HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/2011 00 Agenda and Packet or Y.1,;
! i� Micah Cawley, Mayor
1- r -- .)).4)
Kathy Coffey, Assistant Mayor
y Yakima
Maureen Adkison
°, ‘‘‘ %____,-4,- _ r C ity COUnCII Rick Ense
0 y
Agenda Dave Ettl
129 N. 2nd Street,Yakima,WA. 98901 Bill Lover
Phone: (509) 575 -6000 • Fax (509) 576 -6614 City Manager
Email: ccouncil @ci.yakima.wa.us • www.ci.yakima.wa.us Donald B. Cooper
Anyone wishing to address the Council, please fill out the form found on the tables and give it to the City Clerk
' YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED MEETING — STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 — 9:30 — 11:00 A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS — YAKIMA CITY HALL
1. Roll Call
• 2. Street Preservation Program
3. Audience Comments (10:45 — 11:00 a.m.)
4. Adjournment to October 4, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. for scheduled City Council
Business Meeting
•
Yakima
ao-am�cean
City of Yakima Vision Statement: To create a culturally diverse, economically vibrant, safe, and strongYakima community. ' I I I I!
Adopted March 2008 1994
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 22, 2011
Transmittal Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor, Members of City. Council and City Manager
FROM: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Joe Rosenlund, Street Manager
RE: Street Preservation Program
The newly renamed Transportation and Utilities Committee of the City Council has been
reviewing street preservation needs and funding mechanisms. The progress of the
Committee was reported to the full Council on July 19, 2011. At this meeting a Study
Session was requested on the matter and was scheduled for September 22, 2011.
Portions of the 7/19/11 Agenda Item are attached.
While the general topic of street preservation needs are certainly open for continued
discussion, Council specifically requested that . information be brought back examining
the process to create a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) as a required step to
implement a Car Tab Fee (up to $20), further discussion of the City's in lieu tax position,
and the more traditional method of funding street improvements through a Street Bond
(publicly voted property tax increase). The preservation project cost levels presented
were $20, $25, and $30 million dollars. The higher the cost the more progress would be
made toward street preservation and limited safety and congestion relief. A new
discussion chart is attached to assist in anchoring the discussion.
• An accompanying flow chart identifies the steps necessary to implement a
Transportation Benefit District (TBD) under RCW 36.73 (attached). In order to
implement any level of Car Tab fees, certain actions must be taken by the legislative
body. A car Tab fee up to $20 may be implemented by the City Council; over that
amount up to $100 requires a vote of the people (50 % +1). Other forms of revenue
generation are discussed in the TBD legislation and include a 0.2% Sales Tax, a limited
property tax levy, and a narrowly constructed Transportation Impact Fee for capacity
purposes. The number of registered vehicles in the City of Yakima is approximately
57,000. Accounting for authorized exemptions under the RCW and other reductions in
the net number of vehicles eligible for the fee, an estimate of $1.0 million per year is
calculated (50,000 X $20). A small percentage is retained by the State Licensing
Department.
A 6% increase in the City's water, wastewater and refuse in lieu tax generates an
estimated $2.1 million per year. The in lieu tax also applies to Nob. Hill Water and
Yakima Waste/Waste Connections (private companies) providing service within City
limits.
As has been discussed, the traditional property tax levy when placed to the voters would
require a 60 % +1 approval of the voters. Once the ballot proposition was formally
launched by the City Council, the City and its staff would be prohibited from promoting
the ballot proposition. Council Members are not barred from expressing their position on
the measure. As shown in the July 19, 2011 report, a $30 million, 20 year street bond
would create a $2.5 million per year debt service (if the entire bond proceed were drawn
Sat once) and $20 million in interest payments over the 20 year life of the bond (in
addition to the $30 million in repaid principle).
The chart titled "Pavement Management Concepts" shows that the City still is in a '
position to capture the advantage of considering a "pay as you go" (PAGO) approach.
The City is at the "$1.00 for Renovation" spot on the curve of the graph. This is the
average current benchmark cost per square foot of street preservation.
The chart titled "Funding Street Preservation Program Options" provides a breakdown by
year of expenses for a series of approaches to street preservation. The first column
considers using a traditional street bond (20 year, Level Levy, $30 million, at 5.22 %).
The debt service is $2.5 million per year over the life of the bond if the proceeds were
drawn all at once. However, only so much work can be done on City streets in a given
year without incurring congestion and project management issues.
The anticipated draw on the $30 million bond would not likely be all at once. The chart
shows in the first column that a draw schedule could be implemented reflecting the initial
years need to initially design and bid contracted grind /overlay and rebuild projects, start
up emphasis on back - logged chip seal work (divisional), and additional end phase
concentration on contracted work. As an example, the draw schedule could be $10
million each 2 -year period at Year 0, Year 2 and Year 4. However, if the debt service
payments were structured at $2.5 million annually (as shown), the base anticipated
interest of $20 million would be reduced somewhat because higher payments against
the actual draw amounts would have been made.
A different approach would be to plan for $3.0 million per year of work ($2.0 million /year
contracted work — grind /overlay, rebuild; and $1.0 million /year in supply procurement for
divisional chip sealing, etc.). This "Pay As You Go" (PAGO) approach does not create
debt service and avoids the interest payment of nearly $20 million. The life of this
program would be 10 years.
Just to bracket the discussion, a minimal PAGO approach of only $1.0 million /year
provides material costs for chip seal and select repairs but cannot afford the major,
contracted grind and overlay work that is currently needed. The $1.0 million can be
generated by the TBD $20 car tab fee or the imposition of a 3.0% in lieu (one -half of the
6.0% presented above). Finally, a PAGO approach generating $1.0 million per year
from current City expenses and programs is presented in the last column. The concept
embraces the theory that services such as Transit, Stormwater and potentially Refuse
depend on streets and /or contribute an inordinate amount wear and tear on the system.
However, in the case of Transit, a balancing amount of reduction in other vehicular traffic
is gained. The FTA objected to the fee that the City charged to Transit a number of
years ago for its effect on the streets and the practice was discontinued.
