Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
R-2003-136 Arterial & Gravel Street Financing Options
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 Arterial 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 priorities, as contemplated by RCW 36.70A.130, and WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, with the technical expertise of Kittelson & Associates, is currently preparing material 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 written recommendations related to the issues of transportation project needs and financing for Arterial streets, as well as gravel roads. These recommendations include options for increasing public and private 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 Arterial 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 21St day of October, 2003. ATTEST: Kam,,..J za City Clerk public Water, Wastewater and Refuse Tax Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 2003 - AN ORDINANCE relating to the water, wastewater and refuse taxes of Chapter 7.64 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 the following ycam 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 7-31-03 -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. 2003. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this day of October, 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 ORDINANCE NO. 2003-, AN ORDINANCE relating to the water business tax of Chapter 5.50 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code; increasing the water business tax from fourteen percent (14%) to seventeen percent (17%) by 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 Municipal Code is hereby 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 determined by 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 every 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 in 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 thcreaftcr until December 31, 2003, upon every person engaged in 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. 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 (Ik)ord-refuse collection tax -pm 1, full force and effect 30 days after its Sec_ 2. This ordinance shall be in a passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter. CITY �r17rkTr'TT �;�,T,A� and approved this _day of PASSED BY THE Ci i x COUNCIL, sigrte-• y epte�ltber, 2003 ATTEST: r- t -c7 Clark a s� Publication rate: Effective Date: Page 2 (Ik)ord-refuse collection tax -pm Mary Place, Mayor Sec_ ? This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days atter 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 September, 2003. Mary Place, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date. Page 2 (1k)Ord-refuse collection tAx -pm Private Refuse Tax Ordinance 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 4.16.180 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA: Section 1. Section 4.16.180 of the City of Yakima Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: x`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 in 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 (lk)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 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. (3) Commencing January 1, 1994 and effective thcr after 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 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 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 (lk)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 4.16.140: 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 in 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 in 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 in 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. 2003. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this _ of October, ATTEST: Mary Place, Mayor City Clerk Publication Date: Effective Date: Page 4 (1k)ord-refuse collection tax -pm Second Real Estate Excise Tax %O.25 Increment Ordinance 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-real estate excise tax -pm by section 3.79.010(1) this chapter shall be distributed to the city monthly and all be placed in a separate account within a city fund for capital improvements and expended therefrom in accordance with RCW R7_46_010 _ - ' .. - -• - .. .. expended therefrom for public works projects as provided by Chapter 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 manner prescribed by law." Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after passage, approval, and publication as provided by law and by the City Charter. 2nno, its PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 21%ay of October, o TTnQT• Mary Place, 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 -n Inception to December 31, 2002 Revenues(1986 to 2002) 1986 198 1988 1989 1990 1991 10c2 Local Real Estate Excise Tax Interest From Investwent Gam From investments Counts: 01783 Reimbursements P1473 Residual Eouiry Transfer(Water /Wastewater) Residual Equity Transfer P1455 Residual Equity Transfer P1473 Operating Transfer(Street) Operating Trarsfer(L-neauon) Public Works Trust Loa^. Operating Transfer(Artenal Street Operating Transfer(P1473) 30.000.00 Department of Transportation P1547 Total Revenues 5298387.16 $912,423.00 5250,123.35 5559,793.63 $1.096,652.51 6947,734.00 SI 490,169.70 DOT Grant -Protect 1493 Expendituresl1986 to 20021: Debt Service(P0653-Tieton Dr mat date -2006) $1,818.00 515,054.00 556,398.74 547,557.89 566,315.79 $55515.79 554,378.94 Debt Service(P1133-Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007) 2,371.11 11,205.50 13,063.39 12,030.70 11,927 45 3,74547 0.00 Debt Service(P1355-Fruitvale Cn1 Wastewav mat date -2009) 13,980.38 Debt Service(P1367-Resignaiization mat date -2009) 0.00 Debt Service(P1455-Fruitvale Cnl Phase II mat date -2011) 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 Operating Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cntv Bnd mat date 2007-09) Operating Transfer -Debt Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond mat date 2008) Prot#0653 - Tieton Paving 10th to 65th 985,698.51 Proi#1133 - 1 H RR Overpass Rehab 1/ 2-Faus 200,2777.51 2,455 17 Pro)#1354 - Resignaiizing & Lighting Imp 8,733.55 131,798.99 786.81 Proj#1355 - Fruitvale Canal Wastewav 3,485.02 131,722.72 10,181.60 9,724.87 Proi#1360 - Tieton Dr 5th to 16th 13,900.13 348,459.93 308,429.76 Proi#1364 - Resignal 56th & Summitview Inter Pwt 1,665.87 4,555.71 113,406.21 919.60 Pro)#1365 - Resignal 3rd Ave & Mead Inter Pwt 417.82 29,802.18 144,708.80 252.70 Proi#1366 - Resignal S. 6th & Yakima Ave Int Pwt 170.30 9,806.56 71,228.97 132.00 Prot#1367 - Resignal 32nd & Tieton Inter Pwt 3,976.32 4,951.79 92,884.16 107,084.26 Proj#1368 - Resignal 32nd & Summrtview Inter Pwt 1,567.19 5,255.01 79,565.34 251.47 Proj#1369 - Increase Luang Various Lo Pwt 380.81 913.51 1,879.14 33,478.33 Proj#1370 - Yakima Ave I-82 Interchange Study 3,750.00 1,552.91 60.00 Proj#1371 - I-82 Corridor Study 7,176.00 1,416.53 3,000.00 Proj#1386 - City Hall Water System Replacement 11,800.00 Proj#1414 - Hpr Study WA Ave & 5 Union Gap 1,562.50 Proi#1427 - 5R24 I82-Moxee Vldruty Study 500.00 Prot#143.4 - Lino B & Pierce Couplet Reeval 2578.62 17,157.30 514.98 Pro0145.4 - Rainier Place Reconstr 44.79 465.67 Proi#1455 - Fruitvale Canal - Phase]] 10,023.37 421,704.58 Proj#1460 - City's Share Airport Improvement 30,000.00 30,000.00 Pro)#1471 - Miller Pool 81,266.93 Proj#1473 - 8th St & A St. Parking Lot Proi#1474 - 2nd St & B St Parking Lot Prot#15.47- Chesterb, Park & Ride Lot Proi#1783 - 1996 City Hall Remodel Proj#1815 - Repair City Hall Sidewalk Proj#1893 - 2000 Street Overlay(opt trf) Contingency Total Expenditures Ralance Available 5296,569 16 (5288,607.02) $188,898.33 $465,083.36 $614,978.97 ($285,436.69) 5268,516.39 5184,715.40 5198,660.88 5174,788.24 516511 00 5212520 62 5218224 14 5228.005 2 5,671.76 13,672.12 3335.11 15 19111 +_2.1S.Sc 35269 S 19S.0C 0 Oi 24.375.00 132.000 00 50.000.03 16.8-5 00 33.750.00 108.000.00 700,090.00 72.000.00 177,100.92 674404.33 660,094.00 891.000.00 199284.00 147,251.00 26,989.00 45,891.64 120,640.53 110,895.82 57,168.87 31,729.68 51,818.00 51201,030.02 561225.02 594,710.27 5481,673.54 51,233,170.69 51,221,653.31 LA/ERP 8/14/2003 Public Works Trust Construction Fund Revenues and Expenditures From Inception to December 31, 2002 Revenues(1986 to 2002)• Local Real Estate Exase Tax Interest From Investments Gain From Investments County P1783 13,000.0024375.00 24 375.00 Reimbursements P1473 