Landscaping) 0
Contingency for Gateway Project close out 0 n / a
(from '00 beginning fund balance) a G 11 ;
Total Transportation Improvement $113 $ 0 0 $ 0
(1) Balance of I -82 Gateway project(see Attachment I -A for more details).
4. Fund 342 -Public Wrks Trust Constr -
Beginning Fund Balance $273,171
Revenues: 5,000 85
Local 1/4 Real Estate Excise Tax 5425,000 5
Miscellaneous Revenue 1
Other Financing Sources: 50,625 10
Operating Transfer(Debt Sery fr Street & Irr -Frtvl Cnl)
Residual Equity Transfer(Debt Sery fr Wtr & Swr -Frtvl Cnl) 24,375 5
Expenditures:
Debt Service(Tieton Dr mat date -2006) $43,579 9
Debt Service(Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007) 10,946 2
Debt Service(Fruitvale Cnl & Lighting mat date -2009) 53,429 11
Debt Service(Fruitvale Canal mat date -2011) 78,869 16
Operating Transter -Debt Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond mat date 2008) 60,000 12
Operating Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cnty Bnd mat date 2007-09) 40,000 8
P1783 City Hall Rehab(reroof-50k/ demo& design-100k/ alarm sys -25k) 175,000 35
Total Public Wks Trust Const $273,171 $505,000 101 $461,823 93 $316,348 (1)
(1) Cash flow / debt service reserve.
5. Fund 392 -Cum Res for Capital Impry
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5145,512
Revenues:
intergovernmental Revenues(Federal Grant - Railroad) $1,350,000 92
Intergovernmental Revenues(Federal Hwy Adm- Nobhill Blvd) 8,650 1
Miscellaneous Revenue 2,000 0
Other Financing Sources:
Contribution tr Street and Arterial St - 2000 Grind & Overlay 100,000 7
Balance on Public Works Trust Fund Loan 0 0
Expenditures:
P1818 Railroad Grade Separation $0 0
P1818 Railroad Grade Separation(Federal Study Environmental Impact) 1,350,000 92
P1813 Railroad Crossing Supp Safety(Whistle ban-'99 carryover) 0 0
P1829 Nobhill Blvd and 6th St Signal 20,000 1
P1886 Grind and Overlay(Yakima Av -CBD signal -pwtl) 0 0
P2015 2003 Grind and Overlay(Nobhill Overpass fnd bal) 100,000 7
Total Cum Res for Capital lmpry $145,512 $1 460,650 100 51,470,000 101 $136,162 (1)
(1) Cash flow /contingency reserve.
Grand Total tor all 5 Funds 51,472,1471 $11,101,652 $11,771,791 (
(1)These funds are being held for
a. Street & Traffic Operations - Cash flow contingency, snow removal, and reserve for matching future grants,
erp 8/27/03 3.21 PM bud - 141- to-392.xIs
SECTION I
Summary of 2003 Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures for Street
Maintenance & Operations /Rehabilitation et al
Beginning 2003 % of 2003 0 of nding Fund
Description Fund Bal ( Revenues Rev Expenditures Rev Balance
b. Arterial Street - Cash flow. and debt service reserve,
c. Public Wrks Trust Const - Cash flow and debt service reserve, and
d. Cum Res tor Cap Imp - Cash flow and contingency reserve.
6. Unbudgeted Potential Resources: Available Pledged Balance
a. Surface Transportation Program (SIP) revenues /grant $1,200,000 (1)
Pledged to Nobhill $386,000
Pledged to Washington Avenue 414,000 $400,000
Pledged to Mead Avenue(Right of Way) 400,000
b. National Highway System (NHS) 507,994 (1)
Pledged to Union Gap - Valley Mall Blvd project 507,994 (2) 0
Total Unbudgeted Potential Resources $1,707,994 $1,707,994 $0 (3)
(1) A 13.50 %. local/state match is required to obtain these revenues, 2003 budget does not include these revenues as there are no
matching funds currently available.
(2) Additionally, Council has pledged future revenues from NHS up to a total of $44,841 for Union Gap - Valley Mall Blvd project.
(3) Both STP and NHS may be spent on any street improvements on a Federal -aid roadway(e.g. arterial street, major collector street, etc.)
including, grind and overlay, signalization, right of way purchases, lighting, etc.
erp 8/27/03 3:21 PM bud - 141- to-392.xls
4110 Written Materials
Submitted at
Public Hearings
•
0
Business of the Yakima City Council
Rebuilding and Paving of Arterial Streets and Alleys
September 2, 16 and 30, 2003
Testimony of Larry Mattson, AICP, 2810 Shelton Ave 98902
Disclosure
Non - partisan issue
Problem /Solution /Innovation
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
D The backlog of streets needing attention grows bigger every day,
• There are state and federal grants and loans which can leverage local dollars,
D Leveraging those state and federal dollars requires a dedicated local revenue
stream,
D The legislature created the 1st and 2nd quarter REET expressly for the purpose of
funding capital improvements,
D Now is the time to address our street needs, NOT before they are riddled with
potholes, and to do so in a way that demonstrates fiscal responsibility and greater
accountability
SPECIFICS:
A Growing Backlog of Projects
No, the sky is not falling, but we've completed precious little of the $70 million in
transportation improvements identified in the 1995 Capital Facilities Plan We must
view our roads as investments. We paint our houses to protect our investment in our
homes, just as we change the oil in our cars We do these things to preserve their
usefulness to us and to help maintain their value Accordingly, we must invest in our
streets to protect our investment in them over the long term
Leverage The Need for A Dedicated, Substantial Revenue Stream
Yakima needs a dedicated revenue stream to enable us to compete for low - interest
loans and state and federal grants which require a 20 -50 percent local matching
contribution Inaction is always an option, but such an approach doesn't serve our
citizens and demonstrates a lack of leadership Why would we refuse four dollars for
every one we contribute is beyond reason, but that's what we do every day Last
time I checked, our city wasn't in a position to refuse state and federal dollars.
Purchasing Power A Dollar Today vs A Dollar in 2013 (74 cents), in 2023 (55
cents)
The consequences of failing to act are real, and they cost money The cumulative
effect of inflation, assuming 3 percent per year, means $1 today is worth 74 cents
in 2013, or 55 cents in 2023. Especially with bonding (Option 1), the future value of
a dollar is less than its current value due to inflation
Page 1 of 7
Funding Taxes - The Third Rail of Politics
Yesterday, today and tomorrow, people say we can't afford to pay for better streets
The point is, there will never be a time when our entire community finally agrees that
we can afford these needed improvements, and to think otherwise is folly
A New Way of Thinking
We are here today to discuss streets, and if we wish to use more of the public's money
for that purpose, then we darn well better promise them it will be spent as promised
We will do so in ways that demonstrate fiscal responsibility and greater
accountability, such as
Annual road reports to the community that clearly explain how their dollars were
leveraged with state and federal grants and loans,
Quarterly updates to council, during the business meeting, of progress on specific
projects,
Road shows, where we take our show on the road and bring it to the citizens, to get
honest feedback on how we are doing
In conclusion:
> The backlog of streets needing attention grows bigger every day;
> state and federal grants and loans can leverage local dollars,
> Leveraging those state and federal dollars requires a dedicated local revenue
stream,
> The legislature created the 1st and 2nd quarter REET expressly for the purpose of
funding capital improvements,
> Now is the time to address our street needs, NOT before they are riddled with
potholes
2
WS LC Online -- Bender Column, January 2003 Page 1 of 2
• JANUARY 2003 --
, S Le Business climate warmer than complainers admit
''::,;:,Le::,, '� E by Rick S Bender President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL -CIO •
's k gi
"Taxes are too high, government regulations cost too much, environmental ,,.,," ,.x 3> `` . - -
C
ON T A c r rules stifle the economy, and our state can't compete " .
what new If you've heard that refrain before, you shouldn't be surprised The business
' '
COMING EVENTS : y "wei �.r�.,
lobby has sung that same song for some 20 years, not just here, but in ; ,
WSIC REPORTS TODAY .
mors I Minnesota, Maryland, Oregon and just about everywhere else, except some of �
2003 . CONVENTION , ._., the lost corners of the deep south The complaints have been consistent: The
2003 RESOLUTIONS, ' business climate has always been terrible everywhere for everyone -,:
who We are This now amounts to "crying wolf," because the facts cannot support the "''`
why join uni0n� complaints about our state Here are just a few of the most recent reports that
put the "Washington's bad business climate" complaint in question Rick S Bender
legislative issues ,, ,
political education. • The 2002 Small Business Survival Index ranked our state at No 8, ahead of 42 other
states The index measures fundamental business issues of taxes.
• The Progressive Policy Institute issued its 2002 State New Economy Index showing our
state ranking No 2 based on measures of business incentives, infrastructure and quality of
R Reports life
itrial, • The Bloomberg Personal Finance magazine 2001 survey ranked all 50 states based on
taxes, sales, real estate and other assets on four families. Washington ranked No 5 in
Rcao our DAILY "wealth friendliness."
reports and links • The Tax Foundation ranks Washington in 2002 as 20th in comparing state and local tax
t°' labor- related burdens In 1993, they ranked us ninth
• Suffolk University's Beacon Hill Institute in 2002 ranked the Seattle- Tacoma - Bremerton area
as the nation's most competitive area because of a wealth of capital, a highly educated
workforce, a good high -tech infrastructure and high level of exports.
Of course, the "whiners" can always scrape up a study or two that claim our state is at the bottom
of the business climate list. But those lists usually put.great places like North Dakota and
Mississippi on the top of the list, so a reality check is always useful
It's also worthwhile to remember that our State Constitution forbids granting any state revenue to
private business. Some states offer cash incentives to companies to locate in their state For
example, Oregon can offer loans of up to a half million dollars and no property taxes for up to five
years, and Idaho can offer grants and loans to pay for utilities of private business. Our neighbors
never learned the lesson many Washington towns did when they bankrupted themselves trying to
attract the railroads in the 1800s. That's why our Constitution is very strict about the "incentives"
government can offer business.
If low taxes were the end -all of economic vitality and business competitiveness, then it would stand
to reason that low -tax states would have a booming business climate The lowest taxed state in the
nation is South Dakota. Enough said?
Are there ways to improve our state's business climate? You bet. But they don't include shirking
our responsibilities to injured or unemployed workers, and they don't include shifting our state's tax
burden from businesses to individuals. Unfortunately, that's how the usual business lobby would go
about "improving" our business •climate
What these business climate surveys fail to measure is the reason most of us choose to live here
Washington's quality of life is second to none Our environment is clean, our natural beauty and
resources are tremendous benefits. Our schools do a good job of educating our children, and we
have one of the most highly skilled and educated workforces in the nation Outside of Puget Sound,
our roads and bridges are in pretty good shape, and within Puget Sound, we have developed a
high -tech infrastructure that allows super -fast communications and computing. We have lots to be
proud of
In fact, I find all the "trash talking" that's going on about our state insulting and damaging If these
ideological zealots could stop complaining for a while, our hard - working economic development
http / /www wslc org /columns /03 9/29/2003
SLC Online -- Bender Column, January 2003 Page 2 of 2
agencies would have a much easier task.