The last column is the "Do Nothing More" alternative. The current average Pavement
Condition Index (PCI — 0 to 100) is at 62, and is defined as being at the lower limit of
"good." The average cost to preserve a square foot of pavement is $1.00. By the end of
the 10 year period of "Doing Nothing More" the average PCI will have deteriorated to 22
and the general description will be defined as "very poor." The average cost to preserve
(or repair) a square foot of street will have risen to $10.
An important observation can be made from this evaluation. Even the $30 million
investment will not totally prevent the degradation of the street system in this "10 year
look." Please note the Pavement Condition Indices at the bottom of the chart titled
"Funding Street Preservation Program Options." The $30 million figure was chosen as
4110 an upper end to what the community could accommodate. A larger figure is needed to
more abruptly stem the downward trend as was presented to the Transportation and
Utilities Committee earlier this year. This situation is highlighted in the attached article
dated July 28, 2011 summarizing a report from the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) titled "Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends on
Surface Transportation Infrastructure."
Staff respectfully requests Council discussion of these matters and provide direction as
the full Council determines most appropriate. There may be additional funding
alternatives or program approaches that Council wishes Staff to explore.
•
•
Funding Street Preservation Program Options
"PAGO" "PAGO"
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
"PAGO "' $10 Million
$10 Million Do
$30 Million 3% In Lieu tax or Contributions from Nothing
Traditional Bond Issue 6% In Lieu tax ($2.0 Million) $20 /yr car tab Transit, Stormwater, and More
20 year, LL , $30 Million, 5.22% $20 /yr TBD ($1.0 Million) (hot both) POG model (etc.) totaling
Varied Draw in Millions /year $3.0 Million /year $1.0 Million /year $1.0 Million/year' $0.0
Year
Zero Debt Service Zero Debt Service Zero Debt Service
Contracted $2.0 Million
Divisional $1.6 Million PCI: 62
Equip $400,000 Contracted $2.0 Million
Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Cost /sq
1 Total $4.0 Million Total Total $1.0 Million Total $1.0 Million foot $ 1.00
$3.0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Repair
Contracted $3.6 Million
Divisional $1.6 Million Contracted $2.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $5.2 Million Divisional
$1.0 Million
2
Total $3.0.Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Contracted $3.6 Million
3 Divisional $1.6 Million Contracted $2.0 Million
Total $5.2 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $3.0.Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Contracted $4.1 Million
4 Divisional $1.1 Million Contracted $2.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $5.2 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $3.0.Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1:0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Contracted $4.1 Million
5 Divisional $1.1 Million Contracted $2.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $5.2 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $3.0.Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
•
' PAGO -Pay As You Go
'Finding revenues from these sources have formidable challenges to surmount. Discussion found in Agenda Cover.
II III II
III
"PAGO" "PAGO" , • ,
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
"PAGO " $10 Million
$10 Million Do
$30 Million 3% In Lieu tax or Contributions from N g
othin
Traditional Bond Issue 6% In Lieu tax ($2.0 Million) $20 /yr car tab Transit, Stormwater, and More
20 year, LL , $30 Million, 5.22% $20 /yr TBD ($1.0 Million) (not both) POG model (etc.) totaling
Varied Draw in Millions /year $3.0 Million /year $1.0 Million/year $1.0 Million/year $0.0
Year
Zero Debt Service Zero Debt Service Zero Debt Service
Contracted $4.1 Million
6 Divisional $1.1 Million Contracted $2.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Total $5.2 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0 Million
Total $3.0.Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Contracted $0.0 Million Contracted $2.0 Million
7 Divisional $0 Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million • 1 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Total $3.0.Million
Total $1.0.Million • 1 Million
Contracted $0.0 Million Contracted $2.0 Million
8 Divisional $0 Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million
Total $3.0.Million
Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0. Million
Contracted $0.0 Million Contracted $2.0 Million
9 Divisional $0 Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million
Divisional $1.0 Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0 Million
Debt Service $2.5 Million Total $3.0.Million
Contracted $0.0 Million Contracted $2.0 Million
10 Divisional $0 Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million Divisional $1.0 Million PCI: 22
s Total $3.0.Million Total $1.0.Million Total $1.0 Million Cost /sq
Debt Service $2.5 Million foot $10.00
repair
+10
Years $ 30 Million $ 30 Million $10 Million $10 Million $ 0
Total
Project
In failure:
Notes; Interest Paid $20 Million Interest Paid $ 0 Interest Paid $ 0 Interest Paid $ 0 17%
•
PCI: 41; In failure: 7% PCI: 39; In failure: 7% PCI: 35; In failure: 8% PCI: 35; In failure: 8% Very poor:
52%
3 Debt Service continues for 10 more years.
•
•
Transportation Benefit District Formation Process
Utilizing Car Tab Funding
Determine TBD Boundary
Make Up of Board
• -
Define
Transportation
Improvements
•
Set Date of Public Hearing
by Resolution
> $20 • < $20
Adopt Ordinance
• •
Public Vote Required Council Decision
No Yes Yes No
•
? 7
•
File Notice with Department of Licensing ♦_
Collections Begin Six Months after Notice -
•
•
•
Amend Municipal
Code
•
•
Develop Material
Change Policy •
) r
•
Begin Projects
•
Create Annual Report
•
•
.
Home > Sports ?rini E: „_ 0
•
,; Print this Page fBack to Site View'
Delaying Infrastructure Improvements Could Cost Nation
Trillions, Report Says
Posted Thursday, July 28, 2011 ; 11:37 AM
d Thursday, July 28, 2011; 02:32 PM
erican Society of Civil Engineers calls for full funding of vital projects
By Pam Kasey .
•
Email I Bio I Other Stories by Pam Kasey
Deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure will cost the American economy more than 870,000
jobs and suppress the growth of the country's gross domestic product by $3.1 trillion by 2020.
That's according to the report "Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends on
Surface Trahsportation Infrastructure,” released July 27 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
The report finds that, in 2010, deficiencies in America's roads, bridges, and transit systems cost
American households and businesses more than $129 billion. That includes vehicle operating costs,
delays in travel time, and safety and environmental costs .