13,000.00 24375.00 24375.0024375 00 24375.00 24,375.00 Residual Equity TrancferRNater/Wastewater) Residual Equity Transfer P1455 Residual Equity Transfer P1473 16,875.00 16 875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 16.875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 16,873.00 16,875.00 33,750.008 36.870.00 Operating Transfer(Street) 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00 Public Works rks Trust Legation) 74,716.36 0.00 Public W orks Trust Loan 944.70 191,250.00 Operating Transfer(Arterial Street) Operating Transfer(P1473) Department of Transportation P1547 DOT Grant -Project 1493 $384,794.63 $626380.80 $426,832.33 $358558.37 $443.139.05 $472,034.88 $483,706.11 $456,983.85 Total Revenues Ex Debt uresce(P0(1986 to 2002): 553,242.11 552,105.26 150,968.43 549,831.58 $48,694.74 $47557.90 546.421.06 5 528,4.20 .20 11,617.64 11,514.36 11,411.11 11307.84 1120456 Debt Service(P1133-heron Dr mat date -2006)411 12 8,577.0284 120451 8,194.39 Debt Service(P1355-Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -date -007) 11,824.165 19,720.21 ,150.93 8,959.64 8 Debt Service(P1367-Fruig ale Cnl Wastewaymatdate-2009) mat date 45,145 0 49, 0.12 41,939.73 47,840.81 47,419.30 46,997.80 46,576.28 46,154.79 Debt Service(P1455 F sits al Crit Phase mat II mat date -20 90, 51.51 88,879.73 87,059.67 85239.61 83,419.55 81599. 0 40,000.00 40.000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,001' Debt sting ranf 5 -Gen Fd( CnlDome II mat dam 20c 40,000.00 85,817.36000 40,000.00 40,00 Operating Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Crary Bnd mat c 40,000.00 40,000.00 Operating Transfer -Debt Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond mai Proj#0653 - Tieton Paving 10th to 65th Proj#1133 - N H RR Overpass Rehab 1/2-Faus Proj#1354 - Resignahzmg & Lighting Imp Proj#1355 - Fruitvale Canal Wasteway Proj#1360 - Tieton Dr 5th to 16th 444.11.75 Proj#1364 - Resignal 56th & Summitview Inter Pwt 07 Proj#1365 - Resignal 3rd Ave & Mead Inter Pwt Proj#1366 - Resignal S. 6th & Yakima Ave Int Pwt 358329.31 51.88 Proj#1367 - Resignal 32nd & Tieton Inter Pwt 7 38 Proj#1368 - Resignal 32nd & Summitview Inter Pwt Proj#1369 - Increase Liting Various Lo Pwt Proj#1370 - Yakima Ave 1-82 Interchange Study Proj#1371 - I-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 Union Gap Proj#1427 - SR24 I82-Moxee Vicuuty Study Proj#1434 - Linc B & Pierce Couplet Reeval Proj#1454 - Raiser Place Reconstr. 550,603.62 316,929.86 Proj#1455 - Fruitvale Canal - Phase II Proj#1460 - City's Share Airport Improvement 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 25,000.00 3,750.00 Proj#1471 - Miller Pool (817.66) Proj#1473 - 8th St. & A St. Parking Lot Proj#1474 - 2nd St & B St Parking Lot Proj#1547 - Chesterly Park & Ride Lot 36 282.39 27,938.94 523,397.86 161,164.31 242,816.46 Pzo)#1783 - 1996 City Hall Remodel 4,118.39 1,492.66 2,361.24 Proj#1815 -Repair City Hall Sidewalk Proj#1893 - 2000 Street Overlay(opt trf) 1,185,754.80 5621,373.60 5552,374.66 5357,399 44 $279,160.47 5764,570.69 $459532.71 $535,150. Total Expenditures 64 Contingency (5800,960.17) 57,007.20 (5125,542.33) $1,158.93 5163,978.58 (5292,535.81) 524,173.40 (578,166.79) Face 1994 1995 1996 199" 199E 1999 2000 1993 5274,065.00 5341559.20 5262,507.35 5269,135.19 5360,001.53 5388526 9595384250.37 3 _ 5376.087.699 21,784.93 19516.91 14,608.62 14.423.18 8,137.52 8507 0.00 1,054.69 18,435 95 Balance Available LA/ERP 8/14/2003 Public Works Trust Construction Fund Revenues and Expenditures Fr-- Inception to December 31, 2002 Rev enues(1986 to 2002)' 1.ocal Real Estate Excise Tax Interest From I.nvestment< Gain From investments County P1783 Reimbursements P1473 Residual alum Transfer(Water/Wastewater 24,375.00 24,375.00 24,375.00 Residual Equity Transfer P1455 Residual Equih Transfer P1473 16,875.00 16,875.00 16,875.00 5202,500.00 Operating Transfer(Street) 5405,000.00 Operating Transfer(lrrigation) 33,750.00 33,750.00 33,750.00 53405,00031 _ Public Works Trust Loan 5349,60030 Operating Transfer(Arterial Street) 373,824.00 Operating Transfer(P1473) $45,891.64 Department of Transportation P1547 50.00 DOT Grant -Protect 1493 $0.00 570,708,650.00 Total Revenues $444.616.27 $549,319.14 $505,000.00 8 Expenditures(1986 to 2002): 5821,88131 Debt Service(P0653-Tieton Dr mat date -2006) 544,147.36 $43,010.52 $43579.00 5821,881.31 Debt Service(P1133-Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007) 10,998.02 10.894.7'7 10,946.00 16 Debt Service(P1355-Fruitvale Cnl Wastewav mat date- 8,003.09 7,811.77 7,907.00 598,379559879.16 Debt Service(P1367-Resignalization mat date -2009) 45,733.28 45,311.78 45,522.00 5926,306.04 debt Service(P1455-Fruitvale Cnl Phase Il mat date -20' 79,779 43 77,959.35 78,869.00 5926 00004 tperatmg Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cnry Bnd mat c 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 Operating Transfer -Debt Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond mal 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 5900,000 5560,000.00 .00 1 Pro)#0653 - Tieton Paving 10th to 65th 5285,698.51 Proi#1133 - N H RR Overpass Rehab 1/2-Faus ,73235 Proj#1354 - Resignalizing & Lighting Imp 52510241,319.25 Proj#1355 - Fruitvale Canal Wasteway 5155,114.21 Proj#1360 - Tieton Dr 5th to 16th 5671,554.46 Prot#1364 - Resignal 56th Si Summitview Inter Pwt 5120,55846 Prot#1365 - Resignal 3rd Ave & Mead Inter Pwt Pro)#1366 - Resignal S. 6th Sr. 581,337.83 Yakima Ave Int Pwt 5587 2 82 Pro)#1367 - Resignal 32nd Sr Tieton Inter Pwt 567,277.72 Proj#1368 - Resignal 32nd & Summitview Inter Pwt 536,651.79 Proj#1369 - Increase Litmg Various Lo Pwt 55,362.91 Proj#1370 - Yakima Ave I-82 Interchange Study 555,56251 Proj#1371 -1-82 Corridor Study 5 .5 5511,093 Proj#1386 - City Hall Water System Replacement 65 573.35 Proj#1414 - Hpr Study WA Ave &S Union Gap 0 560 5 Proi#1427 - SR24 I82-Moxee Vicinity Study 52 55550.00 Proj#1434 - Linc B & Pierce Couplet Reeval 5250.90 Proj#1454 - Rainier Place Reconstr 5129 5510.46 Proj#1455 - Fruitvale Canal - Phase 11 5178,750.004 Proi#1460 - City's Share Airport Improvement 18,50.00 Proj#1471 - Miller Pool 5581,266.93 Proj#1473 - 8th St. & A St. Parking Lot 0 40 6 Proi#1474 - 2nd St Sr B St Parking Lot 5177,80971,9.0 Proj#1547 - Chesterly Park Sr Ride Lot 51,286,197.995379 Proj#1783 - 1996 City Hall Remodel 85,076.91 34.521 17 175,000.00 57,9 7 2.29 Proj#181.5 - Repair City Hall Sidewalk 50.00 Proj#1893 - 2000 Street Overlay(opt trf) 50.00 Contingency Total Expenditures 5373,738.09 8319509.36 $461,823.00 $0.00 510,205,668.31 Ralance Available $70,878.18 $229,809.78 $43,177.00 $0.00 i 5502,980.47 1 Budget Budget 2001 2002 2003 2004 5366,996.62 8472.808.88 $425,000.00 2,619.65 1,510.26 5,000.00 Total 55,306,0T7.29 5288.866.90 51.25269 518,435.95 513,000.00 5292,500.00 5132,000.00 550,000.00 LA/ERP 8/14/2003 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAx RATES "....UE Races Effecrrv'e April 1. 2003 Please Note: Tins schedule ts revised quarterly as needed The fnllnwmg tables show local tax rates and the combined race, m. ludm¢ tu, state tax rate of 128% effective m all canons. Use load= code when catagieang form 84-0001B for eaten transfc Local Cawed Leel Cow.h Lad Cowl I Rine Code ADA(Canted) R hL Rare tie GRAhT '� i, �� �'St 0101 Hamm 0.005. 128% 1301 Coulee City 0.25% 1.53% 1727 Simkttaush - - 0255. 1335. 0102 Lind 0.255. 133% 1302 Electric Ctry 025% 1.531 1728 Snoquam a 0.50% 1.785. 0103 Othello 0.151 133% 1303 Ephrata 0251 153% 1729 Tukwila 030% 1.781 0104 Ritzvtlie 0255. 1.535. 1304 George 0255. 1335. 1735 Woodinville 0.501 1.781 0105 Wastauma 0.25% L53% 1305 Gttmd Coulee 0251 1.53% 1730 Yarrow Point 0.50% 1.781 0100 Unincorp 0251 1.53% 1306 HartLne 025% 1531 1700 Unmcorp 050% 1 78% ASOTLN 1307 Krupp 0.00% 128% KTTSAP 0251 1335° 1801 lsne=ron 0.505• 1.7801. 0201 Asotm Ictry) 0.75.5 2.031 1308 Mars:wa 0202 Clarkston 0.75% 2.03% 1309 Moses Lake 025% 153% 1802 Port Orchard 003_ 07 1 785. 0200 Unincorp 025% 1.53% 1310 Quincy 0301 1.78% 1803 Ponlsbo BEh'f0!ti 1311 Royal City 025% 1531 1804 BambridgeIsland 0.501 1 785. 0301 Benton City 025% 1.53% 1312 Soap Lake 0.501 1.78.°., 1800 Umacorp 0.505: 1780.: 0302 Kennewuk 0.50% 1.78% I313 Warden 015'/. 133% KrITITAS 0.00°/. 128% 1901 Cle Elum 025% 133 % 0303 Prosser 02j0/. 1535° 1315 Wilsoni�ulc 0,25.5 1-531 0.50% 178% 1300 Unincorp 0.25% 153% 1902 Ellensburg 0304 West Richland GRAYS HARBOR 1903 Kimtas (city) 0.251 1.53% 03050 Unmcorp 025% 1.78153025% 1331 1904 Roslyn 025% 153% 0300 0255. 