The noise of whining about how bad our business climate is drowns out the positive story that we
need to share about what's right about Washington
Rick Bender is President of the Washington State Labor Council, the largest labor organization in
the state
Return to index of Presidents Columns
Copyright 2003 Washington State Labor Council AFL -CIO
http. / /www wslc org /columns /03 9/29/2003
Page 1 of 1
clarence gipson
From "The Daily Mislead" <latest @daily misleader org>
To <gipson c @charter net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8 03 AM
Subject: Tax Cuts Lead to Largest Deficit Ever
TAX CUTS LEAD TO LARGEST DEFICIT EVER IN COMPLETE REVERSAL OF BUSH'S
PREDICTIONS
Despite President Bush's assurance in 2001 that his tax cuts "could happen
without fear of budget deficit, even if the economy softens," the estimated
$455 Killion budget deficit this fiscal year will be the highest in U S
history
In the President's 2002 State of the Union message he tried to shift blame
onto Congress, saying "our budget will run a deficit that will be small and
short -term so long as Congress restrains spending," but earlier this month
he admitted his tax cuts account for 25% of the deficit.
9/30/2003
Return on Investment Options 1, 2, and 3
- - - $ 90,000,000 _
90 $2 00 vb.
$2 00 ct i
N
41
80
4
4 ®Taxes Invested By Community
70
N ' ES Match on Gravel St Alley
60 $ 54,000,000 ko j • Dollars spent on Gravel Streets And
st, Alleys
$4 80 $64 00
to CI Match on Arterial Improvement
6
50
$4 80 ❑Dollars spent on Arterial Improvement
a
4 LN Match on Arterial Mait
40 4
h
■ Dollars spent on Arterial Maintenance
30 $32 00 4
$ 22,000,000 N. $24,000,000
20 3 00 $ 17 600,000 $17,600 "
1040 "'' $1600 1 "
10 $8 00 .); �
5 60
' ' ;t:. sv„.
, ,... , 3,00. 44 e ,..„ 1 , 4 ,,,_,.. ,,,, , .,..
„7.›.:4r,.,..,..,,_a,,,_ ...„, tu - 4.,,,..! oe ' -.V - ' . t.-." , . id-% . .. ,,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative Costs of Option #3
8 $750
7
6
5.
$4 00
$3 75
4 NNW
$3 00
3��
$1 80 $1 89
2 , %.,..
1
4 r a •
,.. •...�3d.`L-" •..... r . ?A '� � .,s. t2 � 3 �?: i'b• :µ'Fi ¢ �„ ?ri.• �� s
O ...�.__ _,. ._._ ._.. } �
Average Monthly Cost for Cost for Latte Cost for pack of Cost of Video Cost for Movie
Cost hamburger Cigarettes Rental
Relative Cost of Options #1 and #2
8 $750
7
6
5
$4 00
$3 75 Series3
4 ® ,k #
$3 00 ■ Series2
N DSeriesl
_ i
3 _..n..
$1 �. ,.. , .
z r- � 7 -.1,
2 — ; ,-
$1 10 � .-.
1 ..iii'7 t • Ii GKIt •
y
Average Cost for Cost for Latte Cost for pack of Cost of Video Cost for Movie
Monthly Cost hamburger Cigarettes Rental
41k Central Washington
Home Builders Association
September 30, 2003
Yakima City Council
Yakima City Hall
129 N 2 " St.
Yakima, WA 98901
Dear Council Members (Public Hearing Testimony)
The 640 member Central Washington Home Builders Association would like to offer further
comments regarding the Title 12 Street Standards and the street maintenance funding options
that are before you today We appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
We have maintained for many years that Title 12 was too restrictive and established a higher
standard than this community could either afford or support. While not defending the
appropriateness of the original standard, we have observed changes in its application that have
essentially rendered it inequitable in its current use What used to be "The Standard" has
become Swiss cheese -like with the number of public projects exempted from strict compliance
while other private projects are required to follow the letter of the standard.
To impose "Cadillac" development standards of any kind upon this community only serves to
discourage development and stifle growth. Construction and Development Standards should
specify the minimum acceptable level of performance required. To set the bar at such a high
level only enhances the perception that Yakima is a costly City in which to serve the demands
for growth. A wise Council- member will balance his /her own personal visions for the
community with the reality of what the community can afford and maintain. A profile of the
City of Yakima should provide all the necessary clues for the Council, from which to best
shape the policies and standards for our community We suggest the Council allow the free
market to determine the demand for a higher standard and permit the private sector to meet
those needs
Repeating our opening comments from the previous two hearings, CWHBA favors the
alignment of all service /use taxes directly with the services provided. In the interest of building
community trust and understanding, it is better to charge for a public service directly with an
associated fee or tax. We understand that several direct street maintenance funding sources
currently available to the City were not brought to the Council for consideration. We have to
ask why? Granted, the available tax options may be unpopular to some, but they still should be
on the table for consideration. The Capital Facilities Committee should have been more
thorough with providing you all the options as well as the anticipated consequences In that
way, the Council would then have had all the necessary data from which to make an informed
decision.
3301 W Nob Hill Blvd. Yakima. WA 98902
509 454 4006 800 492.9422 Fax 509 454 4008
www cwhba.org
The vision of CWHBA is an environment conducive to the success of its Members.
Yakima City Council
September 30, 2003
Page 2
User fees /taxes are the easiest to justify to the taxpayer, and likewise are better understood by
the electorate The practice of funding one unassociated service or utility with proceeds from
some other type of service or utility tax, totally unrelated, ;has contributed to the current tax
revolution in Washington State The other direct, user - associated tax/fee options not under
consideration include a commercial parking tax, local option motor fuel tax, local option motor
vehicle license fees, and a local public right -of -way bicycle license fee
In the interest of saving precious taxpayer resources, we encourage the City Council to consider
alternative service delivery mechanisms founded on competitive principles Given the
opportunity, the private sector has demonstrated that they can provide some services that are
currently provided by the City and often at a reduced rate to the consumer A number of
communities have competitively contracted their water and wastewater systems with cost
savings from 10 to more than 30 percent. Other side benefits of contracting out include such
things as insulating the City from future odor litigation.
We are not the first community to face both budget constraints and infrastructure maintenance
needs, nor will we be the last. Communities across the country have successfully met these
challenges without falling prey to the convenient decision to raise taxes That is a conclusion
we do not support. We do, however, offer the following list of approaches utilized in
communities across the country to avoid raising taxes on their residents
Suggestions. for City cost efficiencies (other details provided in an additional handout)
• Privatize City provided utilities, potentially reducing overhead cost some 10 to 30%
• Where permitted by law, move to the "Design/Build" method of infrastructure delivery
with a single contractor and away from the traditional separation of design and builder
• Sell off certain assets to the Private sector This can provide a huge infusion of cash to
the City while relieving them of the burden of infrastructure expansion and service
delivery Privatizing the Public Parks and swimming pools would be one example
• Partner with the private sector, 1 e , a private sector partner contracts to provide a
facility or some physical infrastructure to the community (parks and pools)
Yakima City Council
September 30, 2003
Page 3
CWHBA offers the following suggestions for Title 12
• Incorporate into the standard a means of providing flexibility One such method is to
provide the development community with incentives to do more (a process currently
under consideration in Kittitas County For example for providing sidewalks on both
sides of the street, the developer is credited with bonus points that could be used to
reduce the minimum lot size In another example, the developer is allowed to reduce
the residential street size by providing a community common area or park within or
adjacent to the development. The "carrot instead of the stick" approach.
• Identify within the Standard a method for filing an appeal of the City Engineers
decision by referencing an Appeals Board or some other body
• The City engineer should be given more latitude to make judgment calls as long as an
appeal process was in place We encourage the Council to make Title 12 a "guiding"
document rather than the regulatory instrument it is today
• Short of that, reduce the (minimum) Residential Street standard to 20 feet with parking
on one side as well as a five foot sidewalk on one side Narrow streets will slow
traffic as demonstrated in many newer communities across the State
• Remove bike lanes from the streets Adopt the widely used concept of an eight -foot
pathway or sidewalk on one side of arterials, striped for pedestrians and bicycles
Bicycles can coexist with pedestrians a lot better than with automobiles Pathway
funding can be accomplished with Bicycle Public ROW License fees
• Remove all trees from sidewalks Move them outside the sidewalk infrastructure
Every responsible maintenance plan should include some damage prevention strategy
This policy would save the community thousands of dollars every year
In conclusion, the CWHBA urges the Yakima City Council members to give serious thought to
our suggestions Please consider our doors open to you at all times for further discussion of
these ideas We exist to serve our member's needs, in part by serving the needs of the greater
Yakima community
The community has elected you as the gatekeepers for their common good This is a
tremendous burden if carried alone We encourage you to consider us a resource of ideas, and
we are eager to begin working with you on innovative solutions to these ongoing problems
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
CENTRAL WASHINGTON HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
Joe Walsh
I C1.Ka )
Potential City Cost Efficiencies
• Compete -out contracts to perform city services Cities can realize
extraordinary savings and improve service quality at the same time by allowing
private companies to compete against public employees for contracts to provide
city services Private vendors can produce savings through innovation and a deep
commitment to customer service Competitive bidding also provides incentives
for city departments to trim bureaucratic bloat, eliminate waste, increase
productivity, and focus on outcomes
• Empower unions to compete When union workers are given the freedom to put
their own ideas into action, they can be as innovative, effective, and cost -
conscious as their private sector counterparts Empowering frontline employees
requires freeing workers from bureaucratic rules In some cases, cities have hired
independent business consultants to help the public employees re- engineer their
work systems and prepare bids for city contracts There have been occasions
where city workers outperform their own bids, and then shared in the savings they
generated by being rewarded with substantial bonus checks
• Create real competition between private firms Many cities already rely on
private firms to perform vital municipal functions Allowing open competition
among public and private firms can dramatically reduce costs while improving
service quality
• Compete out the management of municipal assets, not just services Millions
of dollars in savings can be locked inside even comparatively well -run municipal
utilities Tapping the large national reservoir of private- sector talent in these
areas can give cities access to cutting -edge technology and superior management
practices that produce dramatic savings
• Buy outcomes, not processes, and establish performance measures
Governments typically focus on inputs — measuring the quality of a service by the
amount of money spent providing it. Cities can change this by spelling out the
precise outcomes that each city department or private vendor is expected to
accomplish and at what cost. Rather than specifying how often contractors mow a
certain park, cities ought to specify how tall the grass may be allowed to grow
Rather than buying asphalt, trucks, and employee hours (inputs), cities ought to
purchase smooth streets (outcomes) Performance standards can be used
internally as well to evaluate and reward city employees, enabling managers to
tell at a glance whether a certain division is over or under budget, whether its
productivity is adequate and what areas need improvement.