If investments in surface transportation infrastructure are not made soon, those costs will grow
exponentially, the report warns. .
ASCE president Kathy J. Caldwell called the study a "wake -up call" for policymakers.
"Clearly, failing to invest in our roads, bridges and transit systems has a dramatic negative impact on
America's economy," Caldwell said in a media release accompanying the study.
"The link between a nation's infrastructure and its economic competitiveness has always been
understood," she said. "But today, for the first time, we have data showing how much failing to invest
in our surface transportation system can negatively impact job growth and family budgets."
The report paints a picture of an economy dragged down in a spiral of inefficiency.
Failing infrastructure will drive up the cost of doing business up by adding $430 billion to .
0 portation costs in the coming decade, according to the report's estimate. Firms will have to pay
to ship goods, and the raw materials they buy will be more expensive due to increased
portation costs.
Productivity across the business sector will fall. The increased costs will cause businesses to
underperform by $240 billion over the next decade, driving the prices of goods up. Exports will fall
by $28 billion, with 10 sectors of the U.S. economy accounting for more than half of the loss in
export value — among them key technology sectors that drive national innovation, such as
machinery, medical devices and communications. .
America also would lose jobs in high -value sectors as business income goes down. Almost 877,000
jobs would be lost by 2020, the report states, primarily in the high -value professional, business and
medical sectors that are central to America's knowledge -based service economy.
•
Families across the board will experience a lower standard of living.
To bring the nation's surface transportation infrastructure up to tolerable levels, the report estimates
that policymakers would need to invest approximately „$1.7 trillion between now and 2020 in the
nation's highways and transit systems. A little over half 'of that is already on track, leaving a funding
•
gap of $846 billion over 9 years, or $94 billion per year.
These investments would protect about 1 million jobs, save Americans 180 million hours in travel
time each year, deliver an average of $1,060 to each family and protect $10,000 in GDP for person
•
in the U.S.
"There is no doubt we need to tighten our budgetary belt and learn to live within our means, but this
report is proof positive that the cost of not addressing this impending catastrophe is simply too high,"
said Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D- W.Va., top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Rahall called on Congress to craft a robust surface transportation that provides the investments
necessary to tackle the well- documented backlog of highway, bridge, and transit infrastructure needs.
rica can continue to lead the worldwide economy and win the future, but we must be willing to
in a transportation system fit for the 21st century just as our competitor nations are investing
Heir own futures," he said. "They are not waiting; we must not wait any longer."
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting of July 19, 2011
ITEM TITLE: Report Regarding Street Maintenance Options from the Council Transit and
Transportation Committee
SUBMITTED BY: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Joe Rosenlund, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Joe Rosenlund, Streets & Traffic Operations Manager
(575 -6005)
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
The nearly 1,000 lane miles of city arterials and neighborhood streets are at a critical tipping
point regarding significant preservation, restoration and repairs. The decision made will
determine if the transportation system will be bolstered and preserved for community needs
(public safety, economic vitality and quality of life) or if the system will begin.an increasingly
steeper decline unable to adequately support the community and its needs.
The last successfully voted street bond was in the late 1980's (Nob Hill Blvd, 16 Ave to 44
Ave). Two street bonds in the mid 1990's garnered well over 50% but failed to meet the 60%
threshold required of property tax measures. The City made a concerted investment into basic
maintenance (chip sealing, crack filling, shoulder repair) with the passage of REET 2 in 2003
® and hard surfaced nearly all of its remaining dirt streets. The City did not have the resources,
however, to invest in a substantial way into the necessary grind and overlay and limited
reconstruction of failed roadways.
Now, with REET revenue significantly diminished and what remains dedicated toward street
debt service, and no other readily available revenue to invest, the Council Transit and
Transportation Committee brings this staff report to the full Council for review, deliberation and
direction. This report provides a description of what maintenance and rehabilitation work is
proposed with packages of $20, $25, and $30 million. Staff anticipates that practically no more
than $6 million could be accomplished in any given year due to constraints in project
management and traffic disruption city -wide.
(Continued on next page.)
Resolution — Ordinance _ Contract _ Other X (Specify) Report
Contract Mail to (name and address):
Funding Source • Various Potential Sources
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: ( 7 7 1_,-/ % City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends City Council deliberation of the
Street Maintenance matter and direction to staff regarding further assignment of tasks.
BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Transit and Transportation Committee has
reviewed the report and forwards the matter to the full City Council for deliberation and further
• action.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Street Maintenance Options Report
July 19, 2011
Page 2
411
Financial options include a traditional publicly voted (60 %) property tax increase to support a
bond, imposition of a 6% increase in the public utility "in lieu" tax (Council voted), imposition of a
car license tab fee (TBD— Council voted up to $20), levy LID lift (TBD — publically voted $0.20K),
publically voted 0.2% sales tax and /or reductions in current General Government programs or
expenditures sufficient to support the level of investment Council determines adequate and
appropriate.
The work described in the following report does not include bridge or culvert repair, new -
sidewalks, arterial capacity increases by adding additional travel lanes, nor new arterial
roadways.
Additional information is available regarding Transportation Benefit Districts (TBD). In addition
to the $20 car tab revenue option (Council Decision up to $20), TBD's allow a number of
different funding mechanisms. These include up to $100 car tab fees (publically voted), 1 -year .
property tax excess levy authority (capital purposes, publically voted), and up to a 0.2% sales
tax (publically voted). A 0.2% sales tax dedicated to eligible Street programs may generate
nearly $3.0 Million. Finally, the last line of the chart below is in recognition of diminished street
maintenance operating resources and how it may fit into sustaining the broader program.