1.531 1401 Aberdeen CHELAN 1402 Casmopolis 0251 153% 1905 South Cie Elton 025% 1.531 0401 Cashmere 0255/. 1-535• 1403 Elora 025% 1535° 1900 Unincorp 0.251 1.531 0255/° 133 /• 1404 Hoquiam 0251 153.5 KLICIQTAT 0402 Chelan (.try) 0 025% 153% 2001 Bingen 025% 1553% 0403 Ennat 025% 1.5350 1405 McCleary 025 h 153 % 1406 Montesano 025% 153% 2002 Goldendale 0255/. 133% 0404Leavenworth 025% 133% 2003 White Salmon 025% 153% 04055 Wenatchee 0_54% 1.78•/. 1407 Oakville O.5ases 0% 1.78% 1409 OShares 025% 153% 2000 Unincorp 025% 1.531 0400 Unmcarp 1408 Westport 025% 1.53% Lam' +� c^1 A i.�M 025% 133% 2101 Centralia 0.50% 1 78.5 0501 Forks 025•/. 153% 1400 Unincorp025Y.�� 0-50'Y.1-765: 0502 Pon Angeles 0.50% 1.78% ISLAND 020Y. L785° 0503 Sequun 0.25% 153% 1501 Coupevile 030% 1.78% 2103 Meson 2105 Napavine 025% 1.53% 0-25% 133% 1502 Langley 030% 1.781 2104 Mocsytock 025% 1.781 0500 Unmcotp 0.501 1.78% 1503 Oak Harbor 0.50% 153% 0601 Battle Ground 030% 1.78% 1500 Unmcotp 0.50% 1.78% 2106 Pe Ell 055% 133% JEFFERSON 2107 Toledo 0602 Camas 025'/. 133% 030% 1.78% 2108 Vader 025% IS3% 0603 LaCenter0.25•/. 1331 1601 Port Townsend rp 0301 1.78% 2109 W-wlocle 025% 153% 0604 Ridgefield 030% 1.78% 1600 KKINUNGG 2100 Unincorp 0.25% 153% 0605 Vancouver 0.50'/. 1-78.5 0.50°5 1.78•/. LINCOLN 0606 Washougal 025% 133% 1701 Alger 0.50•/. 178% 2201 J1 C 0255° iS3X 0607 Yacolt 025•/. 153% 1702 Aubusn/Kifg 0.251 178%% 2202 Alx ra 025% 133% 0600 COLU 0.50% 1.78.5 1703 Bellevue lg 0.50% 1.78% 2203 Davenport 025% 133% COLUMBIA 1704 Bellevue 0255° 1531 0701 Dayton 0.25°5 153% 1705 Black Diamond 0.50% 1.781 2204 Harrington 0.50% 1.781 2205 Odessa 025% 1.53% 07020 LInincor 0.00'/. 128% 17061734 Bothell/King 0.50% 1.78% 2206 Reardon 025% 133% 0700 COWLITZnc0.00•/. 128% 0Bien 050% 1.781 2207 Sprague 025% 1.53% 1707 Cartration 0801 Castle Rock 025/. 133% 1708 Clyde Hill 0.50% 1.78% 2208 Wilbur 0255. 1.53% 050% 1.781 2200 Unincorp 0.25% 1.53% 0802 Kalama 0.2.5%1.53 /. 1712 Covington MASON Kelso 025% 1.53% 1709 Des Moines 0301 1.78% 0.501 1.781 2301 Shelton 0.50% Mg%N) 0804 Longview 0251 1335. 1710 Duvall espy. 1.78% 0805 Woodland 0.50% m 1.78% 1711 Enumclaw 030% 1.781 2300 Uncotp 0800 Unincorp 0.25% 1.53% 1732 Federal Way 0.50% 1.781 OKANOGAN DOUGLAS 1713 Hunts Point 030% 1.781 2401 Brewster 0251 133% 0901 Bridgepon 025% 153% 1714 Issaquah 050% 1.78% 2402 Conconully 025% 133% 0902 East Wenatchee 0.251 1531 1738 Kenmore 050% 1.78% 2403 Coulee Dam 0.50% 1 78% 0903 Mansfield 0.25% 153% 1715 Kent 030% 1.781 2404 Elmer City 0.005. 1281 0904 Rock Island 025•/. 1.53% 1716 Kirkland 0.501 1.78% 2405 Neapelem 0.00% 128% 0905 Waterville 025% 1.531 1717 Lake Forest 0.50% 178°/. 2406 Okanogan(city) 025% 1.53% 0900 Unincorp 025% 153% 1720 Maple Valley 0.501 1.78% 2407 Omak 025% 153% FERRY 1718 Medina 025% 1.53% 2408 Oroville 025% 1.53% 1001 Republic 0251 1.531 1719 Mater Island 0.50% 1 7855 2409 Pateros 025% 1.53% 1000 Unincorp 025% 133% 1731 Milton/King 050% 1.78% 2410 Riverside 0251 1.531 FRANKLIN 1736 Newcastle 050% 1.78% 2411 Tooasket 025% 153% 1101 Connell 025/. 1553°/. 1721 Normandy Paris 0.50%1.78 % 2412 Tvnsp 025% 1.5311 1535. 1102 Kahloncs 0.00% 128% 1722 North Bend 030% 1.76025% 1 2413 Winthrop 025. 1.53% 1103 Mesa 0251 153% 1723 Pacific/King 025•/. 1_53% 2400 2400 Uocorp 1104 Pasco 025% 1.53% 1724 Redmond 030•% 1.78% PACIFIC 1100 Unmcorp 0.25% 153% 1725 Renton 0.50% 1 78% 2501 llwaco 025% GARFIELD 1739 S-anmam h 0.50•/. 1.78% 2502 Long Beach 0.251 1201 Pomeroy 025% 1.53% 1733 Sea Tac 025% 1.53% 2503 Raymond 025% 1200 Unincore 0.25% 1.531 1726 Seattle 030% 1.781 2504 South Bend 025% REV 84 0013 (3-28-03) 1717 Shoreline 0 505. 1 78% 2500 1 lnincorn 0 24% 1.53% 1.53% 1531 1.53% Ioo.f Cert PEND ORE LLE g�aa 260 Cuvcr 0.005. 2602 lone 0.25•:. 2603 Metaune 0.00% 2604 Metaime Fa :s 0.005. 2605 Newport 030% 2600 Utnncarp 0.255. PIERCE 2724 Auburn/Pierce 0.50% 1 78% 2701 Bonney Lake 030.,. 1 78% 2702 Buckley 0.50% 1785. 2703 Caroonadc 0.25% 1335. 2704 Du Pont 0.50•/. 1.78° 2705 Eatonvilie 0.25% 1.535. 2720 Eagewood 0.25% 1.53% 2706 Fife 0_25% 1.53% 2270' F tracs: 0.50% 1.785. 2708 Gig Harbor 0.50% 1.78% 272, Lakewood 0.50°/. 1.78% 2709 Milton/Pierce 0.50°/. 1.78°/. 2710 Owing 025°/ 1.53% 2723 Pacific/Pierce 0.25% 1.53% 2711 Puyallup 0.50% 1.78% 271_ Roy 0.25% 1.53% 2713 Ruston 0.505. 1.78% 2714 South Prairie 0.50% 1.78'/ 2715 Stetiacoom 0.50%: 1 78°/ 2716 Sumner 030 % 1.78% 2717 Tacoma 0.50°/ 1 78% 2718 Wilkeson 025% 133% 2719 University Place 0.50% 1.78% 2700 Uruncorp 0.50% L78% SAN JUAN 2801 Fndav Harbor 2800 Unincorp SKAGIT 2901 Anacones 2902 Burimgton 2903 Concrete 2904 Hamilton 2905 La Conner 2906 Lyman 2907 Mt Vernon 2908 Sedro Woolley 2900 Unincoro SKAMANIA 3001 N. Bonneville 3002 Stevenson 3000 Unmcorn SNOHOMISH 3101 Arlington 3120 Bothell/Snohomish 3102 Bncr 3103 Darrmnton 3104 Edmonds 3105 Everea 1.28%: 1.53% 128%. 128.1: 1.53%. 1.50°/. 2.78 125% 233% 0.50% 0.50°% 030% 0.50% 0.50°/. 025% 0.50•% 0.50% 025 1 78% 1.78% 1.78•/. (B) 1 78% 1 78% 1.53% L78% 1.78% 1.53% 0.25% 1.53% 0.25% 1.53% 0.005. 1.28% 0.50°/. 0.50°/. 0.505. 0.25% 0.50°/ 0.50°.6 1.78% 1.78% 1.78% 1.53% 1.78% 1.785. 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3119 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3100 (caws) SIQHOMI Gold Bar Gramm Falls ladoc Lake Stevens Lynnwood Marysville Mill Crede Monroe Mouatiake Mukilteo Snohomish Stanwood Sultan W oodway Unincorp SPOKANE Airway Heights Cheney Deer Park Fairfield Latah Medical lain; Millwood Rockford Spangle Spokane (city) Spokane Valley Waverly Liberty Lake Unincorp STEVENS Cbewelah Colville Kettle Falls Mamas Northport Springdale 3300 Unincorp THURSTO11 3401 Bucoda 3402 Lacey 3403 Olympia 3404 Rainier 3405 Temno 3406 Tumwater 3407 Yelm 3400 Unincoro WAHKiAKUM 3501 Cataluna 3500 Unincoro WALLA WALLA 3601 College Place 3602 Prescott 3603 WaitsbtnY 3604 Walla Walla 3600 Unincorp 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3213 3211 3232 3200 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 Lsest Lacs. CONN Bits Bg WEATCOM R.r. F_ t i 030'/. 1.78%. 3701 BelumgnLT.. 0 0.501': 1 781: 3702 Blaine 0.505. "S- 0.50% 1.785: 3703 Everson 0_50% 0.50% s'- 0.50%: 1 78•.. 3704 Ferndale 0-505. ' 0.25% 133% 3705 Lyndon 0-505. 1.785. to 0.50% 1.785. 3706 Nooaaack_ 0.50% 178°. 0305. 1.785": 3707 Sumas 0.255. 1.535'. 030% 178% 3700 Unincorp 0251. 1331. 0.50% 1.785: WE TTMA,N 030% 1 785. 3801 Albion 025•.: 1.531. 0.50% 178%. 3802 Colfax 02555. 1.535. 030% 1.78% 3803 Colton 0.005. 1.285. 0.509: 1.78% 3804 Endicott 0.255. 1.53% 0.50•. 1.785: 3805 Farmington 0.00%. 128%. 0.505/. 1.785. 3806 Garfield 025%. 1.535. 3807 La Crosse 0.255. 1.535. 0255: 1.53% 3808 Limon' 0.005. 1.285. 0.505: 1.78% 3809 Malden 0.255: 1.535. 0.50% 1.78% 3810 Oakesdale 025%. 1.535. 0.00°/. 1.28% 3811 Palouse 0.25% 1.535. 0.005. 1.28% 3812 Pullman 0.25% 1.535. 0.255. 133% 3813 RnsaLa 025% 1.535. 0.005/. 128% 3814 Stlohn 0.00% 1.285. 0.25% 1.53% 3815 Tekoa 0.255'. 133%. 0.25% 133% 3816 Uniontown 025•/. 1.53%. 0.50% 1.78% 3800 Unincorp 0255. 1.535. 0.50% 1.78•'.(I) YAKIMA 0.00% 128'. 3901 Grmdvrew 0.25% 1535. 030'/. 1.785/. 3902 Granger 025•/. 1.53% 0.50% 1.785/. 3903 Harrah 0.25% 1.53% 3904 Mabron 030% 1.78% 0255. 133'/. 3905 Moaee City 0.25%. 1.535'. 025% 1535. 3906 Nachos 0.25% 1.53%. 0.25% 1.53% 3907 Selah 0.255. 1.53% 025°/. 133% 3908 Sunnyside 025% 1.53% 025% 1.53% 3909 Tieton 025% 1.53% 025% 133% 3910 Toppenish 0.25% 1.53% 025•/ 133% 3911 Union Gap 0.25% 1.53% 3912 Waparo 0.25°/. 1.535. 0.50°/. 1.78% 3913 Yakima (city) 025% 1.535. 0.50% 1.785. 3914 Zillah 0.505/. 1.785: 030% 1.78% 3900 Unmcorp 0.25% 1.53% 025°/. 1.53% 030% 1.78% 0505. 1.78% 025•/. 1.53% 0.50% 1.78% 0255. 1.53% 0.00•/. 128•/. 025% 1.53% 0.00% 128•% 025% 133% 0.25% 1.53% 0.25•/. 