• Institute activity based costing City Councils who want to make their
government more efficient can start with a process called activity based costing
(ABC) ABC is a simple but powerful mechanism that measures the real costs of
providing a service — filling in a pothole, for example or plowing a mile of snow
For every identifiable activity of government, ABC determines the cost of
everything that goes into conducting that activity The process uses private- sector
definitions of depreciation and includes all the costs of idle equipment, building
space, and other fixed costs Accurate information about costs provides a
foundation for managers to identify inefficiencies, compete -out services, and
establish performance measures
• Make public employees "owners" through incentive programs. Most public
employees are smart, hardworking people who work in ways that are consistent
with the incentives and rewards in their workplaces Unfortunately, traditional
compensation systems simply divide employees into wage levels and award raises
at uniform rates to all employees based on seniority This approach provides
workers no incentive for efficiency and may actually reward inefficiency
Connecting pay to performance causes the bureaucracy to focus on outcomes and
allows managers to create either individual or team -based incentives that enhance
productivity
• Decentralize purchasing Public managers at all levels complain that
government - purchasing processes are characterized by complicated procedures
multiple approvals for each transaction, and general confusion. One of the best
solutions is to push budget authority down to the lowest level managers
Resource - -The Center for Civic Innovation, Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, Chairman
Joe Walsh. Director of Government Affairs /CWHBA
Z. Government Affairs /Bureaucracy /Managing City Finances.doc
C Central Washington
Home Builders Association
September 2, 2003
Yakima City Council
Yakima City Hall
129 N 2nd St.
Yakima, WA 98901
Dear Council Members
We would like to offer a few observations that may help you with your decision making
process and budget considerations We are a 640 - member trade organization representing over
8,000 families in Central Washington. These hard working individuals provide the inertia to
keep the valley's economic train moving
To begin with, CWHBA favors alignment of tax with the service provided. We will be better
off to return to the basic premise of paying for a public service with an associated fee or tax.
To cross tax from one department for the benefit of another just leads to public unhappiness
and distrust. CWHBA recently provided some resource material for funding infrastructure
We urge you to think outside the box and involve the community in the process
Privatize Water Utility Tax Ordinance
It is proposed that this business tax on water providers be increased from 14% to 17% The last
sentence of paragraph 4 of Section 1 reads "The City of Yakima shall not be subject to the
license fee or tax imposed by this section " We would suggest the City consider getting out of
the water business, thereby making it all private business and all subject to the 14% business
tax. It is conceivable that water could be supplied at a lesser rate even with the added 14%
business tax.
Private Refuse Tax Ordinance
It is proposed to increase the License (business) tax from the current 10% rate to 13% for the
privilege of collecting.and hauling garbage Once again if the City - provided garbage service,
which is quite extensive, were privatized, the entire collection and hauling business would be
subject to the tax. Again, it is conceivable that garbage could be collected a la lower cost by
privatizing, and the City would wind up collecting a greater volume of tax
Council Information (from Chris Waarvick, Public Works Director)
On these three pages, the Public Works Director has advised the Council of the potential for
rate or fee increases facing the residents of Yakima in the near future The variety listed covers
a spectrum of rate adjustments from the certain to the possible Yakima property owners can
already be assured of one new tax — the storm water utility tax Since this utility charge is not
based on a usage measurement like water or refuse, it is actually a new tax Single - family
home owners can expect to pay about six dollars per month to mitigate storm water Other
property owners, especially commercial or business parcels with substantial parking areas will
likely face charges of a few hundred dollars per year
3301 W Nob Bill Blvd Yakima WA 98902
509 454 4006 800 492 9422 Fax 509 454 4008
www cwhba org
The vision of CWHBA is an en 'ironment conducive to the success of I ts Members
Yakima City Council
September 2, 2003
Page 2
All property owners on the City owned Irrigation Utility will soon be liable for a rate increase
of six dollars per month. This rate increase will be used to cover the cost for the Bond Issue
soon to be brought to the Council to rebuild the irrigation systems in the City
Then there is the potential for a Wastewater rate increas6 Reasons given by staff include
odor litigation, connection charge amendments, and pretreatment program requirements It
sounds like Yakima residents can count on some kind of rate and/or fee increase for
Wastewater
Staff also mentions the possibility of rate increases for Refuse sometime next year Suggestion
is also made by staff that a rate adjustment might be in line for Domestic Water in the near
future.
Given the likelihood and potential for these increases, now is the time for the Council to get
serious about finding a few cost saving measures This may be the time for such things as .
wage freezes, hiring freezes, contracting -out of public services, and a re- examination of
core functions of City government. Given the near term point in time when the City's costs
will outpace its revenues, this is the time for you to demonstrate leadership and vision.
Taxpayers will only go so far in supporting council members who continuously increase their
tax burden.
Other observations from the packet include the fact that there are 22 cities and unincorps who
charge no (0 00 %) local REET, four of them being within Spokane County
Item seven We support the vision for a western beltway or loop around the City of Yakima
connecting U S 12 with I -82 The Transaction Committee is doing great visionary work for
our community
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
CENTRAL WASHINGTON HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
Jde Walsh
Director of Governmental Affairs
PRIVATIZATION
PRIVATIZATION AND COMPETITIVE CONTRACTING (OUTSOURCING)
To the extent that existing public service costs are seen as an obstacle to growth, there are
a number of opportunities for communities to lower such costs without diminishing
services by establishing alternative delivery mechanisms on competitive principles In
most municipalities, basic public services such as education, facilities management,
libraries, water supply, wastewater treatment, roads, transit, law enforcement, fire
protection and emergency rescue services are provided by government departments,
publicly owned municipal authorities or by the public authorities created by special
districts
Competitive contracting can be applied to any of the above infrastructure related
services in cases where the infrastructure is already in public ownership In those cases,
day -to -day operations are contracted out to qualified operators for defined periods of
time —often for no more than three -to- five years —to allow for periodic opportunities to
re- compete the contract and sustain competitive pressure on providers
Unlike virtually all other services that Americans consume each day, the services
provided by these public monopolies are protected from competition from alternative
supply sources, whether public or private For the most part, the above services are
funded by general revenues accumulated through the collection of a variety of taxes
including sales, property, special fees and income taxes that are levied on the citizens and
businesses in that community As a consequence, if a citizen chooses to acquire any one
of the above services from an alternative supplier, such as sending children to a parochial
or private school, they must still pay for that alternative service out of the household
budget, while still paying that share of taxes dedicated to fund the provision of the public
service one chooses not to utilize
How Does Privatization Work The municipality introduces public services to the
competitive market, seeking bids from the private sector to provide services under
approaches such as competitive contracting This method enables the municipality to
outsource the operation of infrastructure to a private- sector management firm that wins
the contract through a competitive bidding process
The Benefits of Privatization. Many argue that the protection of these public services
from exposure to competitive forces has led many municipal services to be more costly
and of a lower quality than what might otherwise occur in a competitive market. In
addition to the absence of any competitive threat to keep providers on their toes,
municipal service and infrastructure provision are also subject to procedural requirements
imposed by statute or regulation that can add to delays and costs in changing, improving
Page 2
or expanding the service For example, a number of communities have competitively
contracted their water and wastewater systems with cost savings from 10 to more than 30
percent. Savings of this magnitude would be more than sufficient to comfortably
accommodate the additional housing units that a growing population requires
The Limitations of Privatization. Requires a shift in municipal procedural requirements
imposed by statute or regulation to financing changes, improvements and expansions to
infrastructure There is internal political opposition to relinquishing control over
otherwise public infrastructure and services to the pnvate sector
DESIGN /BUILD STRATEGIES
Where permitted by law, design/build is becoming an increasingly popular infrastructure
delivery process because it can allow developers and governments to reduce costs and
shorten the time needed to complete a major capital project. By way of contrast,
traditional construction methods separate the design and construction phases and often
require that the designer and the builder be fully independent entities By separating the
design and the construction process in this way, the time needed to complete the project
is lengthened and project costs rise Public costs also rise because elected officials have
to spend more time overseeing and approving the extra steps involved in this lengthy,
bifurcated process
How Does Design /Build Work? Under this process, both the design of the facility and
the construction are performed by the same business entity With an important variant,
Design /Build/Operate (DBO), a community solicits a single bid for the project design,
the construction of the project, and for its subsequent operation over an extended period
of time, usually 15 to 20 years for most large, capital - intensive projects
The Benefits of Design /Build. By looking at minimizing costs over an extended period
of time, bidders have a powerful incentive to include design and construction efficiencies
and more advanced technologies and automation that might yield higher up -front costs
but which are more than offset by future operating cost savings and asset duration These
savings, of course, are passed on to the community in the form of lower total project
costs, better quality services, lower rates for existing customers and less financial burden
on new homebuyers
The Limitations of Design /Build. However beneficial the design/build process might be
in satisfying community infrastructure needs in a faster and cheaper manner, its
application is often limited in many states and communities by laws and regulations that
prohibit its use, limit its use to certain types of projects or limit its use to a certain
number of projects As a consequence, many communities are forced by law to use
traditional construction processes that are slower and more costly
Page 3
ASSET SALES
Asset sales refer to the sale of water and waste- water systems to a private sector entity
The sale of such assets relieves the local government of the perceived political burden of
providing such infrastructure for a growing community Once the water and wastewater
systems have been privatized, companies can accommodate growth in the same way as
other private infrastructure companies expand telecommunications, natural gas and
electricity service
The Benefits of Asset Sales. Asset sales relieve government of the burden of
infrastructure expansion and service delivery They can provide cost savings and produce
an infusion of cash to the government that sells the assets
The Limitations of Asset Sales. Enabling laws and regulations in many states restrict
the sale of public assets There is also sometimes political resistance to privatization of
functions that have traditionally been publicly managed.
PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Technically, a Public /Private partnership is any contractual arrangement whereby a
private sector partner provides a facility or some physical infrastructure to the
community
How Do Public /Private Partnerships Work' Using this process, communities have the
opportunity to form partnerships with private sector providers to design, finance, build
and sometimes operate key elements of a community's infrastructure, including roads,
transit, school facilities, public buildings, water supply and wastewater treatment.
Public /private partnerships typically involve private ownership of the physical assets or a
long -term lease arrangement of the infrastructure as well as the right to operate on a fee -
for- services basis on behalf of the community More often than not, such partnerships
have their origin with the development and construction of the facility or with its
substantial renovation and/or expansion. Although there are many forms such
partnerships can take, in its simplest form, a municipality would issue a Request For
Proposals (RFP) to provide a specified infrastructure- related service
The Benefits of Public /Private Partnerships. In addition to the potential for lower -cost
services, one of the chief advantages to the community of public /private partnerships is
the infrastructure can be built and placed in operation faster than if accomplished by the
public sector In some cases, the responsibility for financing the infrastructure is shifted
to the private partner, thereby helping the community to stay within its debt limit, to
devote existing borrowing authority to other purposes, or to avoid having to seek voter
approval to issue more debt. The cost advantages are in part a result of the municipality's
ability to finance their community -owned infrastructure by issuing tax - exempt debt,
which provides a 30 percent capital cost advantage Coupled with the expertise and the
competitive efficiencies of the private sector, construction costs will generally be much
lower than public sector construction costs with savings ranging between 10 and 30
}
Page 4
percent. Furthermore, unencumbered by the multitude of regulations that govern public
sector bond offenngs, voter approval, design reviews, review of competitive bids and
construction, infrastructure can be built in a much shorter period of time than with the
traditional method.