Discussion Summary Chart
Funding Source(s)
Traditional TBD Car Tab z TBD 10
voted Property Council Voted ($20 max TBD Voted Voted Priorities of
Program Size Tax for Bond In Lieu Tax Levy Lid Lift o Government
(20 yr, level 6%1 w /Council $0.20/K 0.2 /a Sales Allocations
levy) vote) Tax
$1.7 M /yr debt $2 1 M Council
$20 Million service $1.0 M $1.1 M $2.8 M
$0.23K4 (sufficient) (insufficient) (insufficient) (sufficient) Budget
Decision
$2.1 M /yr debt $2.1 M $1.0 M $1.1 M Council
$25 Million service $2.8 M Budget
$0.28/K4 (sufficient) (insufficient) (insufficient) (sufficient) Decision
$2.5 M /yr debt $2.1 M $1.0 M $1.1 M $2.8 M Council
$30 Million service Budget
a (insufficient) (insufficient) (insufficient) (sufficient) g
$0.34/K Decision
Annual Street Possibly Possibly Possibly Council
Maintenance Infusion N/A Sufficient Sufficient Not Possible Sufficient Budget
($500,000) Decision
1 In Lieu Tax - -1% increase is approximately $356,000
2 TBD— Transportation Benefit District RCW 36.73
3 Car Tab - 50,000 registered eligible vehicles @ $20 /yr.
Assessment per $1,000 value
_ •
Pavement Management Concepts
Preventive Maintenance Approach
Excellent _
40% Drop
Good — in Quality
Fair _ V
75% of Life { $1.00 for Renovation Here
Poor _ 40% Drop
in Quality Will cost S8.00
I to $ 10.00 Here
Very Poor _ V
12% of Life
Failed
I ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1( I 1 1
0 10 Years 20
0 S 94TH AVE
O
co S 92ND AVE N 92ND AVE
n n = = z
5 o O < r S S 88TH AVE N 88TH AVE
n
c S 86TH AVE m O m O I
II r 0 73 S 85TH AVE N 84TH AVE n < _ •
0 m S 83RD AVE a z 7) 0
,. n
o xi FI o S 80 i:1*i N 80TH AVE �7
0
O z m
I RI rri
7i 1• I 7 6TH AVE o
S 74TH AVE I D `< S x 0 '` dE
1 r -1 S7 D AVE 0
p I o>> S 69TH AVE S f AVE
l.� Trr N 68TH AVE
n) W S66THA m �� T E
N _�( -- � _ � m S 64TH AVE - u �� ' / / / /�
3 H i z 0 N61 T E
M
CD › O O � C ,,
,-1 O D N 5� f ' • � O
n D m O �� �" I� -a
S 52NDAVEm H — .� N � I � , ����0 Q D S = -- - ii-_-_:_-; _1 I -- E O
'" 1: D S 47TH AVE _ -- -- 1 4- H A _ E 48T1�IA ,
_ _ 1
0 2 k ( 1 1 1� '' �,1, .
= _ I I S r� �: . �I J AVE
,\ _
I S �
M 0 S41STAVE
E L 2 1 42N A E —r ,0 w
CD
0_ ,.= kil -111. -I
S 38TH AVE -, 1 l'J O
_ - E7TH 4E : -3 I r I O
K
( S ri I S THAVd C �� L i c ^ I _ _ co
1 S — �— r
�1 t
4;#:11 l li •1• J �C r— ,, i � :. A � ' -Ir ' 111 �,' - .Z
a
k.44 S 26 AVE " �� J " * 27 AVE !IU ` _ II < s A rn
( r� 4 � = 11"'1 RM. ' 8. � � 1 73
E i H
S 18 E • .
.ALLEY - I: ' ' ���� "" ` 73
S 16 AVE I I E E A SS . .. 1; � 16TH AVE
S 12TR A V E I I . !�' ! - • ,.�� 1 i : A • a 1i n I I °
--=---------. • .�`� � ` A i <i II D m I 0 S 10TH AVE S 11 H AVE g O r - AI I FYI; 1 � g H -�- D - U ' t N V H A
9) S 8TH AVE I. 8T AVE m Z l' w _� - ':. • , 1�t� 4 E I
CORN I - , ALLEY •v % -1ta � ' `� 11 � i
0
r
co
0 S5THAVE ' . 1 m . ., ✓ ✓ r . 1 4
:
a. D 1 II i U 1 _ I U . E 3RD ' ,�pFj� , r',...15
nr I n I n
" m ALLY .• ^ " .. Iv • IP i L _
LANDONAVE
Qo F f IIR �l.ri ".��.i 1; I I.�
O D ALLEY .:LEY lid �� � ). ?.�� � `•• \
v W LIE - L 2
I D .... ` - S 1 �
I
i� O 11`1�L Hi 6S 11 11 C
z 1S .. ' — z " :-,..-...,E" i l 1 tS A311 1�u m
e rr
g r- � I II �S.}•tl£ 1• S D
O o y S 14TH S T D 2 1 4J •
-I
0) 4TH ST c,• G D 11 ;, -1,1,2'\ O _b
01
2ND ST y < 18T T v S 18TH ST o ?
O R'
< MAIN ST S 20TH 182 RAMP EB o O
CD 182 HWY E RUDKIN RD BUTTERFIELD RD
9M d Z8 1
KEYES RD N KEYES RD
Transit Sr Transportation Planning Committee
July 12, 2011
Councilmember Rick Ensey, Chair
Mayor Micah Cawley
Councilmember Maureen Adkison, (Altn.)
From: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works
Joe Rosenlund, Streets and Traffic Operations Manager
Subject: Street Maintenance Bond Proposal
The Transit & Transportation Planning Committee along with staff has discussed the condition
of Yakima City streets and potential funding sources to pay for maintenance for over a year. At
the last committee meeting the members directed staff to develop project lists of $20 million, $25
million and $30 million to be funded through a street maintenance bond. Staff was also to show
the probable cost to city property ,owners to repay the bonds.
The three project lists break the work into five areas: Traffic Systems, Intersection
Improvements, Maintenance Equipment, Street Maintenance and Arterials /Collectors Rehab.
Traffic Systems are needed improvements to the traffic control system focused on upgrades to
existing equipment, communications systems and lighting.
Intersection Improvements are relatively small construction projects intended to correct
operational or design deficiencies. Although some capacity improvements may be realized,
safety is the primary driver for these projects.