133% (A) For tax assistance, visit httpJldor wa.gov or call (800) 647-7706. To inquire about the availability of this document in an alternate format for the visually impaired, please call (360) 486-2342. Teletype (TTY) users may call (800) 451-7985. REV 84 0013 (3-28-03) (A) Eff. 1/1/03 (B)Efi811/02 (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, including 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, including the amount of any liens, mortgages and other debts given to secure the purchase at a rate of 1.28 percent. RCW 82.45.060. A locally -imposed tax is also authorized. However, the rate at which it can be levied and the uses 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 levy a quarter percent tax (described as "the first quarter percent of the real estate excise tax" or "REET 1 "). RCW 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. (Note that in chapter 272, Laws of 1994, the legislature clarified its original 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 accounting purposes, but they are not "capital purposes" or "local capital improvements." See correspondence between Allen R. Hancock. Deput Prosecuting Attorney of Island County and Philip H. Austin. Senior Deput. Attorney General. Cities and Counties With a Population of 5,000 or More That Are Planning tinder GMA. These jurisdictions must spend the first quarter percent of their real estate excise tax receipts solely on capital projects that are listed in the capital facilities plan element of their comprehensive plan. RCW 82 46.010( 2'( 6). RCW 82.46.010(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: bridges; domestic water systems; storm and sanitary sewer systems; parks; recreational facilities: law enforcement facilities; fire protection facilities; trails; libraries; administrative and judicial facilities... Spending the Second Quarter Percent -- REET 2 This part of the real estate excise tax may only be levied by cities and counties that are required to or choose to plan under the Growth Management Act. All cities and counties that levy 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, bridges, domestic water systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks. RCW 82 46.035(5). Note that acquisition of land for parks is not a permitted use of REET 2 receipts. although it is a permitted use for street, water, and sewer projects. What's the Half Cent Tax Shown in RCW 82.46.010(3)? Cities and counties that are not levying the optional half -cent sales tax under RCW 82.1 4.030(2) have the option of levying an additional one-half percent real estate excise tax. These receipts are not designated for capital projects. They 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 bring in more revenue than this additional one-half percent real estate excise tax. For border cities and counties. however. who do not feel they are able to levy the optional sales tax, this tax is a revenue option. The imposition of this tax, a change in rate, or repeal of the tax is subject to the referendum procedures given in RCVS' 82.46.021. One Percent Real Estate Excise Tax for Conservation Areas. A county legislative authority may submit a ballot proposition to the voters for an additional real estate excise tax nce The each revenue from this tax is restricted to thof real property in e county at a e not to exceed 1 percent of the selling p acquisition and maintenance of conservation areas. Conservation areas are defined in RCW 36.32.570 as: land and water that has environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic, or low -intensity recreational value for existing 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. RCW 82.46.030(2) and RCW 82.46.035(4). Although no special direction is given in the statutes as to how to account for funds collected under RCW 82.46.070 for conservation areas, these should be kept in a separate fund also. Reference Sources • Statutes • MRSC Inquiries Documents • March 2. 1984 letter from Alan R. Hancock. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney of Island County To Kenneth O. 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 planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) 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 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 cities 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 (GMA' 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%) Real Estate Excise Tax #1 (0.25%) Real Estate Excise Tax #2 (0.25%) Total Amount 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 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 maintenance of arterial streets within the City of Yakima. WHEREAS, after studying the issues for much of 2002, the Capital Facilities Committee finds that the rebuilding, 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 private 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% telephone 6% natural gas 4% cellular telephone 6% and YMC 5.50.050(A)(1) YMC 5.50.050(A)(2) YMC 5.50.050(A)(3) YMC 5.50.050(A)(5); WHEREAS, the natural gas business (Cascade Natural Gas Corporation) in 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 utility tax increase8-14-03.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 in 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 in 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 businesses of electrical energy, telephone service, natural gas energy, and cellular/wireless telephone service in 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 in 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 cfc utility tax increase 8-14-03.pm energy, telephone, natural gas, and cellular telephone business up to a total utility tax of 7%, including, in the case of natural gas pursuant to RCW 35.21.860, the 2% franchise fee. The 1% increase in 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 29.13.020(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 in 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 cfc utility tax increase8-14-03.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. ATTEST: Karen S. Roberts, City Clerk 4 (Ik) res cfc utility lax increase 8-14-03.pm Mary Place, Mayor 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 56,500,000 in capital improvements in 2004-2006 using the statewide competitive Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) Loan Program. Timelines for this would be to submit an application to PWTF in July 2003, the selection process would be completed in October 2003, and the PWTF money could be available in 2004. The debt service for this loan would probably begin in FY2005. These funds, if approved, would be programmed for the (1) Nob Hill extension, (2) Rudkin Road/East Mead Reconstruction, (3) 40th Avenue/Fruitvale Boulevard Extension, and (4) selected grind and overlay street projects (list attached). 2. a. Proposed Funding Source -- Apply to the Public Works Trust Fund for a 1/2% (0.5%) loan of 55,525,000, and provide the 15% match from a 10 year, 51 million Councilmanic Bond (which will net $975,000 for projects after issuance costs). 5120,000 in debt service on the 10 year Councilmanic Bond would be funded from an allocation from the Contingency Budget Reduction Plan. 5320,000 of annual debt service for the Public Works loan could be funded for 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 S320,000 for the following 10 years b. Public Impact -- The public would benefit in convenience and safety from the proposed street improvements. The public mav not benefit from the programs reduced or elimnated (found in the Contingency Budget Reduction Plan) to fund the package of street improvements. c. Personnel Impact -- Design services for these projects 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. Po1icV Issues 2003 Ener/P%ATF Art Res.st.Proe.doc — 12/6/02 .:25 ANI III -5 f. Viable Alternatives — • Continue to save gas tax revenue and pav cash for the protects, or, c: pa -a— you-go basis, or use the cash to leverage grants from the State-' Feder,: funding agencies -- this would significantly extend the timeframe for prom;-. funding since Arterial Street funds are nearly all committed on other projects and debt service for many years. • Continue to explore and then decide on the matter of implementing the second 1 !4 percent (0.25%) Real Estate Excise Tax which would generate an estimated 5350,000 per year dedicated to street and transportation improvements. • Use a voted debt option by developing a 56.5 million bond issue proposal to replace the recently retired bond levies. Property taxes would pav the debt service. • Seek legislative support for a local share of any new transportation funding package for the State. 3. Conclusion -- A 51 million Councilmanic Bond would be needed to match a 55.5 million Public Works Trust Fund Loan. Debt service annually would be needed in the amount of S440,000 for 10 years, and S320,000 annually for another 10 years to repay both the bond issue and the Public Works Trust Fund Loan. In the absence of any new resources, the funding source, to pav these debt service obligations, must come from implementing a portion of the Contingency 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 Contingency Budget Reduction Plan be allocated for this policy issue, and would necessitate a new plan be developed for 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 of the Public Works Trust Fund, staff recommends referring this plan to the Capital Facilities Committee for further study and analysis in conjunction with their review of the Arterial Street Program needs and request a recommendation by March 2003 to apply for the 2004 Public Works funding cycle in July of next year. 