The Limitations of Public /Private Partnerships. As with Design/Build, the
Public/Private Partnership process is often limited in many states and communities by
laws and regulations that prohibit its use, limit its use to certain types of projects, or limit
its use to a certain number of projects. As a consequence, many communities are forced
by law to use traditional construction processes that are slower and more costly
Joe Walsh: Director of Government Affairs /CWHBA
Z. Government Affairs /Privatization/NAHB `Innovative Infrastructure Solutions
MEMORANDUM
September 30, 2003
To Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council, City Manager,
and Interested Citizens
From Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Subject. Additional Information Presented for Public Review of the
Capital Facilities Committee Recommendations for Artenal
and Residential Streets and Gravel Roads and Associated
Funding Options
At the last public hearing for the Capital Facilities Recommendations on
street improvements and maintenance, testimony was provided which
discussed, in passing, HB 1735 reintroducing the street utility in
legislative format. Enclosed for you review is the bill and its legislative
history For your information, the bill did not pass either house of the
State Legislature, and its constitutionality is not known
Subsequent to the public hearing, staff invited Doug Rich from the
Realtors Association to discuss industrial and commercial street
development. Doug Rich suggested that the City consider a form of tax
increment financing, which, in essence, "sets aside ", all or in part the
incremental increases in general fund revenues on a year -to -year basis to
public improvements We agreed to further meetings to discuss City
finances and public improvements
Transmittal -Memo re CFC Recomm
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No b
For Meeting of . July 1, 2003
ITEM TITLE. Transmittal of Capital Facility Committee Recommendation to
City Council on Arterial Streets, Gravel Streets and Alleys
SUBMITTED BY it Chris4Waar,v ck .Public_Works= Director;
Kay Adams, City Engineer
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE. Chris Waarvick Public Works Director
(576- 66411)
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
The Capital Facilities Committee (CFC) has been working for the last year on the topic of gravel
streets and alleys and subsequently, per City Council direction, arterial streets Late in 2002, a
recommendation went to the City Council from the CFC regarding gravel streets and alleys
Council accepted the report yet asked the Committee to incorporate arterial streets into the
overall recommendation before any action was taken
The CFC has now done so and provides the attached recommendations to Council for their
deliberation and action
In summary, the CFC finds that the maintenance and improvements of arterial streets and gravel
streets and alleys is very important to the future of the City of Yakima Additionally, the CFC
proposes a spectrum of funding options for Council to consider These funding options are as
important in their diversity as they are in specificity of approach Council may wish to select one
or a combination of the options provided Replacing the property tax increment for the last
retired street bond was discussed and not selected as an option that the CFC wished to provide
to Council in their recommendation
Resolution _ Ordinance Other (Specify) Report from CFC
Contract Mail to (name and address) .
Phone
Funding Source:
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL : City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and deliberate accompanying
recommendations and supporting material regarding arterial streets, gravel streets and
alleys and provide staff appropriate direction
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION The report was accepted. Staff was directed to bring back..r
legislation on each of the three options presented by the •4:
committee.
CFC Recommendations
Agenda Statement
June 24, 2003
Page Two
Other Matters
The CFC's next scheduled meeting is for July 11, 2003 At this meeting, they intend to reaffirm or
elect new officers, and, in particular, discuss their mission with respect to capital facilities in the
City of Yakima
Many of the committee members expressed great interest in looking with a broader perspective at
capital needs rather than "drilling down" so close into any specific topic; though they are willing
and eager to provide any assistance that Council may request. Issues to be reviewed by the CFC
include, but may not be limited to, stormwater programs, irrigation and potable water needs, street
plan update, and wastewater needs The CFC thought that inviting other community and
business based groups interested in economic development and progress (such as YCDA
"Forward Yakima" and YDA) would be a positive step in bringing more clarity and focus to these
improvement efforts. The CFC would like to extend an invitation to their Council Liaisons Larry
Mattson, Paul George, and Mayor Mary Place to this meeting on July, 11, 2003 It is a working
assumption that by this date the members with one -year terms will have been reappointed to the
committee
d3EVNVW Alb 40 30IAs10
soo? O a Nor
Capital Facilities Committee V :ill INVA; AiIO
Arterial, Gravel and Dirt Street Funding Sources ,.3 ;0=-!
Funding Summary
OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3
• Total of 3% Increase to Public • Total of 3% Increase to Public • Total of 1% Increase in Private Utility
Utility Taxes for Arterial Utility Taxes for Arterial Taxes (From 6% to 7 %.) Generates an
Improvements: Improvements. estimated $800,000 per year for Arterial
Improvements.
Water/Sewer 14% to 17% Water/Sewer 14% to 17%
Refuse 9% to 12% Refuse 9% to 12%
Arterial Improvements 2 00% ($320,000) Arterial Improvements 2 00% ($320,000)
Arterial Maintenance 0 25% ($ 40,000) Arterial Maintenance 0 25% ($ 40,000)
Gravel Streets 0 25% ($ 40,000) Gravel Streets 0 25% ($ 40,000)
Contingency Fund 0.50% ($ 80,000) Contingency Fund 0.50% ($ 80,000)
Total 3 00% ($480,000) Total 3 00% ($480,000)
• REET 2:
• REET 2 • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax.
Enact second quarter Real Estate Enact second quarter Real Estate Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be
Excise Tax. Generates an estimated Excise Tax. Generates an estimated split between Arterial Maintenance ($300,000)
$400,000 per year to be split evenly $400,000 per year to be split evenly and Gravel Streets /Alleys ($100,000)
($200,000) between Arterial ($200,000) between Arterial
Maintenance and Gravel Streets / Maintenance and Gravel Streets /
Alleys. Alleys.
06/30/2003
1
I
CAPITAL FACILITIES COM MTITEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TRANSMITTAL FROM THE CHAIRPERSON
June 18 2003
Dear Council Members,
It is MN pleasure to include this bnef summary with the report from your Capital
Facilities Committee concerning arterial improvement, artenal maintenance and issues
concerning gra\ el streets and a11es s
It is the conclusion of the committee that action needs to be taken to maintain and improve our
road infrastructure To ignore this cntical component of our City s structure will lead only to
greater problems for our citizens and ever increasing cost of addressing transportation problems
in the future
Accompanying the committees recommendations on street improvement and maintenance are
three funding and spending options These were not intended to be all - inclusive or viewed as
options without possibility of improvement. They are intended to show how different funding
sources and spending options return levels of benefit to the community
Conspicuously absent from our recommendations is the traditional approach of bonding via a
N ote of the people for specific projects In the current funding climate the power of leveraging
local funds is the most powerful tool that we identified Traditional bonding does not allow for
the flexibility that is required to maximize our community s investment. Even though Option 41
has a large bonding component, it's leveraging component of only 80,000 dollars per year
returned a phenomenal amount to the community over the twenty -year analysis The return on
leveraged dollars is incredible Comparing the 20 -year return to the community between Option
1 and Option # 2, which use the same dollar investment, shows this dramatically Option # 3
shows the results from a larger community investment in leverage dollars
Understanding that roads are only a part of our City's infrastructure that must be maintained by
our community we have been very mindful of the cost of these recommendations The most
expensive option, the implementation of Option # 3, would cost the average household unit
$1 80 per month in increased pnvate utilities tax. Those that sold real estate would have an
additional cost of $250 00 per $100,000 00 of selling price These are modest investments in our
community
In conclusion, we believe that our recommendations are needed, the investment by our
community is limited, and the potential return to our City is phenomenal
It has been my pleasure to chair your Capital Facilities Committee and I look forward to
answering your questions
With Respect,
Nell McClure, Chairman
Capital Facilities Committee
Memorandum
June 26, 2003
To Honorable Mavor, Members of City Council, Cit. Manager
From Rita Anson, Finance Director
Ray Paolella, City Attorney
Pete Hobbs. Utility Services Manager
Re Utility Tax Increase Impact on Rates
An item on the Agenda for July 1, 2003, is the Capital Facility Committee Recommendation on
Arterial Streets, Gravel Streets and Alleys This report shows the impact of Options 1 and 2,
raising utility tax a total of 3 %, on utility charges
Chapter 7 64 of the Yakima Municipal Code addresses utility taxes for City Utilities Although,
the utility tax rate for Refuse (9 %) is different from Water and Wastewater (14 %), the Municipal
Code requires the utility tax for the Utility Divisions be derived from their respective charges
The utility tax is a component of the entire rate structure. There are currently a number of
components of our utility rate structures, i.e salaries, fuel costs, state tax, utility tax, bonded
debt, equipment costs, etc. In addition, utility taxes are also a component of the City's "Cost of
Service" rate studies and analysis's, which are mandated by Federal EPA Standards and adopted
by City Council If the utility tax rate were increased, utility rates would necessarily be
increased to pay for the tax adjustment. Otherwise, the Utilities resources needed for their
operation, maintenance and mandated obligations, would be negatively Impacted
However, a utility tax increase of 3% does not mean an increase of 3% in utility rates
The following table illustrates
Bill with Proposed Utility Tax Dollar
Current Bill Increase Increase % Increase
Water $ 12 69 $ 13 02 $0 33 2 63%
Sewer $ 39 04 $ 40 07 $1 03 2 63%
Refuse $ 28 72 $ 29 51 $0 79 1 2 75%
Imgation $ 42 47 $ 42 47 $0 0 00%
Total $ 122 92 $ 125 07 $2 15 1 75%
This example is based on 8 Units of Consumption (UOC), 2 cans Refuse and a lot size of 13,000
square feet. An UOC is equal to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons of water The Refuse percentage
increase is higher because the increase of three percentage points, from 9% to 12 %, is
proportionally larger than the Water and Wastewater increase of 14% to 17%
Other items that are components of the rate structure would marginally increase as they are based
on gross revenue stream. Using the example in the table above, the State tax shown on the utility
bill would show a small Increase, from $4 02 to $4 13 The above example includes the increase
in State tax, and other components
This table illustrates the total impact of the increases
Utility Dollars raised per year per 1% % Dollars raised per
increase Increase year
Refuse I $28 000 2 75% 577 000
Water
$55 000 2 63% $144 650
Wastewater $100,000 1 2 63% $263 000
Total l $484,650
This is approximately equal to the $480,00 per year mentioned in Option 1
Summary
Per Yakima Municipal Code and City Council Cost of Service Policy, a three percent increase in
utility tax rates would cause an increase in utility rates, because utility tax is a component of the
rate structure.