Maintenance Equipment is for the purchase of paving equipment and vehicle tracking
equipment. In order to accomplish the desired amount of work on residential streets, the Streets
Department needs better paving equipment. Without the equipment, all paving work in the
residential areas will need to be contracted at a higher cost thereby reducing the amount of
work that can be accomplished with the bond funds. This equipment has a 15 to 20 year life
expectancy enabling city crews to pave and rehabilitate streets better and more efficiently for
many years after the bond funds have been expended.
The vehicle tracking equipment allows real time monitoring of vehicle locations and operation:
It enables the Streets Department to track and log material usage, plow operation and routes,
sweeping routes, lane striping and other maintenance functions in order improve our efficiency
and reduce operating costs.
,,
Street Maintenance includes repair of residential streets, funding to get caught up on chip seals ti 0
that were not done in the past few years and engineering and inspection costs. Additional
engineering and inspection is needed because of the quantity of work being proposed and there
are some repairs additional expertise may be required such as concrete roadways.
Arterials /Collectors Rehab is the funding required for arterial and collector roadways. A list of
the roadways to be repaired is attached. The work is broken down into three groups:
Reconstruction, Grind & Overlay, and Overlay. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was used
to determine the level of maintenance required. Reconstruction is 0 to 35 PCI, Grind & Overlay
is 35 to 50 PCI, and Overlay is 50 to 65 PCI.
Scenarios
The $25 million and the $30 million scenarios use about $22 million directly on street repairs.
The difference between the two is that funding for Traffic Systems is reduced by about $1
million and funding for Intersection Improvements is reduced by $3.9 million.
In order to get the funding level down to $20 million, the following changes were made.
Funding for all Intersection Improvements is eliminated and Traffic Systems is reduced to
$700,000. Additionally, chip seal catch -up is cut from $1.5 million to $750,000. Three streets that
were slated for reconstruction in Arterials /Collectors were shifted to grind & overlay. (
Bonds
The Finance Department has estimated the cost of the bonds for each of three bond scenarios.
The estimates are based on 15 and 20 -year life using either a level tax rate or a level debt service.
The following table depicts the estimate payments for the various bond scenarios. The current
voted bond debt of the City is very low. The last voted bond was the Fire bond and it is
scheduled to retire in 2013. The challenge remains - -there is no current reliable source of
revenues to pay new bond debt.
Ongoing Maintenance Program Funding
The vast majority of the work described within the context of the Street Maintenance Bond is to
be conducted by private contractors through competitive bidding processes after design and bid
specifications are prepared through the City. The City instituted the Second Quarter Real Estate
Tax (REET 2) some years back, after significant public discourse, to fund basic maintenance
tasks such as crack filling, shoulder repair, chip sealing, materials for pothole patching, and
contributions to basic maintenance equipment replacement funding. This revenue source has
seen significant reductions due to the slowness of the housing market nationwide. REET 2
contributions to the basic maintenance of streets has dropped from $450,000 to $200,000
(includes an informal "hold" on $50,000 of the $250,000 budget) in the 2011 budget. This is on
top of a total of nearly $1.8 million in decreased property tax revenues reallocated from Streets
2
towards Public Safety over the last 3 years following the POG model. The most visible sign of
the reduced funding level is the chip seal program where we have gone from chip sealing over
30 miles of residential and arterial streets annually to less than 1 mile of arterial roadway
planned for this year.
Two options to provide a renewed infusion of resources to fund basic maintenance with the
Street budget include the State authorized car license tab fee program (up to $20 by simple
Council vote) and increasing the City's Water, Wastewater and Refuse In Lieu tax (also by
simple Council vote). The Countywide referendum on the Car Tab fee was defeated a few years
ago. The In Lieu Tax rate on City utilities stands at 14% currently.
To raise $500,000 through the Car Tab fee, otherwise more technically correct in calling it an
option within a Transportation Benefit Area, the car tab fee could be assessed at $10 only. The
Department of Motor Vehicles advises the City that there are approximately 57,000 registered
vehicles within the City eligible for this assessment. Some 7,000 vehicles have been discounted
for conservative calculation purposes. The recent City of Spokane Fact Sheet has been attached
providing a concise explanation of this option.
To raise approximately $500,000 from an increase in the in Lieu Tax on City utilities, the in Lieu
tax would raise Refuse from 9% to 10.5% and Water & Sewer from 14% to 15.5 %.
• Either of these revenue sources would be dedicated to basic annual budgeted street
maintenance tasks within the Street Budget.
Alternatively, $500,000 could be reduced elsewhere within the General Government Priorities of
Government (POG) model and applied to general street maintenance. This redirection of
existing resources after a number of years of budget curtailment would have a significant
impact on affected services and could effectively eliminate certain programs that are currently
in the budget. The current voted bond debt of the City is very low. However, there are already
costs increases anticipated within the 2011 Year End budget estimate and projected 2012 budget
for items such as fuel, jail costs, medical and the unseen impact of labor settlements and
arbitration awards.