'otic•. issues 2003 En¢rt P\NIT Art.ResSt.Prog.doc .-'0!02 ..- AM III -6 Public Works Trust Fund Project List Project Description Cost Estimate Nob Hill Blvd Reconstruction 52nd Ave to 68th Ave Widen" Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk Lighting, Storm Drainage 52.500.000 00 Rudkin Road Reconstructron East Mead to Viola Ave Reconstruct with Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk Lighting, Storm Drainage. Add one lane S17S5.000 00 40th Ave " Fruitvale Blvd. Intersection Improvements to add one lane to on-ramp access to SR 12 Includes WSDOT Partrcipatron S1,215,000 00 Grind and Overlay Street Projects Continue this necessary street maintenance;' improvement program 51,000,000.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST 56,500,000.00 POIICv Issues 2003 Engr/PWTF Art.Res.St.Prog.doc 3 — 12/e/02 9.25 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 by unanimous voice vote. Council Member Mattson commented that now is a good time to start forming a public involvement plan. SECTION I 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 Rev Balance 1. Fund 141 -Street & Traffic Operations Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Revenues: Property Taxes & Co Rd Tax fr Annex Gas Tax Intergovernmental Revenues(grants / entitlements) Charges for Services(str & curb permits /internal) Miscellaneous Revenues Expenditures: Traffic Engineering Operations Equipment -Signal Controllers, Sign Fabricator/Plotter Street Maintenance & Operations(sealcoat, snow removal, potholes, wheel path, preservation, etc.) Debt Service (Fruitvale Phase 2 -mat date 2011) Debt Service (1994 I-82 Bond -mat date 2013) Debt Service(1998 Street Bond -mat date 2008) Debt Service(Pub Wrks Trst Ln -Yakima Av-mat date 2011) Contribution to Fd 392 - 2003 Grind & Overlay Project (from '02 beginning fund balance) Service Vehicle Total Street & Traffic Operations (1) Cash flow contingency, snow removal, and reserve for matching future grants. $923,160 $2,970,644 71 1,145,000 28 500 0 24,000 1 20,050 0 $1,741,678 42 22,500 1 2,684,618 65 16,875 0 50,000 1 122,000 3 20,000 0 100,000 2 0 0 $923,160 $4,160,194 2. Fund 142 -Arterial Street Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Revenues: Arterial Street State 1/2 cents Gas Tax Intergovernmental Revenues(Federal Hwy Adm - Washington Avenue/Downtown Sidewalk etc.) Miscellaneous Revenue Other Financing Sources: Operating Transfer(fr Street & LID Assmnt) Residual Equity Trf(debt sery cont fr Utility funds) Expenditures: Debt Service(Tieton Dr 5th mat date -2006) Debt Service(No Ist St mat date -2011) Debt Service(Fair Ave mat date -2015) Debt Service(Pub Wrks Trst Ln- Yakima Av mat -date 2011) Debt Service(SIED Loan County- Yakima Av mat -date 2011) Contribution to Fd 392 - 2003 Grind & Overlay project (from '02 beginning fund balance) Operating Transfer to Debt Sery Fd(1994 I-82 Bnd) P1796 Valley Mall Boulevard P1867 Traffic Calming Project P1872 Annual Bridge Inspection P1875 Sidewalk Program P1901 Washington Avenue Expansion P1915 Washington Ave Exp 40th to 48th Ave-Cnty P1919 Mead Avenue Improvement P1944 River Rd N 16th Av to Fruitvale P1957 Washington Ave Exp 48th to 64th Ave-Cnty P1958 Washington Ave Exp 64th to 72nd Ave-Cnty P1964 Englewood and 16th Ave Signal P2006 Nobhill 68th to 80th Ave P2007 Zier Rd 72nd to 75th Sidewalk Total Arterial Street (1) Cash flow/Debt service reserve. 100 $4,757,671 114 $130,191 $525,000 11 4,334,737 87 18,500 0 40,372 1 57,199 1 $39,378 1 54,468 1 60,174 1 128,620 3 5,476 0 0 0 70,000 1 3,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 50,000 1 2,514,936 51 1,585,000 32 381,243 8 75,000 2 15,000 0 15,000 0 65,000 1 1 0 1 0 $130,191 $4,975,808 100 $5,082,297 102 $325,683 (1) $23,702 (1) erp 8/27/03 3:21 PM bud-141-to-392.xls Description SECTION I Summary of 2003 Budgeted Revenues & Expenditures for Street Maintenance & Operations/Rehabilitation et al Beginning 2003 % of - 2003 , of Fund Bal Revenues Rev Expenditures Rev Ending Fund Balance 3. Fund 143 -Transportation Improvement Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Revenues: Miscellaneous Revenue Expenditures: I-82 Gateway Project(Stage c - Landscaping) Contingency for Gateway Project close out (from '00 beginning fund balance) Total Transportation Improvement $113 (1) Balance of I-82 Gateway project(see Attachment I -A for more details) $113 (1) $0 n/a $0 n/a 0 0 n/a $0 0 $0 0 $113 4. Fund 342 -Public Wrks Trust Constr Beginning_Fund Balance Revenues: Local 1/4 Real Estate Excise Tax Miscellaneous Revenue Other Financing Sources: Operating Transfer(Debt Sery fr Street & Irr-Frtvl Cnl) Residual Equity Transfer(Debt Sery fr Wtr & Swr-Frtvl Cnl) Expenditures: Debt Service(Tieton Dr mat date -2006) Debt Service(Nob Hill Over Pass mat date -2007) Debt Service(Fruitvale Cnl & Lighting mat date -2009) Debt Service(Fruitvale Canal mat date -2011) Operating Transfer -Debt Sery Fd(1998 Street Bond mat date 2008) Operating Transfer -Gen Fd(Sun Dome Cnty Bnd mat date 2007-09) P1783 City Hall Rehab(reroof-50k/ demo& design -100k/ alarm sys-25k) $273,171 $425,000 85 5,000 1 50,625 10 24,375 5 $43,579 9 10,946 2 53,429 11 78,869 16 60,000 12 40,000 8 175,000 35 Total Public Wks Trust Const $273,171 (1) Cash flow/debt service reserve. $505,000 101 $461,823 93 $316,348 (1) 5. Fund 392 -Cum Res for Capital Impry Estimated Beginning Fund Balance Revenues: Intergovernmental Revenues(Federal Grant -Railroad) Intergovernmental Revenues(Federal Hwy Adm-Nobhill Blvd) Miscellaneous Revenue Other Financing Sources: Contribution fr Street and Arterial St - 2000 Grind & Overlay Balance on Public Works Trust Fund Loan Expenditures: P1818 Railroad Grade Separation P1818 Railroad Grade Separation(Federal Study Environmental Impact) P1813 Railroad Crossing Supp Safety(Whistle ban -'99 carryover) P1829 Nobhill Blvd and 6th St Signal P1886 Grind and Overlay(Yakima Av-CBD signal-pwtl) P2015 2003 Grind and Overlay(Nobhill Overpass fnd bal) $145,512 Total Cum Res for Capital Impry (1) Cash flow/contingency reserve. Grand Total tor all 5 Funds $1,350,000 92 8,650 1 2,000 0 100,000 7 0 0 $0 0 1,350,000 92 0 0 20,000 1 0 0 100,000 7 $145,512 $1,460,650 100 $1,470,000 101 $136,162 (1) $1,472,1471 $11,101,652 511,771,791 k ll (1) (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 % of Ending Fund Description Fund Bal Revenues Rev Expenditures Rev jl 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 for Cap Impry - Cash flow and contingency reserve. 6. Unbudgeted Potential Resources: a. Surface Transportation Program (S11') revenues/grant Pledged to Nobhill Pledged to Washington Avenue Pledged to Mead Avenue(Right of Way) b. National Highway System (NHS) Pledged to Union Gap -Valley Mall Blvd project Total Unbudgeted Potential Resources Available Pledged $1,200,000 (1) 507,994 (1) Balance $386,000 414,000 400,000 507,994 (2) $1,707,994 $1,707,994 $400,000 0 (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. $0 (3) erp 8/27/03 3:21 PM bud-141-to-392.xls Written Materials Submitted at Public Hearings 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: > The backlog of streets needing attention grows bigger every day; > There are state and federal grants and loans which 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, 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 tote community that clearly exp a3n ow their dollars vere leveraged with state and federal grants and loans; ntiarteriy updates to rnuincit., during the business mPeting, of progress nn 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 REST expressly for the purpose of uu::uiii LaI:LQL 3:i:p1ove:ie::LJ, ➢ Now is the time to address our street needs, NOT before they are riddled with potholes. 