Yakama's Capital Facilities Committee
Report and Recommendation to Yakima City Council
on Arterial Streets, G ra\ el Streets and Ale. s
Arterial Maintenance
Background Because of a chronic shortage of local funds the maintenance of our artenal
streets has been on a program that is known to be inadequate The City s past
maintenance polio of seal coating the road surface ever\ fire years, which gaN, e almost
indefinite life to the streets, was extended to seven years then to eleven } ears This
deferred maintenance has caused a senous breakdown of the road surface on our artenal
streets A breakdown so severe that seal coating is no longer an option in many cases and
a more expensi\ e fix is now required, a grind- and - overlay program.
Recommendation That the city establish a dedicated fund for the grand- and - overlay of
our artenal streets The intent of this recommendation is to fund the deferred
maintenance on our artenal streets with the long -term goal of returning to a preventative,
sustaining seal coat program. A future policy of effective seal coating will create a huge
savings in tax dollars over time
Arterial Street Improvements
Background Dunng the past 40 years Yakima has seen a major change in automobile
usage and population growth. The combination of these two factors has put increasing
pressure on our existing artenal system. The growing inability of our present arterial
s\ s-em to handle this increasing vehicle traffic is becoming a source of frustration to our
existing population and will become an ever - increasing negative influence on attracting
new business and industry to our community
Recommendation. That the City establishes a revenue source that would be available to
fund needed artenal street improvements
Gravel Streets and Alleys
Background The City of Yaluma has 18 miles of unpaved streets and 27 miles of
unpaved alleys The unpaved streets are a direct result of annexations while the paving of
alleys has never been a requirement of the Cit These unpaved streets and alleys are a
problem within our city The dust raised on these streets and alleys cause clean air
problems. The unpaved streets tend to be located in lower income areas with higher
population of children, increasing the possibility of injury or fatality Unimproved streets
reflect poorly on our community as we attempt to encourage business to relocate to our
city
Recommendation. That the city make funds available for the paving of gravel streets and
alleys to current title 12 standards using our Committee's previous outline of 50/50 LID's
(see attached)
Capital Facilities Committee
Arterial Street Funding Recommendations
Option in Option 82 Option 83
MUNICIPAL BONDING Yes $10M Councilmanic, 20 year Bond No Pay as you go philosophy No Pay as you go philosophy
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURE Yearly amount of $880,000 Yearly amount of $880,000 Yearly amount of $1,200,000
ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS $4M Bonded for Identified Projects $320,000 YR for identified Projects $800,000 YR for identified Projects
Raise Public Utility Taxes ( "PUT ") 2% Raise Public Utility Taxes ( "PUT ") 2% Raise Private Utility Tax ( "PV f ")
From 14% to 16% to raise $320,000 From 14% to 16% to raise $320 000 From 6% to 7% to raise 5800,000 YR
On City Water and Sewer services On City Water and Sewer services On Cable, cell phone phones. power etc
Indudes Nob Hill Water services Includes Nob Hill Water services Voted by Public.
Adjust Tax for City Refuse Service From 9 % to 11% Adjust Tax for City Refuse Service From 9 % to 11 % Use funds to extensively match State and
Total debt service /YR = 5320,000 for 20 Yrs Federal funding programs.
ARTERIAL MAINTENANCE $3M Bonded for Grind /Overlay $240,000 YR for Grind /Overlay $$QQ,QQQ YR for Grind /Overlay
REET2 = $200.000/YR (allocated from lax) REET2 = $2QQ.QQQ /YR (allocated from tax) REET2 =Use 75% of annual $412Q.000 est.
PUT = $40,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from tax) PUT = $40,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from lax)
Total debt service/YR = $240,000 for 20 Yrs
GRAVEL STREET /ALLEYS $3M Bonded to fund City Contribution to 60 -50 $240,000 to fund City Contribution to 60 -60 $100 QQQ to fund City contribution to 60 -60
LID Program to Title 12 Standards LID Program to Title 12 Standards LID Progra to idle 12a standards
REET2 = $200.Q0Q/YR (allocated from tax) REET2 = $200.1).1)0/YR (allocated from tax) REET2 =Use m 25% o a nnual $44QQQQ esl
PUT = $40,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from lax) PUT = 540,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from tax) What is not used in any year returns fo
Total debt service/YR = $240,000 for 20 Yrs Arterial Maintenance Program above
CONTINGENCY FUND Matching for stale and federal programs Matching for state and federal programs Strategy found In Arterial Improvement
PUT = $80,000 /YR (0.50% allocated from tax) PUT = $80 000 /YR (0 50% allocated from lax) Program for matching funds
M = Million Dollars
REET2 = Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax Option, estimated ®$4QQ.QQQ per year
Public Utility Tax (PUT) increase of 2.5% for bonded debt Additional 0 5% increase for Contingency Fund
(3.0% increase )'($160 000) = 5480 000
Private Utility Tax ("PVT') = estimated 5800,000 per 1% increase.
6/25/03
Summary of Possible Street ImproN einent Options
Option 7 1
Basic Summary Option # 1 v.ould use money genera *ed froir an increase Ir public u *' -ies
taxes and an Increase in the Real Estate Excise Tax to fund a package OI counci.� ianic bonds
w'l.h an annual contingenc\ fund that would be used for street and arterial =.pro\emen :s
Each tax increase would require onlj Council approval
The estimated re\ enue generated from this tax package would be,
• ' °d quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, S 400 000 00 per \ ear,
• Public Utilities increase from 14 % to 16e S 480,000 00 per d ear
The bonding package w ould be as follows
1 Arterial grind and overlay S 3,000,000 00 spent over a 6 ear penod and paid off
through a councilmanic bond o'er a 20 ear penod at S 240,000 00 per ear The monies
used to service this debt w ould come from 1/2 of the monies generated from the
increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public utihties tax
2 Arterial Improvement S 4 000,000 00 with a hoped for match of S 4,000,000 00 spent
o\ er a 4 to 6 \ ear penod to fund three protects The S 4,000,000 00 bond would be paid
off o er a 20 \ ear penod a' S 320,000 00 per ear through the issuance of a councilmanic
bond. The monies used to service this debt w ould be generated from the increased public
utilities tax.
3 Gravel Street And Alleys S 3,000,000 00 spent over a 4 to 6 year penod to improve the
cities existing gravel streets and alleys This debt would be paid off through a
councllmanic bond. The monies used to service this debt would come from 1/2 of the
monies generated from the increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public
utilities tax.
An additional S 80,000 00 per y ear to sere e as a matching source for available State and
Federal monies for arterial improvements These monies would not be made a\ ailable for
any bonding package
Option # 2
Basic Summary Option # 2 w ouid use money generated from ar increase in public uul.
es -nz ar zz .case .r the Real Estate Excise Tax to run: r eedea street =pro\ ez.ents er -
ar-ual bas _ i e o a: tax increase w ould , - 1 „. -
.. u3s '� '� 01 to 1 »1a:..... �I bonds E _\ ' .� 0 � r 01...° �.r C� .., 1
at o', al
es , ate enue generated a ,
Tr.., ��t.zi��..d re�, n� g,......at.. from this tax package ould be,
• 2' quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, S 400,000 00 per ear,
• Public Utilities increase from 14 % to 16c S 480,000 00 per year
The tmpro\ err er.t package w ould be as follow s
1 Arterial Grind and Overlay 240,000 00 dollars per ear for annual projects The
monies needed to Generate this revenue would come from 1/2 of the monies generated
from the increased real estate tax and a poruon of the increased public utilities tax
^ _ Arterial Improvements S 400,000 00 per year ati ailable as a matching source for
State and Federal dollars The monies needed to generate this revenue w ould be
generated from the increased public utilities tax
Gravel Streets and Alleys S 240,000 00 per year to be used as a matching source for
the 50 50 LID as outlined in a previous recornrnendation. The monies needed to
generate this re\ enue w ould come from 1/2 of the monies generated from the
increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public utilities tax. Any monies
not used w ould be spent on arterial gnnd and overlay
Option # 3
Basic Summary Option # 3 would use money generated from an increase m pnvate utilities
taxes and an increase in the Real Estate Excise Tax to fund needed street improvements on an
annual basic with out the issuance of bonds The Real Estate Excise tax increase would
require Council approval an increase in pnvate utilities tax would require a majority vote of
the people
The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be,
• 2 quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, $ 400,000 00 per year,
• Pnvate Utilities increase from 6% to 7% $ 800,000 00 per year
The improvement package would be as follows
1 Arterial Grind and Overlay 300,000 00 dollars per year for annual projects The
monies needed to generate this revenue would come from 314t of the monies
generated from the increased real estate tax
2 Arterial Improvements S 800,000 00 per year available as a matching source for
State and Federal dollars The monies needed to generate this revenue would be
generated from the increased private utilities tax
3 Gravel Streets and Alleys $ 100,000 00 per year to be used as a matching source f
the 50/50 LID as outlined in a previous recommendation. The monies needed to
generate this re\ enue w ould come from 1 /4 of the monies generated from the
increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased pnvate utilities tax. Any
monies not used would be spent on arterial grand and overlay
SUMMARY OF FUNDING OPTIONS
Summaries Option 1
20 Year Investment in Arterial Maintenance $ 3,000,000 00
20 Year Investment in Arterial Improvement $ 16,000,000 00
20 Year Investment in Gravel Streets And Alleys $ 3,000,000 00
20 year investment by Community $ 17,600,0 00
Summaries Option 2
20 Year Investment in Arterial Maintenance $ 4,800,000 00
20 Year Investment in Arterial Improvement $ 40,000,000 00
20 Year Investment in Gravel Streets And Alleys $ 9,600,000 00
20 Year Community Investment $ 17,600,000 00
Summaries Option 3
20 Year Investment in Arterial Maintenance $ 6,000,000 00
20 Year Investment in Arterial Improvement $ 80,000,000 00
20 Year Investment in Gravel Streets And Alleys $ 4,000,000 00
20 Year Investment By Community $ 24,000,000 00
Summary of Possible Street Improvement Funding Options
(Companion Document to Three Option Chart)
June 18, 2003
Option # 1
Basic Summary Option # 1 would use money generated from an increase in public utilities
taxes and an increase in the Real Estate Excise Tax to fund a package of councilmanic bonds
with an annual contingency fund that would be used for street and artenal improvements
Each tax increase would require only Council approval.