4r)
3
Street Maintenance Bond
Estimated Cost to Property Owner
$30 Million Bond
Level Tax Rate Level Debt Service
Assessed Value Rate /$100K Annual Cost Rate /$100K Annual Cost Rate /$100K Annual Cost
15 -Year 20 -Year 15 -Year 20 -Year 15 -Year Hi 15 -Year Lo 15 -Year Hi 15 -Year Lo 20 -Year Hi 20 -Year Lo 20 -Year Hi 20 -Year Lo
$100,000 0.42 0.34 $42.00 $34.00 0.50 0.33 $50.00 $33.00 0.43 0.25 $43.00 $25.00
$150,000 0.42 0.34 $63.00 $51.00 0.50 0.33 $75.00 $49.50 0.43 0.25 $64.50 $37.50
$25 Million Bond
n
Level Tax Rate Level Debt Service
Assessed Value Rate /$100K Annual Cost Rate /$100K Annual Cost Rate /$100K Annual Cost
15 -Year 20 -Year 15 -Year 20 -Year 15 -Year Hi 15 -Year Lo 15 -Year Hi 15 -Year Lo 20 -Year Hi 20 -Year Lo 20 -Year Hi 20 -Year Lo
$100,000 0.34 0.28 $34.00 $28.00 0.42 0.28 $42.00 $28.00 0.36 0.21 $36.00 $21.00
$150,000 0.34 0.28 $51.00 $42.00 0.42 0.28 $63.00 $42.00 0.36 0.21 $54.00 $31.50
$20 Million Bond
Level Tax Rate Level Debt Service
Assessed Value Rate /$100K Annual Cost Rate /$100K Annual Cost Rate /$100K Annual Cost
15 -Year 20 -Year 15 -Year 20 -Year 15 -Year Hi 15 -Year Lo 15 -Year Hi 15 -Year Lo 20 -Year Hi 20 -Year Lo 20 -Year Hi 20 -Year Lo
$100,000 0.28 0.23 $28.00 $23.00 0.33 0.22 $33.00 $22.00 0.29 0.16 $29.00 $16.00
$150,000 0.28 0.23 $42.00 $34.50 0.33 0.22 $49.50 $33.00 0.29 0.16 $43.50 $24.00
2011 ' ;ost 110510.xls 011
II 0 0
Projects List $30 Million Bond
Traffic Systems
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Controler Upgrades $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $480,000
Upgrade Signal Network $75,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $700,000
Signal Head - LED
Conversions $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $150,000
Streetlight LED
Conversions $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000
$380,000 $430,000 $430,000 $430,000 $430,000 $430,000 $2,530,000
Intersection
Improvements
Engineering /Design $225,000 $225,000
Right -of -Way $350,000 $350,000 $700,000
5th Ave/Tieton Roundabout $500,000 $500,000
16th/Tieton - Turn Bays,
Lane Width & Curb Radii $1,250,000 $1,250,000
1s
•
t/Nob Hill - Curb Radii,
Upgrade Signal $750,000 $750,000
40th Ave/Tieton, Lincoln,
Englewood -Curb Radii,
Signal Upgrades $1,250,000 $1,250,000
$225,000 $850,000 $1,600,000 $750,000 $1,250,000 $0 $4,675,000
2011 Bond Scenarios 110510.xls 1 of 6 6/16/2011
Projects List $30 Million Bond
Maintenance Equipment
Asphalt Paver $120,000 $120,000
12 -Ton Roller $130,000 $130,000
Vehicle Locator System $50,000 $50,000
$300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
Non - Roadwork
Improvements $905,000 $1,280,000 $2,030,000 $1,180,000 $1,680,000 $430,000 $7,505,000
Street Maintenace
Engineering $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000
Inspection $75,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $825,000
Chip Seal Catch -up $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000
Local Streets - Asphalt $250,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,250,000
Local Streets - Concrete $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $450,000
$1,050,000 $1,175,000 $1,175,000 $675,000 $675,000 $675,000 $5,425,000
Arterials /Collectors $16,710,000
Street Rehab Total $22,135,000
Total $29,640,000
2011 r Scenarios 110510.xls 2 c 6 111
® ® •
•
Projects List $25 Million Bond
Traffic Systems
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Controler Upgrades $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $240,000
Upgrade Signal Network $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $550,000
Signal Head - LED
Conversions $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $150,000
Streetlight LED
Conversions $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000
$215,000 $265,000 $265,000 $265,000 $265,000 $265,000 $1,540,000
Intersection
Improvements
Engineering /Design $100,000 $100,000
Right -of -Way $100,000 $100,000
5th Ave/Tieton Roundabout $500,000 $500,000
$100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000
2011 Bond Scenarios 110510.xls 3 of 6 6/16/2011
Projects List $25 Million Bond
Maintenance Equipment
Asphalt Paver $120,000 $120,000
12 -Ton Roller $130,000 $130,000
Vehicle Locator System $50,000 $50,000
$300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
Non - Roadwork
Improvements $615,000 $365,000 $765,000 $265,000 $265,000 $265,000 $2,540,000
Street Maintenace
Engineering $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000
Inspection $75,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $825,000
Chip Seal Catch -up $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000
Local Streets - Asphalt $250,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,250,000
Local Streets - Concrete $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $450,000
$1,050,000 $1,175,000 $1,175,000 $675,000 $675,000 $675,000 $5,425,000
Arterials /Collectors $16,710,000
Street Rehab Total $22,135,000
Total $24,675,000
2011 r .-- Scenarios 110510.xls 4 c 6 ` )11
410 . 41111
® ® •
•
Projects List $20 Million Bond
Traffic Systems
1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
Controler Upgrades $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $240,000
Upgrade Signal Network $0
Signal Head - LED
Conversions $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $150,000
Streetlight LED
Conversions $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
$115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $690,000
Intersection
Improvements
Engineering /Design $0
Right -of -Way $0
5th Ave/Tieton Roundabout $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2011 Bond Scenarios 110510.xls 5 of 6 6/16/2011
Projects List $20 Million Bond
Maintenance Equipment
Asphalt Paver $120,000 $120,000
12 -Ton Roller $130,000 $130,000
Vehicle Locator System $50,000 $50,000
$300,000 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $300,000
Non - Roadwork
Improvements $415,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $990,000
Street Maintenace
Engineering $150,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000
Inspection $75,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $825,000
Chip Seal Catch -up $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $750,000
Local Streets - Asphalt $250,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,250,000
Local Streets - Concrete $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $450,000
$800,000 $925,000 $925,000 $675,000 $675,000 $675,000 $4,675,000
Arterials /Collectors $14,329,000
Street Rehab Total $19,004,000
Total $19,994,000
2011 r' Scenarios 110510.xls 6 r 6 111
4110 ® ..