2 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 WSLC Online -- Bender Column, January 2003 NO EVENTS WSLC REPORTS TODAY 200:3 CONVENTION 2003 RESOLUTIONS who we are why join a union? legislative issues JANUARY 2003 Page 1 of 2 Business climate warmer than complainers admit by Rick S. Bender, President of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO "Taxes are too high, government regulations cost too much, environmental rules stifle the economy, and our state can't compete." If you've heard that refrain before, you shouldn't be surprised The business lobby has sung that same song for some 20 years, not just here, but in Minnesota, Maryland, Oregon and just about everywhere else, except some of the lost corners of the deep south The complaints have been consistent: The business climate has always been terrible everywhere for everyone This now amounts to "crying wolf," because the facts cannot support the 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 • 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 life • 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 "wealth friendliness." • The Tax Foundation ranks Washington in 2002 as 20th in comparing state and local tax 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/03jan.htm 9/29/2003 WSLC 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 President's Columns Copyright © 2003 Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO http://www.wslc.org/columns/03jan.htm 9/29/2003 Page 1 of 1 ciarence 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 billion 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 90 80 70- 60 50- 0- 40- 40- 30 30 20 20 10 - Return on Investment Options 1, 2, and 3 $ 54,000,000 $4.80! $4.80 $32.00 $ 22,000,000 3.00 $ 17 600,000 10.40 5.60 3.00 1 2 3 i $8.00 $ 90,000,000 __ $2.00 ,. $2.00 $64.00 $24,000, $17,600,000 $16.00 $6.00 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ■ Taxes Invested By Community IS Match on Gravel St. Alley ■ Dollars spent on Gravel Streets And Alleys ❑ Match on Arterial Improvement ❑ Dollars spent on Arterial Improvement B Match on Arterial Mait. ■ Dollars spent on Arterial Maintenance 00 8- 7 6 5- 4 3 2- 1- Relative Costs of Option #3 $7.50 0 Average Monthly Cost Cost for Cost for Latte Cost for pack of Cost of Video hamburger Cigarettes Rental Cost for Movie Relative Cost of Options #1 and #2 Average Cost for Monthly Cost hamburger Cost for Latte Cost for pack of Cost of Video Cost for Movie Cigarettes Rental ❑ Series3 ■ Series2 Seriesi WB) Central Washington Home Builders Association September 30, 2003 Yakima City Council Yakima City Hall 129 N. 2nd 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, i.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. • RPmove 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 Le to We, 06 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 HB 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 environment conducive to the success of its 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 increase. 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 the 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 i 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 private 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/pnvate partnerships typically involve private ownership of the physical assets or a long -teem 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 offerings, 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 Arterial 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. 6 For Meeting of . July 1, 2003 11 EM TITLE: Transmittal of Capital Facility Committee Recommendation to City Council on Arterial Streets, Gravel Streets and Alleys SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick 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) : Funding Source: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL : - v 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 legislation on -each of the three options presented by the 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. Capital Facilities Committee Arterial, Gravel and Dirt Street Funding Sources Funding Summary j3OVNVIN Ai)d O J WWSO MO? 0 3 NW W is i'A JUIOIO OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 • Total of 3% Increase to Public Utility Taxes for Arterial Improvements: ' Water/Sewer 14% to 17% Refuse 9% to 12% Arterial Improvements 2.00% ($320,000) Arterial Maintenance 0.25% ($ 40,000) Gravel Streets 0.25% ($ 40,000) Contingency Fund 0.50% ($ 80,000) • Total of 3% Increase to Public Utility Taxes for Arterial Improvements: Water/Sewer 14% to 17% Refuse 9% to 12% Arterial Improvements 2.00% ($320,000) Arterial Maintenance 0.25% ($ 40,000) Gravel Streets 0.25% ($ 40,000) Contingency Fund 0.50% ($ 80,000) • Total of 1% Increase in Private Utility Taxes (From 6% to 7%.) Generates an estimated $800,000 per year for Arterial Improvements. • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be split between Arterial Maintenance ($300,000) and Gravel Streets/Alleys ($100,000). Total 3.00% ($480,000) • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be split evenly ($200,000) between Arterial Maintenance and Gravel Streets / Alleys. Total 3.00% ($480,000) • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be split evenly ($200,000) between Arterial Maintenance and Gravel Streets / Alleys. 06/30/2003 1 CAPITAi. FACILITIES COMM1'1'11 E REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TRANSMITTAL FROM THE CHAIRPERSON June 18, 2003 Dear Council Members, It is my pleasure to include this brief summary with the report from your Capital Facilities Committee concerning arterial improvement, artenal maintenance, and issues concerning gravel streets and alleys It is the conclusion of the committee that action needs to be taken to maintain and improve our road infrastructure To ignore this critical 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 vote 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 #1 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 private 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, Neil McClure, Chairman Capital Facilities Committee Memorandum June 26, 2003 To. Honorable Mayor, Members of City Council, City 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 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%. Current Bill Bill with Proposed Utility Tax Increase Dollar 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 2 75% Irrigation $ 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°A) increase % Increase Dollars raised per year Refuse $28,000 2 75% $77,000 Water $55,000 2 63% $144,650 Wastewater $100,000 2 63% $263,000 Total $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. Yakima's Capital Facilities Committee Report and Recommendation to Yakima City Council on Arterial Streets, Gravel Streets and Alleys. Arterial Maintenance Background. Because of a chronic shortage of local funds, the maintenance of our arterial streets has been on a program that is known to be inadequate The City's past maintenance policy of' seal coating the road surface every five years, which gave almost indefinite life to the streets, was extended to seven years then to eleven years. This deferred maintenance has caused a serious breakdown of the road surface on our arterial streets A breakdown so severe that seal coating is no longer an option in many cases and a more expensive fix is now required, a grind -and -overlay program. Recommendation. That the city establish a dedicated fund for the grind -and -overlay of our arterial streets The intent of this recommendation is to fund the deferred maintenance on our arterial 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. During 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 arterial system. The _growing inability of our present arterial system 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 arterial street improvements. Gravel Streets and Alleys Background- The City of Yakima 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 City. 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 M = Million Dollars REET2 = Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax Option; estimated 0$400.006 per year Public Utility Tax (PUT) increase of :2.5% for bonded debt. Additional 0.5% increase for Contingency Fund (3.0% increase r($160,000) = $480,000 Private Utility Tax ("PVT") = estimated $800,000 per 1% increase. 6/25/03 Option t$1 Option #2 Option r*3 MUNICIPAL BONDING Yes. $10M Councilmanic, 20 year Bond No Pay as you go philosophy No Pa as ou .o .hiloso ihy TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURE Yearly amount of 080,000 Yearly amount of $880,000 $320,000 YR for Identified Projects Raise Public Utility Taxes ("PUT") 2% From 14% to 16% to raise $320,000 On City Water and Sewer services Includes Nob Hill Water services Adjust Tax for City Refuse Service From 9 % to 11% Year amount of $1,200,000 $800,000 YR for Identified Projects Raise Private Utility Tax ("PVT") From 6% to 7% to raise $800,000 YR On Cable, cell phone, phones, power, etc Voted by Public. Use funds to extensively match Slate and Federal fundm._ .rograms. ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS $4M Bonded for Identified Projects Raise Public Utility Taxes ("PUT") 2% From 14% to 16% to raise $320,000 On City Water and Sewer services Includes Nob Hill Water services Adjust Tax for City Refuse Service From 9 % to 11% Total debt service/YR = $320,000 for 20 Yrs ARTERIAL MAINTENANCE $3M Bonded for Grind/Overlay REET2 = $200.0001YR (allocated from tax) $240,000 YR for Grind/Overlay REET2 = $200.000/YR (allocated from tax) $300.000 YR for Grind/Overlay REET2 = Use 75% of annual 3400.000 est. PUT = $40,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from tax) Total debt service/YR = $240,000 for 20 Yrs PUT = $40,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from tax) GRAVEL STREET/ALLEYS $3M Bonded to fund City Contribution to 60-60 LID Program to Title 12 Standards REET2 = 3200 000IYR (allocated from tax) $240,000 to fund City Contribution to 60-60 LID Program to Title 12 Standards FtEET2 = $200 000NR (allocated from tax) $100.00Q to fund City contribution to 60-50 LID Program to Title 12 standards REET2 = Use 25% of annual $400.000 est. What is not used in any year returns to Arlene! Maintenance Pro. ram above Strategy found In Arterial Improvement '1 Pro am for matching funds PUT = $40,000 NR (0.25% allocated from lax) Total debt service/YR = $240,000 for 20 Yrs F'UT = $40,000 /YR (0.25% allocated from tax) CONTINGENCY FUND Matching for state and federal programs PUT = $80,000 /YR (0.50% allocated from tax) Matching for state and federal programs F'UT = $80,000 /YR (0 50% allocated from tax) M = Million Dollars REET2 = Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax Option; estimated 0$400.006 per year Public Utility Tax (PUT) increase of :2.5% for bonded debt. Additional 0.5% increase for Contingency Fund (3.0% increase r($160,000) = $480,000 Private Utility Tax ("PVT") = estimated $800,000 per 1% increase. 6/25/03 Summary of Possible Street Improvement Options 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 counciimaruc bonds with an annual contingency fund that would be used for street and arterial l pro\ements. Each tax increase would require only Council approval. The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be; • 2nd quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, S 400,000.00 per year, • Public Utilities increase from 14 % to 16% $ 480,000.00 per year. 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 S 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. 2 Arterial Improvement: S 4,000,000.00 with a hoped for match of S 4,000,000.00 spent over a 4 to 6 year period to fund three projects. The S 4,000,000.00 bond would be paid off over a 20 year penod at S 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. 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. An additional $ 80,000.00 per year to serve as a matching source for available State and Federal monies for arterial improvements. These monies would not be made available for any bonding package. Option # 2 Basic Summary: Option # 2 Mould use money generated from an increase in public utilt:es an.f an increase ;h the Real Estate Excise Tax to fans needed street improvements on ae nr.'v ('nuns l ar, nal i -.a: with ont the iss'ian nf nnna- Fach ray, inereac,e appro\ al. The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be; • 2' quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, S 400,000.00 per year, • Public Utilities increase from 14 % to 16% S 480,000.00 per year. The improvement package would be as follows: 1. Arterial Grind and Overlay: 240,000.00 dollars 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 poruon of the increased public utilities tax. 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. 3. 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 recommendation. The monies needed to generate this revenue would come from 1/2 of the monies generated from the increased r� Q to and a portion of the increased public utilities tax. Any monies lVal VstaLL. tax not used would be spent on arterial grind and overlay Ontinn#`i r -- - Basic Summary: Option # 3 would use money generated from an increase in private 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; • 2"d quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, $ 400,000.00 per year, • Private Ut111tLCJ 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 314th 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 revenue would come from 1/4t 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 grind and overlay. SUMMARY OF FUNDING OPTIONS Summaries Option 1 20 Year Investment in Arterial Maintenance 20 Year Investment in Arterial Improvement 20 Year Investment in Gravel Streets And Alleys 20 year investment by Community Summaries Option 2 20 Year Investment in Arterial Maintenance 20 Year Investment in Arterial Improvement 20 Year Investment in Gravel Streets And Alleys 20 Year Community Investment Summaries Option 3 20 Year Investment in Arterial Maintenance 20 Year Investment in Arterial Improvement 20 Year Investment in Gravel Streets And Alleys 20 Year Investment By Community $ 3,000,000.00 $ 16,000,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 $ 17,600,Q�0.00 $ 4,800,000.00 $ 40,000,000.00 $ 9,600,000.00 $ 17,600,000.00 $ 6, 000, 000.00 $ 80,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 $ 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 arterial improvements. Each tax increase would require only Council approval. The estimated revenue generated from this tax package would be; • 2nd 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 arterial 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, ® end quarter of the Real Estate Excise Tax, • Public Utilities Tax increase 14 % to 17% (refuse — 9% to 12%) $400,000 00 per year, $480,000 00 per year The improvement package. IA/mid he 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 arterial grind and overlay An additional $80,000.00 per year to serve as a matching source for available State and Federal monies for arterial 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 private utilities taxes and an increase in the Real Estate Excise Tax to fund needed street improvements on an would annual basic with out the issuance of bonds. The Real Estate Excise tax ineiease 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, • Private 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 3/4th 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 1/4th of the monies generated from the increased real estate tax. Any monies not used would be spent on arterial grind and overlay MEMORANDUM Co'._' n.,... ars:. Cit\ From Chris Waar-vick, Di e r:or o= Public works Da:e November 25 2002 Subject Lea:slation Necessary to Implement Capi:al Fac' ',.,• -s Committee Recommendation Regarding a Gravel Street Paving,. ProP-ram The report and recommendations from the Capital Facilities Committee provide the City Council the conceptual framework of a public private cost sharing program to imps o\ e gravel streets within the City of Yakima. The citizen committee considered many options and has articulated their recommended program in the form of modified Local Improvement District process If the City Council accepts the report from the Capital Facilities Committee, City of Yakima legal and technical staff will compile the necessary legislation to implement the recommended program and bung those related ordinances back to the City Council for the public hearing process. The following list of items summarizes the legislation necessary to implement the gravel street program, as recommended by the Capital Facilities Committee 1 Amend Yakima Municipal Code 8 12, Local Improvement Code to include the details of the Gravel Street and Alley Paving Program (GS APP), 2 Adopt a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which identifies the air quality, storm water, neighborhood and transportation benefits of the gravel street paving program and specifies the intent to use the Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax to help support the public contribution to the LID process This amendment would serve to "align" the G:'L\ Comprehensive Plan with City Council policy and direction on this 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 (CMLA.Q) and other possible grant funds This amendment would also serve to `'align" the Six Year Plan and the Capital Facilities Plan. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment noted above, the responsibility for these gravel roads is largely a result of annexations within the Yakima Urban Area. The Growth Management Act clearly contemplated these type of growth issues when the Second Quarter Percent Excise Tax was authorized 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 with respect to dealing with gravel streets did discuss the possibility of apportioning REET 2 revenues between the two subjects. The CFC recommendation simply identifies that REET 2 T r,, • revenues be uses to o= yeL t by 50% the Local . Imoroveio D s ictcoSt for ravel street improvements It does not discount the possibility that those revenues could also be used for arterial street project match funding. The two uses are not mutually exclusi%e to each other. City Council may wish that the CFC provide a recommendation on apportionment. Lr 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 arterial streets and brings a consolidated recommendation to Council for both the gravel and arterial streets matters. (2) Engaging a Comprehensive Plan Amendment "aligning" the Plan with a new Council policy and direction with respect to gravel streets and REET 2 funding is predicated on City Council amenable to making that decision. The amendment process, while not overly challenging, will require staff time and resources Comprehensive Plan Amendmentsexcept in the case of transportation issues which can occur more than once per year to enco frequent evaluation of consistency between transportation issues and Plan text. 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. Implementation of this recommended Gravel Street and Alley Paving Pro_...:: (GSAPP) would require amendments to Yakima Municipal Code 8.12 Local Improvement Code, consistent with provisions ofRCW 35.43-35.51. Features of the program would include: • Split cos`s eau?lly between public funds and private property owners through a 50.'50 Public -Private Local Improvement District (LID) partnership. • Improve gravel streets to current YMC Title Twelve stanchrds, including sidewalks on both sides of the street. • A GS APP LID must be at least one block long and include both sides of the street. • Existing gra%el streets and alleys within the city limits would be eligible. • If property acquisition is necessary to improve a street to YMC Title Twelve standards, the owner may donate the needed land and utilize the worth of that land as a part of that landowner's participation in the LID. • Create a system of monthly or semi-monthly payments for GSAPP LID's, similar to utility bills. • Recommend maintenance of property owner petition as the preferred method of LID formation. However, if 60% of the residents (not solely property owners) in an affected area support the formation of a LID, the Council should consider formation of a LID by resolution. 2. Pursue Multiple Financing Options • Encourage the City Council to take extra -ordinary effort to establish a GSAPP that utilizes public funds as outlined herein. • Utilize Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds and any other grant source funds to help support the 50/50 partnership LID GSAPP. • Enact the Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax and devote the revenue to support the Public contribution to the 50/50 partnership GSAPP LID. o Staff Note: The State Legislature has placed the authority to enact the Second Quarter Percent Real Estate Excise Tax solely within the City's legislative authority. Consequently the city does not have the option or discretion to submit this matter for a direct decision by initiative or referendum. ?gee 1 oft Octo'ocr 24. 2002 3. Prioritize LID Projects: n_. � i LLVlltlw projects 'because the practical lin-.t_ario__as CI- ' has with a new annual revenue source of limited dollars. • Prioritization should take into account safety, raffic, schools, existing sewer lines, existing water lines, zoning and possibly other considerations. High priorities include °ravel 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 NIC Title Twelve standards. Page 2 of 2 October 24, 2002 GCHAMBER OF COMMERCE i T‘V+k, by ip—at—n 3. REATER YAKIMA "°$* October 15, 2003 Mayor Mary Place and Members of the City Council City of Yakima City Hall 129 North 9th Street Yakima WA 98901 Dear Mayor Place, The Board of Directors has reviewed the recommendations of their Chamber's Governmental Relations Committee proposals for addressing needed upgrades to city arterials, side streets and alleys. They have reviewed the Capital Facilities recommendations but feel any of those approaches are in appropriate. Therefore, we recommend the following. 1. That only G.O.B. bonds be utilized for arterial improvements. 2. That in order to meet Clean Air Act standards, the city take an aggressive pro -active approach in gaining the creation of L.I.D.'s for improvement of side streets and alleys. 3. That all utilities taxes be retained for use of needed utility improvements only. 4.Finally, we recommend that the Chamber enter into a collaborative effort with other entities to redefine City street standards . This effort is intended to supercede an effort to use title 12 standards. These actions were passed unanimously by the Board of Directors at their last board meeting. We hope you will concur. ary W. Webster President / CEO cc: file BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 1 q 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 in a formal presentation to the Yakima City Council regarding dirt streets, alleys, and arterial 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 Arterial 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 in Option #1. The difference being that in Option #1, the revenues generated support a $10 million bond and in 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 private 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 in the CFC report in 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 private 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 (REET 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 SUBMIT TO COUNTY AUDITOR FINAL COUNCIL MEETING DATE 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 April 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 Funding Sources Funding Summary OPTION 1 • Total of 3% Increase to Public Utility Taxes for Arterial Improvements and Gravel Steets: Water/Sewer 14% to 17% Refuse 9% to 12% Arterial Improvements 2.00% Arterial Maintenance 0.25% Gravel Streets 0.25% Contingency Fund 0.50% Total 3.00% ($320,000.) ($ 40,000.) ($ 40,000.) ($ 80,000.) ($480,000.) • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be split evenly ($200,000) between Arterial Maintenance and Gravel Streets / Alleys. • Propose to use revenues to secure a $10 million Councilmanic Bond (20 year). OPTION 2 • Total of 3% Increase to Public Utility Taxes for Arterial Improvements and Gravel Streets: Water/Sewer 14% to 17% Refuse 9% to 12% Arterial Improvements 2.00% Arterial Maintenance 0.25% Gravel Streets 0.25% Contingency Fund 0.50% Total 3.00% ($320,000.) ($ 40,000.) ($ 40,000.) ($ 80,000.) ($480,000.) • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be split evenly ($200,000) between Arterial Maintenance and Gravel Streets / Alleys. • Propose to use revenues to fund projects without bonding. 08/04/2003 1 • OPTION 3 Total of 1% Increase in Private Utility Taxes (From 6% to 7%.) Generates an estimated $800,000 per year for Arterial Improvements. • REET 2: Enact second quarter Real Estate Excise Tax. Generates an estimated $400,000 per year to be split between Arterial Maintenance ($300,000) and Gravel Streets/Alleys ($100,000). • Propose to use revenue to fund projects without bonding. 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 Arterial 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 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 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: Utility Current Bimonthly Bill Bill with Proposed 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 per 1 % increase % Increase Dollars raised per 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 variable based on the amount of debt coverage required by each individual Utility.