The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be,
• 2 quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, $400,000 00 per year,
• Public Utilities Tax increase 14 % to 17% (water /sewer) $480,000 00 per year
(refuse — 9% to 12 %)
The bonding package would be as follows
1 Arterial grind and overlay $3,000,000 00 spent over a 6 year period and paid off
through a councilmanic bond over a 20 year period at $240,000 00 per year The monies
used to service this debt would come from 1/2 of the monies generated from the
increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public utilities tax (0 25 %)
2 Arterial Improvement: $4,000,000 00 with a hoped for match of $4,000,000 00 spent
over a 4 to 6 year period to fund three projects. The $4,000,000 00 bond would be paid
off over a 20 year period at $320,000 00 per year through the issuance of a councilmanic
bond. The monies used to service this debt would be generated from the increased public
utilities tax (2 0 %)
3 Gravel Street And Alleys $3,000,000 00 spent over a 4 to 6 year period to improve the
cities existing gravel streets and alleys This debt would be paid off through a
councilmanic bond The monies used to service this debt would come from 1/2 of the
monies generated from the increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public
utilities tax (0 25 %)
An additional $80,000 00 per year to serve as a matching source for available State and
Federal monies for artenal improvements from a portion of the increased public utility tax
(0 50 %) These monies would not be made available for any bonding package
Option # 2
Basic Summary Option.# 2 would use money generated from an increase in public utilities -
taxes and an increase in the Real Estate Excise Tax to fund needed street improvements on an
annual basic with out the issuance of bonds Each tax increase would require only Council
approval.
The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be,
• 2 quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax. $400 000 00 per vc
• Public Utilities Tax increase 14 % to 17% $480,000 00 per veal
(refuse — 9% to 12 %)
The improvement package would be as follows
1 Arterial Grind and Overlay $240,000 00 per year for annual projects The monies
needed to generate this revenue would come from 1/2 of the monies generated from
the increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public utilities tax (0 25 %)
2 Arterial Improvements $400,000 00 per year available as a matching source for
State and Federal dollars The monies needed to generate this revenue would be
generated from the increased public utilities tax (2 0 %)
3 Gravel Streets and Alleys $240,000 00 per year to be used as a matching source for
the 50/50 LID as outlined in a previous recommendation. The monies needed to
generate this revenue would come from 1/2 of the monies generated from the
increased real estate tax and a portion of the increased public utilities tax (0 25 %)
Any monies not used would be spent on artenal gnnd and overlay
An additional $80,000 00 per year to serve as a matching source for available State and Federal
monies for artenal improvements from a portion of the increased public utility tax (0 50 %)
These monies would not be made available for any bonding package
Option # 3
Basic Summary: Option # 3 would use money generated from an increase in.pnvate utilities
taxes and an increase in the Real Estate Excise Tax to fund needed street improvements on an
annual basic with out the issuance of bonds The Real Estate Excise tax increase would
require Council approval an increase in private utilities tax would require a majority vote of
the people
The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be,
• 2nd quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, $400,000 00 per year,
• Pnvate Utilities Tax increase 6% to 7% $800,000 00 per year
The improvement package would be as follows
1 Arterial Grind and Overlay $300,000 00 per year for annual projects. The monies
needed to generate this revenue would come from 3 /4 of the monies generated from
the increased real estate tax.
2 Arterial Improvements $800,000 00 per year available as a matching source for
State and Federal dollars The monies needed to generate this revenue would be
generated from the increased private utilities tax.
3 Gravel Streets and Alleys $100,000 00 per year to be used as a matching source for
the 50/50 LID as outlined in a previous recommendation. The monies needed to
generate this revenue would come from 1 /4 of the monies generated from the
increased real estate tax. Any monies not used would be spent on arterial grind and
overlay
MEMORANDUM
:; e C Cow... a-c C
Fro
Cans \i D.: e. or o: P,., Ic \N, o
Date No\. e —'be" 25, 20::
S.:c ec: Le :siaa^^ \ecessa. to I e en Ca^ :a. Fat 'e C - tee
Reco:r.:- iendatton Re_?rdln2 a Cra\ el Street Pa :i Prozrar-
The e ;o— n.; e da• fr the tai e --,` „. ^ C -
T'r. :,,, � a.,� r,...�. :.ri„n .1� : :� .� :. Capital FacIl'tles Co:T.::lit'e p �. 1�... \
Council the conceptual framework o: a public, ate cost soar u:J program to imp-o\ e
gravel streets within the City of Yakima. The citizen committee considered man, options
and has articulated their recommended program in the form of modified Local
I::ipro\ ement District process If the City Council accepts the report from the Capital
Facilities Committee, City of Yakima legal and tecnaical staff will compile the necessary
legislation to implement the recommended program and bring those related ordinances
back to the City Council for the public hearing process
The following list of items summarizes the iegislation necessary to implement the gravel
street prograrr:, as recommended by the Capital Facilities Committee
1 Amend Yakima Municipal Code 8 12, Local Improvement Code to include the
details of the Gavel Street and Alley Paving Program (GSAPP),
2 Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment w luz.h identifies the air quality, storm
water neignborhood and transportation benefits of the gravel street paying
program and specifies the intent to use the Second Quarter Percent Real Estate
Excise Tax to help suppor the public contribution to the LID process This
amendmen :would sen. e to "align" the GMA Compr ehensly e Plan with City
Council policy and direction on trus matter if the Committee's recommendation is
substantially approved The recommendation to use the Second Quarter Percent
Real Estate Tax is currently consistent with state law under allowable uses of the
tax.
3 Adopt the ordinance to enact the Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax
4 Amend the City of Yakima Six Year Transportation Plan to include the Gravel
Street and Alley Paving Program to enable use of Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality (CM AQ) and other possible grant funds This amendment would also
serge to align" the Six Year Plan and the Capital Facilities Plan
ii ith respect to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment noted aboe, the responsibility for
these gravel roads is largely a result of annexations within the \ akima Urban Area. The
Growth Management Act clearly contemplated these type of growth issues when the
Second Quarter Percent Excise Tax was authonzed for cities and counties planning under
the Act and carrying out necessary locally defined) transportation projects within the
growth areas
To conclude, two "threshold" issues are presented for your consideration. (1) The
Capital Facilities Committee (CFC) did not address an apportionment of Second Quarter
Real Estate Tax (REET 2) revenues between improvements to dirt/gravel streets and
arterial streets The policy issue creating the Capital Facilities Committee wits' 'es ^ec' t=
dea.ing with gravel streets did discuss the possibilit` of appor ionic g REST rep enues
ber..een the tw'o subjects Tne CFC recorrunendation si.r p1% identifies that BEET 2
50°,'0 the Lozzl I rro-o••e T -• D's:.,:. a03: fa" Zavel street
improvements It does not discount the possibllit\ that those r e\ enues cou,d also be used
fo- arterial street project match funding The two uses are not mutuali‘ excl:.s e to each
other City Council ma, wish that the CFC provide a recommendanon on appornonrnent.
If this is Council's direction, it would be logical for the for the Council to defer action on
the CFC's recommendation on gavel streets until after the CFC concludes its discussion
on artenai streets and bnnes a consolidated recommendation to Council for both the
avel and arsenal streets matters. (2) Comprehensive Plan
respect to gra el streets
"'alining" the Plan with a new Council pohcy and direction
and REET 2 funding is..redicated on City Council amenable to makin• that decision
The amendment process, while not overly challenging, s require
per time and except in the
resources Comprehensive Plan Amendment
case of transportation issues nsistenchbetw�een transportation issues and Plan tent rage
frequent evaluation of co 5
City of Yakima, Washington
Summary of Capital Facilities Committee Recommendations
- Regarding Paving Gravel Streets and Alleys
1. Create a Gravel Street and Alley Paving Program with
Public- Private Cost Sharing.
Irn of this recommended Gravel Street and Alie\ Pavin_ Pro_ a
(GSAPP) would require amendments to Yakima Municipal Code 8 12 Local
Imnro‘ement Code consistent with provisions of RCS 35 43-35.51 Features of
the program would include
• Si Di costs ecua11. between public funds and private propertm owners through
a 50 50 Public- Private Local Improvement Distract (LID) partnership
• Irhnro‘e gravel streets to current YMC Title Twelve standards, including
sidewalks on both sides of the street.
• A GS A.PP LID must be at least one block long and include both sides of the
stree-
• EA.:sting gravel streets and alleys within the cit' limits would be eligible
• If property acquisition is necessan to improve a street to YMC Title Twelve
standards, the owner ma\ donate the needed land and utilize the w o; th of that
land as a part of that landowner's participation in the LID
• Create a s% stem of rnonthh or semi - monthly payments for GSAPP LTD's
s. nila_ to irtii.it\ bills
• Recommend maintenance of property owner petition as the prefe-red method
of LID formation. However, if 60% of the residents not solely property
owners) m an affected area support the formation of a LID, the Council should
consider formation of a LID by resolution.
2. Pursue Multiple Financing Options
• Encourase the City Council to take extra - ordinary effort to establish a GSAPP
that utilizes public funds as outlined herein.
• Ltiltze Congestion Mrtigation Air Quality funds and anv other grant source
funds to help support the 50/50 partnership LID GS APP
• Enact the Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax and devote the
revenue to support the Public contnbution to the 50, partnersmp GS APP
LID
o StaffNote The State Legislature has placed the authority to enact the
Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax solely within the
City's legislative authont\ Consequently the city does not have the
option or discretion to submit thus matter for a direct decision by
initiative or referendum.
Paze 1 o`2 Ocooc 24 2002
3. Prioritize LID Projects:
• P no ntize pro s because cause of 'he. p - actica: l::r:tat:o:.s t ne Ci N has w:th a new
ect
annual revenue source of limited dollars
• Pnorruzation should take into account safety, traffic, schools, existing sewer
Mies, existing water lines. zoning and possibly other considerations High
prionties include gravel streets and alleys with existing water and'or sewer
lines or within one half mile of schools or in the vicinity of sensitive receptor
sites or with the recommendation of the City Engineer for cost/benefit
feasibility
• Include alleys, which in most cases are not as critical as streets.
• City Engineer has discretion regarding reasonable application of Y MC Title
Twelve standards.
Pa 2 of 2 October 24, 2002
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No `{
For Meeting of • October 21, 2003
ITEM TITLE Consideration of Action on Recommendations from Capital
Facilities Committee (CFC) for Rebuilding/Paving Streets, Alleys,
and Arterials.
SUBMITTED BY Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE. Chris Waarvick, 576 - 6411
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
The City Council established the Capital Facilities Committee (CFC) by formal
legislative action to review and provide recommendations to Council on critical
infrastructure needs. By July 1, 2003, the CFC had culminated their work m a
formal presentation to the Yakima City Council regarding dirt streets, alleys, and
artenal streets.
The City Council directed staff to schedule three Public Hearings on these
recommendations Those hearings were held on September 2, 2003 at 2 00 p.m.,
September 16, 2003 at 7 30 a.m., and September 30, 2003 at 7 00 p.m. Testimony
was taken and copies of written information handed out from attendees are
attached.
(Continued on next page.)
Resolution X Ordinance X
Contract Mail to (name and address)
Funding Source:
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL�� -,„, City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully requests City Council take action
on one of five (5) options presented in this report and, if necessary, adopt resolution
regarding Capital Facilities and Transportation Planning.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
COUNCIL ACTION An ordinance was passed to impose an additional quarter percent real estate excise tax.