• ) Arterial /Collector Maintenance Projects
•
$25 and $30 Million Bond Scenarios
Additional
Street From To Treatment PCI Cost/SY Area (SY) Cost Work Items Total Cost
5th Ave Division Yakima Reconstruct 11 $25.00 19,333 $483,333 $72,500 $556,000
3rd Street Arlington Beach Reconstruct 16 $25.00 10,556 $263,889 $39,583 $304,000
Lincoln Ave 56th Ave 66th Ave Reconstruct 17 $25.00 7,667 $191,667 $28,750 $221,000
25th Ave 650 N 900 Reconstruct 21 $25.00 3,556 $88,889 $13,333 $103,000
•
Yakima Ave 12th Ave 16th Ave Reconstruct 23 $25.00 9,111 $227,778 $34,167 $262,000
Summitview Ave 7th Ave 14th Ave Reconstruct 24 $25.00 10,778 $269,444 $40,417 $310,000
3rd Ave Yakima Walnut Reconstruct 26 $25.00 .7,556 $188,889 $28,333 $218,000
G St 1st St 8th St Reconstruct 26 $25.00 10,000 $250,000 $37,500 $288,000
I Street 1st St 6th Ave Reconstruct 26 $25.00 7,667 $191,667 $28,750 $221,000
6th Street Pacific Yakima Reconstruct 28 $25.00 24,444 $611,111 $91,667 $703,000
Walnut Street 1st St 3rd St Reconstruct 28 $25.00 4,111 $102,778 $15,417 $119;000
24th Ave Washington Nob Hill Reconstruct 30 $25.00 27,778 $694,444 $104,167 $799,000
Walnut Street 5th Ave 7th Ave Reconstruct 30 $25.00 4,111 $102,778 $15,417 $119,000
Lincoln Ave 24th Ave 40th Ave Reconstruct 33 $25.00 24,000 $600,000 $90,000 $690,000
16th Ave Englewood Madison Reconstruct 34 $25.00 21,222 $530,556 $79,583 $611,000
40th Ave Nob Hill Summitview Reconstruct 34 $25.00 29,222 $730,556 $109,583 $841,000
48th Ave Englewood Fechter Reconstruct 34 $25.00 10,333 $258,333 $38,750 $298,000
53rd Ave Englewood Scenic Reconstruct 34 $25.00 5,444 $136,111 $20,417 $157,000
6th Street Yakima H St Reconstruct 35 $25.00 22,222 $555,556 $83,333 $639,000
1st Street City Limits Nob Hill Reconstruct 36 $25.00 51,333 $1,283,333 $192,500 $1,476,000
Fair Ave Nob Hill Pacific Reconstruct 37 $25.00 17,222 $430,556 $64,583 $496,000
$9,431,000
0 Englewood Ave 66th Ave 74th Ave Grind & Overlay 36 $9.75 6,556 $63,917 $9,588 $74,000
5th Ave Yakima Lincoln Grind & Overlay 37 $9.75 9,000 $87,750 $13,163 $101,000
64th Ave Ahtanum Nob Hill Grind & Overlay 37 $9.75 40,556 $395,417 $59,313 $455,000
48th Ave Englewood Fechter Grind & Overlay 38 $9.75 4,667 $45,500 $6,825 $53,000
Summitview Ave 40th Ave 48th Ave Grind & Overlay 40 $9.75 16,444 $160,333 $24,050 $185,000
6th Street Nob Hill Pacific Grind & Overlay 41 $9.75 11,333 $110,500 $16,575 $128,000
32nd Ave Tieton Summitview Grind & Overlay 43 $9.75 6,444 $62,833 $9,425 $73,000
66th Ave Englewood Scenic Grind & Overlay 43 $9.75 3,111 $30,333 $4,550 $35,000
Fechter Road 40th Ave 4708 Grind & Overlay 43 $9.75 10,556 $102,917 $15,438 $119,000
Nob Hill Blvd 100 W 300 W Grind & Overlay 44 $9.75 20,444 $199,333 $29,900 $230,000
Viola Ave 18th St Rudkin Grind & Overlay 46 $9.75 3,556 $34,667 $5,200 $40,000
Walnut 6th St 8th St Grind & Overlay 46 $9.75 2,667 $26,000 $3,900 $30,000
Scenic Drive 4624 5800 Grind & Overlay 47 $9.75 12,000 $117,000 $17,550 $135,000
Mead Ave 300 1000 Grind & Overlay 48 $9.75 12,778 $124,583 $18,688 $144,000
Pierce Ave Summitview Lincoln Grind & Overlay 48 $9.75 4,444 $43,333 $6,500 $50,000
Nob Hill Blvd 44th Ave 52nd Ave Grind & Overlay 49 $9.75 14,667 $143,000 $21,450 $165,000
Walnut Street 3rd Ave 5th Ave Grind & Overlay 49 $9.75 4,111 $40,083 $6,013 $47,000
1st Street I Street City Limit Grind & Overlay 50 $9.75 23,333 $227,500 $34,125 $262,000
40th Ave Englewood Fruitvale Grind & Overlay 50 $9.75 28,889 $281,667 $42,250 $324,000
Division Street 3rd Ave 6th Ave Grind & Overlay 50 $9.75 5,333 $52,000 $7,800 $60,000
Castlevale Rd 2400 3200 Grind & Overlay 51 $9.75 7,889 $76,917 $11,538 $89,000
$2,799,000
ID ,i
2011$ond Scenarios 110510.xls 1 of 4 6/16/2011
Arterial /Collector Maintenance Projects t
72nd Ave Coolridge Washington Overlay 52 $6.25 2,889 $18,056 $2,708 $21,000
Englewood Ave 16th Ave 40th Ave Overlay 61 $6.25 26,444 $165,278 $24,792 $191,000
Scenic Drive 58th Ave 66th Ave Overlay 56 $6.25 7,667 $47,917 $7,188 $56,000
Chestnut Ave 8th St Fair Overlay 57 $6.25 6,000 $37,500 $5,625 $44,000
Viola Ave 1st St Fair Overlay 61 $6.25 10,556 $65,972 $9,896 $76,000
Lincoln Ave 46th Ave 56th Ave Overlay 61 $6.25 10,667 $66,667 $10,000 $77,000'
48th Ave Randall Park Nob Hill Overlay 63 $6.25 4,889 $30,556 $4,583 $36,000