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-65
A resolution was adopted to direct the recommendation accepted to the Transportation Plan Update & Capital
Facilities Plan update of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan. RESOLUTION NO. R- 2003 -136
Council directed that a committee consisting of all stakeholders be established to review the arterial streets.
Before issue goes to vote of the people, educate the public by holding forums & meeting with organizations.
CFC Artenal Streets /Alleys Recommendation
October 21, 2003
Page 2
The action placed before the City Council involves consideration of five options
Option #1
• Includes the increase in public utility taxes and the enabling of REET 2
Option #2
• Includes the very same tax increases as m Option #1 The difference
being that in Option #1, the revenues generated support a $10 million
bond and m Option #2, the revenues generated support annual activities
with no bond, or in other words, a "pay as you go philosophy "
Option #3
• Includes the 1% increase in the pnvate utility tax and revenues from the
REET 2 tax increase. Option #3 also works on a "pay as you go
philosophy "
Option #4
• Revise or amend any of the above options. Please see attached Policy
Issue for 2003 from last December offering an alternative - funding source
for arterial street improvements.
Option #5
• Take no action on these recommendations.
Ordinances
City Legal has prepared the legislation referenced m the CFC report m ordinance
format. The first ordinance increases the public utility tax on City water (Nob Hill
Water, also), sewer, and refuse (Yakima Waste Systems also) by 3% This means on
water and sewer the rate would go from 14% to 17 %, and for refuse, from 9% to
12% (10% to 13% for Yakima Waste Systems) An example billing is included to
demonstrate financial impact. The legislation pertaining to the pnvate utility tax
increase of 6% to 7% requires a public vote. The attached legislation provides for
that ballot measure to be taken to the public at a time specified by Council if they
so choose this action.
Finally, the Real Estate Excise Tax Second Quarter Percent (REST 2) legislation is
presented for you consideration as part of one of the options you may choose The
REET (1) revenues since 1986 equal $5,306,077 Combined with Public Works
Trust Fund revenues, projects totaling $10,205,668 have been completed consistent
with State law guiding usage of the funds and included capital improvements for
streets, irrigation, street lighting and signals and City Hall improvements.
Resolution
Also included is a resolution that Council may need to adopt depending on the
actions, if any, City Council takes on these matters. This resolution speaks to align
the City's Capital Planning with the appropriately selected revenue choices.
Memorandum
To: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
From Karen S Roberts, City Clerk
Date October 9, 2003
Subject. 2004 Election Dates
I have listed below the election dates and the final dates to submit a
resolution requesting an election to the County Auditor
ELECTION DATE FINAL DATE TO FINAL COUNCIL
SUBMIT TO COUNTY MEETING DATE
AUDITOR TO ADOPT
ELECTION
RESOLUTION*
February 3, 2004 December 19, 2003 December 16, 2003
March 2, 2004 January 22, 2004 January 20, 2004
April 27, 2004 March 12, 2004 March 2, 2004
May 18, 2004 Apnl 2, 2004 March 16, 2004
September 14, 2004 July 30, 2004 July 20, 2004
November 2, 2004 September 17, 2004 September 7, 2004
*Subject to cancellation by Council
Capital Facilities Committee
Arterial, Gravel and Dirt Street Fundii_ng Sources
Funding Summary
OPTION 1
OPTION 2 OPTION 3
• Total of 3% Increase to Public Utility • Total of 1% Increase in Private Utility
Total of 3% Increase to Public Utility (From 6% to 7 ° �•� Gcrrerates
Taxes for Arterial Improvements T n estimated 6% to 7 per year for
axea (
Gravel for Arterial Improvements and and Gravel Streets: Gravel 8teets• Arterial Improvements
Water /Sewer 14% to 17% Water /Sewer 14% to 17%
Refuse 9% to 12%
Refuse 9% to 12%
Arterial Improvements 2 00" /o ($320,000) Arterial Improvements 2 00" /o ($320,000 )
Arterial Maintenance 0 25% ($ 40,000) Arterial Maintenance 0 0 25% ($ 4 0,000 )
Gravel Streets 0 25% ($ 40,000) Gravel Streets
Contingency Fund 0.50% ($ 80,000) Contingen � nd 0.00„x° ($480,000 )
Total 3 00"/o ($480,000 ) • REET 2: • REET 2•
• REET 2 Enact second quarter Real Estate Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise
Enact se gnerte Real Estate Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per
$400,000 00x. per year r to be split estimated $400,000 Tax. Generates an estirnated 000 per year to be split evenly year to be split between Arterial
($2 0 , 00 per year to be a lt eainte and Maintenance ($300,000) and Gravel
($200,000) between Arterial Maintenance and ($200,000) v Streets / Maintenance Streets /Alleys ($100,000)
Gravel Streets /Alleys
• Propose to use revenue to fund
• Propose to use revenues to fund projects without bonding
• Propose to use revenues to secure a •
projects without bonding
$10 million Councilmanic Bond (20 year) _.
. --
08/04/200 1
Memorandum
October 15, 2003
To Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council, and Dick Zais, City Manager
From. Rita Anson, Finance Director
Ray Paolella, City Attorney
Pete Hobbs, Utility Services Manager
Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager
Re Proposed Utility Tax Increase- Impact on Rates
An item on the Agenda for October 21, 2003, is the Capital Facility Committee
Recommendation on Artenal Streets, Gravel Streets and Alleys. This report shows the impact of
raising utility tax a total of 3 %, included in Options 1 and 2, of the CFC recommendation.
Chapter 7 64 of the Yakima Municipal Code addresses utility taxes for City Utilities Although,
the utility tax rate for Refuse (9 %) is different from Water and Wastewater (14 %), the Municipal
Code requires the utility tax for the Utility Divisions be denved from their respective charges.
The utility tax is a component of the entire rate structure There are currently a number of
components of our utility rate structures, i.e. salaries, fuel costs, state tax, utility tax, bonded
debt, equipment costs, etc In addition, utility taxes are also a component of the City's "Cost of
Service" rate studies and analysis's, which are mandated by Federal EPA Standards and adopted
by City Council. If the utility tax rate were increased, utility rates would necessarily be
increased to pay for the tax adjustment. Otherwise, the resources the Utility's need for their
operation, maintenance and mandated obligations, would be negatively impacted.
Note a utility tax increase of 3% does not mean an increase of 3% in utility rates Although the
increase is based on revenue, the amount of required debt coverage plays a large role in the
percentage increase. Depending on the amount of debt coverage required, a 3% utility tax
increase has different impacts to the bottom line.
Utility Water Sewer Refuse
Revenue $5,250,000 $13,136,168 $3,361,800
Debt Coverage $ 285,342 $ 1,414,228 $0
Percentage . 5 43% 10 77% 0 0%
Utility Tax Increase 3 00% 3 00% 3 00%
Rate Increase 2 84% 2 68% 3 0%
The following table illustrates the impact a tax increase of 3% would have on customers' bills
Current Bill with Proposed
Utility Bimonthly Bill Utility Tax Increase Dollar Increase % Increase
Water $11 56 $11 89 $0 33 2 84%
Sewer $41 98 $43 11 $1 13 2 68%
_ Refuse $28 72 $29 58 $0 86 3 00%
Total $82.26 $84 58 $2 32 2 81%
The above example is based on. a two occupant household, 7 Units of Consumption (UOC) and
2 cans Refuse. An UOC is equal to 100 cubic feet or 748 gallons of water
This table illustrates the total dollar impact of the increases
Utility Dollars raised per year % Increase Dollars raised per
per I% increase year
Refuse $28,000 3 0% $ 84,000
Water $55,000 2 84% $156,200
Sewer $100,000 2.68% $268,000
Total $183,000 $508,200
Summary
Per Yakima Municipal Code and City Council Cost of Service Policy, a three percent increase in
utility tax rates would cause an increase in utility rates, because utility tax is a component of the
rate structure. As graphically depicted on the previous page, the amount of the utility increase
required to offset utility tax increase is vanable based on the amount of debt coverage required
by each individual Utility
RESOLUTION NO. R- 2003 -136
A RESOLUTION to Direct Consideration of Recommendations from Capital Facilities
Committee as revised or amended by the Yakima City Council Regarding
Artenal and Gravel Street Financing Options to the Transportation Plan
Update and Capital Facilities Plan Update of the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima is required to update the Transportation Element and
the Capital Facilities Element of the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, to include
updated transportation data and public participation process, that may result in revised
transportation projects and pnonties, as contemplated by RCW 36 70A.130, and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, with the technical expertise of Kittelson & Associates, -
is currently prepanng matenal for the update of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as contemplated and required by State RCW 36 70A.070 and applicable
Federal law, and
WHEREAS, the funding capacities and identified sources for financing of necessary
capital facilities, including transportation projects is a core requirement of the Washington State
Growth Management Act, as expressly described in RCW 36 70A.070(6), and
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima Citizen Advisory Capital Facilities Committee has
reviewed and submitted wntten recommendations related to the issues of transportation project
needs and financing for Artenal streets, as well as gravel roads. These recommendations include
options for increasing public and pnvate utility taxes, as well as implementing the Second
Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise tax to support necessary transportation projects,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
That the recommendations from the City of Yakima Citizen Advisory Capital Facilities
Committee, as revised or amended by the Yakima City Council related to financing options for
Artenal and gravel streets be forwarded for consideration and public review as a portion of the
Transportation Plan and Capital Facilities Plan Update of the Yakima Urban Area Transportation
Plan
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 21 st day of October, 2003
Mayor
ATTEST.
City Clerk
Public Water, Wastewater and Refuse Tax
Ordinance
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2003-
AN ORDINANCE relating to the water, wastewater and refuse taxes of Chapter 764
of the City of Yakima Municipal Code, increasing the water and
wastewater tax from fourteen percent (14 %) to seventeen percent
(17 %) by amending Section 7 64.020 of the City of Yakima
Municipal Code, and increasing the refuse tax from nine percent
(9 %) to twelve percent (12 %) by amending Section 7 64.030 of the
City of Yakima Municipal Code.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA.
Section 1 Section 7 64.020 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows.
"7.64.020 Water and wastewater tax.
A. For the provision of water and wastewater services, there is levied a
tax against the total gross revenue of the water operating fund and the
wastewater operating fund derived from domestic water, wastewater,
pretreatment, food processing wastewater, septage and exceptional
wastewater disposal, diverted flow, and connection charges. The rates of
the tax for calendar year 1994 and and through
December 31, 2003 shall be as follows:
Wholesale service charges 10%
All other service charges 14%
The rates of the tax for calendar year 2004 and the following years shall be
as follows:
Wholesale service charges 10%
All other service charges 17%
B 1 The water and wastewater tax shall not be applied against that
portion of the total gross revenue of the wastewater operating fund which
is collected as debt coverage for the wastewater debt.
2. Commencing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter, the water and wastewater tax shall not be applied against that
portion of the total gross revenue of the water operating fund which is
collected as debt coverage for water debt issued after the effective date of
said ordinance.
Page 1
(Ik)ord -water and wastewater tax 7 -311)3 -pm
For use in this chapter, "debt coverage" shall mean that revenue collected
specifically to meet the requirements of bonded debt coverage and state
revolving loan coverage
C. The water and wastewater tax shall not be applied against that portion
of the total gross revenue of the wastewater operating fund which
constitutes payment by the Terrace Heights Sewer District or the city of
Union Gap of charges imposed under the agreement dated February 23,
1976 or the settlement agreement dated September 9, 1997 "
Section 2. Section 7 64.030 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"7.64.030 Refuse tax.
For the provision of refuse services, and effective through December 31,
2003, there is levied a nine percent tax against the total gross revenue of
the refuse fund derived from refuse collection and disposal service
charges.
Effective January 1, 2004, there is levied a twelve percent tax against the
total gross revenue of the refuse fund derived from refuse collection and
disposal service charges. "
Section 3 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its
passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this day of October,
2003
ATTEST Mary Place, Mayor
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date.
Page 2
(Ik)ord -water and wastewater tax 7 -31 -03 -pm
Private Water Utility Tax Ordinance
0
•
ORDINANCE NO 2003 -
AN ORDINANCE relating to the water business tax of Chapter 5 30 of the City of
akima Municipal Code, increasing the water business tax from
fourteen percent (14 %) to seventeen percent (17 %) b\ amending
Section 5.50 060 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA.
Section 1 Section 5 50 060 of the City of Yakima Murucipal Code is hereb\
amended to read as follows
"5.50 060 Water businesses.
There is levied and shall be collected as an annual license fee or tax against
persons on account of business activities, in the amount to be deterrruned
b\ application of the rates herein prescribed, as follows.
1 Commencing January 1, 1990, and effective until December 31, 1990,
upon every person engaging in or carrying on the business of selling or
furnishing potable water, a fee or tax equal to six percent of the total gross
income derived from such business in the city of Yakima
2. Commencing January 1, 1991, and effective until December 31, 1992,
upon ever, person engaged in or carrying on the business of selling or
furnishing potable water, a fee or tax equal to twelve percent of the total
gross income derived from such business in the city of Yakima.
3 (a) Commencing January 1, 1993, and effective until December 31, 1993,
upon every person engaged m or carrying on the business of selling or
furnishing potable water, a fee or tax equal to fourteen percent of the total
gross income derived from such business in the city of Yakima.
(b) Commencing January 1, 1994, and effective thcrcaftcr until December
31, 2003, upon every person engaged in or carrying on the business of
selling or furrushing potable water, a fee or tax equal to fourteen percent
of the total gross income derived from such business in the city of Yakima.
4 Commencing January 1, 2004, and effective thereafter, upon every
person engaged in or carrying on the business of selling or furnishing
potable water, a fee or tax equal to seventeen percent of the total gross
income derived from such business in the city of Yakima
The city of Yakima shall not be subject to the license fee or tax imposed by
this section."
Page 1
(Iklord- refuse collection tax -pm
Secnon :: This ordinance shall be m full force and e ch Charter
arie-
passage, approN al, and publication as provided b� 1av ■ and b% the
PASSED THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and appro\ ed this _ da\ of
September, 2003
Mary Place, Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
Publication Date
Effective Date
Page 2
(Iklord -refuse collection tax -pm
0 ,
Private Refuse Tax Ordinance
•
0
ORDINANCE NO 2003 -
AN ORDINANCE relating to refuse collection tax of Chapter 4.16 of the City of
Yakima Municipal Code, increasing the refuse collection tax from
ten percent (10 %) to thirteen percent (13 %) by amending Section
4.16180 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA.
Section 1 Section 4.16180 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows.
"4.16.180 Collection of garbage in business class -- License and tax- -
Regulations.
A. 'License Required. No person, association or corporation shall engage
in the business of collecting and hauling garbage, refuse or debris within
the city or m gathering the same within the city for disposal at some point
or area outside of the city without obtaining a license therefor and
complying with the regulations of this section.
B Application -- Fee - -Bond. Written application for the licenses or
renewals thereof on forms provided by the city clerk shall be
accompanied by payment of a yearly basic license fee of ten dollars,
payable on or before January 1st of each year The term of the license shall
commence on January 1st of each year In the event of an application for a
license for a period of less than one year, the basic fee shall nevertheless
be paid in full. The basic fee of ten dollars shall be credited against the
license tax provided for by subsection C of this section. Upon notification
to the city clerk, licenses may be transferred to purchasers or assigns of
the licensee's equipment or business. No basic fee shall be refunded
At the time of making application, the applicant shall furnish a bond in
the amount of five thousand dollars, issued by a surety company
authorized to do business in the state of Washington, the form of which
bond shall be subject to approval by the city attorney, which bond shall be
conditioned on the faithful compliance by the applicant with the
provisions of this chapter, and further conditioned that the collection,
transportation and disposal of garbage, refuse and debris shall be carried
on by applicant according to the laws of the state of Washington, the
ordinances of the city of Yakima and the rules and regulations of the
Yakima County Health District.
C. License Tax Imposed -- Amount.
(1) Commencing February 1, 1991, and effective until December 31, 1992,
there is levied upon every person, association or corporation holding a
license for the collection and hauling of garbage, refuse or debris within
the city or in gathering the same within the city for disposal at some point
Page 1
(Ik)ord -refuse collection tax -pm
or area outside of the city, a tax for the privilege of doing so, such tax to
be equal to eight percent of the cash receipts from all customers within the
city served by the license holder Such tax shall be due and payable in
quarterly installments, for quarters ending with the last days of March,
June, September and December of each year, and remittance therefor shall
be made on or before thirty days after the end of the quarterly period for
which it is due.
(2) Commencing January 1, 1993, and effective until December 31, 1993,
there is levied upon every person, association or corporation holding a
license for the collection and hauling of garbage, refuse or debris within
the city or in gathering the same within the city for disposal at some point
or area outside of the city, a tax for the privilege of doing so, such tax to
be equal to ten percent of the cash receipts from all customers within the
city served by the license holder Such tax shall be due and payable m
quarterly installments, for quarters ending with the last days of March,
June, September and December of each year, and remittance therefor shall
be made on or before thirty days after the end of the quarterly period for
which it is due
(3) Commencing January 1, 1994 and effective thereafter until December
31, 2003, there is levied upon every person, association or corporation
holding a license for the collection and hauling of garbage, refuse or
debris within the city or m gathering the same within the city for disposal
at some point or area outside of the city, a tax for the privilege of doing
so, such tax to be equal to ten percent of the cash receipts from all
customers within the city served by the license holder Such tax shall be
due and payable in quarterly installments, for quarters ending with the
last days of March, June, September and December of each year, and
remittance therefor shall be made on or before thirty days after the end of
the quarterly period for which it is due
(4) Commencing January 1, 2004 and effective thereafter, there is levied
upon every person, association or corporation holding a license for the
collection and hauling of garbage, refuse or debris within the city or in
gathering the same within the city for disposal at some point or area
outside of the city, a tax for the privilege of doing so, such tax to be equal
to thirteen percent of the cash receipts from all customers within the city
served by the license holder. Such tax shall be due and payable in
quarterly installments, for quarters ending with the last days of March,
June, September and December of each year, and remittance therefor shall
be made on or before thirty days after the end of the quarterly period for
which it is due.
D Manner of Payment - -Audit of Records of Licensee. Payment of the tax
imposed by subsection C of this section shall be made to the office of the
treasurer of the city of Yakima accompanied by a report of the licensee of
the amount of gross cash receipts from customers within the city for the
period for which the tax is paid, which report shall contain such
Page 2
(Ik)ord- refuse collection tax -pm
information as may be deemed necessary or desirable by the treasurer to
administer the collection of such tax. License holders shall afford access at
all reasonable times to their books and records for inspection and audit by
the city finance officer or other auditor appointed by the city manager or
engaged by the city for that purpose, for the purpose of verifying the
accuracy of reports and the amounts of tax payments made to the city
treasurer pursuant to this section.
E Rules and Regulations There are established the following rules and
regulations for the collection and hauling of garbage, refuse and debris in
the business classification, as defined by Section 4.16140•
1 The beds of all trucks used by licensee within the city shall be of metal
construction and completely watertight. Truck beds must be kept clean
and free of any accumulation of garbage or other refuse.
2. All licensed collectors, after loading trucks, must leave all alleys and
streets m a clean and sanitary condition. Such collectors shall not permit
any material to be dropped or spilled from trucks in or upon any of the
public ways of the city
3 The charge for collection in the business class shall be paid by the
owner or person in charge of the place from which such garbage or refuse
shall be removed. Such charge shall be agreed upon between such person
and the collector Each licensed collector shall furnish to the city of
Yakima semiannually a list of all accounts and frequency of collection
thereof
4. The owner or person in control or charge of each building m the
business class shall maintain for refuse storage and disposal metal
containers of good and watertight construction with no dents of not more
than thirty - gallon capacity with a handle on each side thereof and
tightfitting lids, the gross weight of which container when full shall not
exceed seventy -five pounds. In lieu of such containers, the premises may
be served with dropoff bins, provided, bins with a capacity of 1.5 cubic
yards (40.5 cubic feet) or greater shall not be stored within five feet of
combustible walls, openings or combustible roofline eaves.
Refuse containers shall be placed on the premises in such a manner and at
such a location so as to be readily accessible for collection and shall not be
kept on the street, alley, sidewalk or other public place, provided, that
garbage cans or other approved containers may be placed on a platform
or rack in the alley in back of the premises in a location approved by the
code administration manager with the lids for the cans or containers
chained and locked or otherwise secured to the platform or rack. Lids
shall not be removed except while refuse is being placed m or removed
from the receptacles.
F Revocation of License A license issued pursuant to this section is
subject to revocation by the city manager on a hearing conducted by him,
after notice of such hearing given to the licensee no less than five days
prior to the date of such hearing, on the finding by the city manager that a
Page 3
(lk)ord -refuse collection tax -pm
licensee has failed to comply with any provision of this section or with
any city ordinance applicable to the conduct of the business of the
licensee In the event of the revocation of a license by the city manager as
provided herein, the licensee shall have the right to a hearing on the
matter by the city council on the filing with the city clerk of a written
notice of appeal within ten days after the city manager's revocation of the
license The decision of the city council on such appeal shall be final and
conclusive
G Purpose of Section. This section is enacted to provide regulation of the
business of garbage collection within the city and to provide revenue for
the operation of necessary city functions."
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its
passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this _ of October,
2003
ATTEST Mary Place, Mayor
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
Page 4
(lk)ord -refuse collection tax -pm
0
Second Real Estate Excise Tax %O.25
Increment Ordinance
0
•