Mead Ave 1st St 10th St Overlay 52 $6.25 4,889 $30,556 $4,583 $36,000
Occidental Ave 64th Ave 85th Ave Overlay 55 $6.25 17,667 $110,417 $16,563 $127,000
Ahtanum Rd 16th Ave 26th Ave Overlay 56 $6.25 26,667 $166,667 $25,000 $192,000
32nd Ave Summitview Englewood Overlay 57 $6.25 5,222 $32,639 $4,896 $38,000
3rd Ave Npb Hill Tieton Overlay 57 $6.25 14,889 $93,056 $13,958 $108,000
Walnut Street 3rd St 6th St Overlay 57 $6.25 7,222 $45,139 $6,771 $52,000
32nd Ave Nob Hill Tieton Overlay 60 $6.25 6,667 $41,667 $6,250 $48,000
80th Ave Wide Hollow Tieton Overlay 60 $6.25 9,222 $57,639 $8,646 $67,000
Castlevale 32nd Ave 36th Ave Overlay 60 $6.25 4,000 $25,000 $3,750 $29,000
I Street 1st St 4th St Overlay 61 $6.25 5,778 $36,111 $5,417 $42,000
Tieton Drive 16th Ave 32nd Ave Overlay 61 $6.25 25,889 $161,806 $24,271 $187,000
Mead Ave 100 W 300 W Overlay 62 $6.25 21,667 $135,417 $20,313 $156,000
Tieton Drive 56th Ave 64th Ave Overlay 63 $6.25 13,333 $83,333 $12,500 $96,000
Fruitvale Blvd 21st Ave 40th Ave Overlay 64 $6.25 59,111 $369,444 $55,417 $425,000
1st Street Nob Hill Yakima Overlay 51 $6.25 42,000 $262,500 $39,375 $302,000
Summitview Ave 48th Ave 56th Ave Overlay 51 $6.25 16,778 $104,861 $15,729 $121,000
Lincoln Ave 1st St 4th St Overlay 57 $6.25 7,000 $43,750 $6,563 $51,000
Lincoln Ave 7th Ave 16th Ave Overlay 59 $6.25 12,778 $79,861 $11,979 $92,000
16th Ave Nob Hill Yakima Overlay 59 $6.25 29,000 $181,250 $27,188 $209,000
Nob Hill Blvd 1st St 18th St Overlay 59 $6.25 27,778 $173,611 $26,042 $200,000
1st Street Yakima I St Overlay 61 $6.25 42,000 $262,500 $39,375 $302,000
16th Ave Yakima Englewood Overlay 62 $6.25 20,222 $126,389 $18,958 $146,000
Nob Hill Blvd 52nd Ave 64th Ave Overlay 62 $6.25 24,222 $151,389 $22,708 $175,000
MLK Jr Blvd 1st St 10th St Overlay 63 $6.25 20,444 $127,778 $19,167 $147,000 ( 0
Summitview Ave 14th Ave 23rd Ave Overlay 63 $6.25 18,778 $117,361 $17,604 $135,000
40th Ave Nob Hill Washington Overlay 64 $6.25 22,222 $138,889 $20,833 $160,000
Nob Hill Blvd 32nd Ave 44th Ave Overlay 64 $6.25 25,778 $161,111 $24,167 $186,000
Yakima Ave 1st St 8th St Overlay 66 $6.25 20,778 $129,861 $19,479 $150,000
$4,480,000
Street Rehab Total $16,710,000
•
•
•
it
d lI
2011 Bond Scenarios 110510.xls 2 of 4 6/16/2011
• •
•
2010 Street Network Condition
40%
35.8%
30%
ca
a)
21.2%
p 20%
cc
0 14.7%
0
10% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0%
1.0%
0% _I I — -
❑ Failed • Very Poor ❑ Poor ❑ Fair • Good ❑ Very Good • Excellent
J Arterial /Collector Maintenance Projects
Arterial /Collector Maintenance Projects
$20 Million Bond Scenario
Additional
Street From To Treatment PCI Cost/SY Area (SY) Cost Work Items Total Cost
5th Ave Division Yakima Reconstruct 11 $25.00 19,333 $483,333 $72,500 $556,000
3rd Street Arlington Beach Reconstruct 16 $25.00 10,556 $263,889 $39,583 $304,000
Lincoln Ave 56th Ave 66th Ave Reconstruct 17 $25.00 7,667 $191,667 $28,750 $221,000
25th Ave 650 N 900 Reconstruct 21 $25.00 3,556 $88,889 $13,333 $103,000
Yakima Ave 12th Ave 16th Ave Reconstruct 23 $25.00 9,111 $227,778 $34,167 $262,000
Summitview Ave 7th Ave 14th Ave Reconstruct 24 $25.00 10,778 $269,444 $40,417 $310,000
3rd Ave Yakima Walnut Reconstruct 26 $25.00 7,556 $188,889 $28,333 $218,000
G St 1st St 8th St Reconstruct 26 $25.00 10,000 $250,000 $37,500 $288,000
I Street 1st St 6th Ave Reconstruct 26 $25.00 7,667 $191,667 $28,750 $221,000
6th Street Pacific Yakima Reconstruct 28 $25.00 24,444 $611,111 $91,667 $703,000
Walnut Street 1st St 3rd St' ' Reconstruct 28 $25.00 4,111 $102,778 $15,417 $119,000
24th Ave Washington Nob Hill Reconstruct 30 $25.00 27,778 $694,444 $104,167 $799,000
Walnut Street 5th Ave 7th Ave Reconstruct 30 $25.00 4,111 $102,778 $15,417 $119,000
Lincoln Ave 24th Ave 40th Ave Reconstruct 33 $25.00 24,000 $600,000 $90,000 $690,000
16th Ave Englewood Madison Reconstruct 34 $25.00 21,222 $530,556 $79,583 $611,000
$5,524,000 •
40th Ave Nob Hill Summitview Grind & Overlay 34 $9.75 29,222 $284,917 $42,738 $328,000
48th Ave Englewood Fechter Grind & Overlay 34 $9.75 10,333 $100,750 $15,113 $116,000
53rd Ave Englewood Scenic Grind & Overlay 34 $9.75 5,444 $53,083 $7,963 $62,000
6th Street Yakima. H St Grind & Overlay 35 $9.75 22,222 $216,667 $32,500 $250,000 .
1st Street City Limits Nob Hill Grind & Overlay 36 $9.75 51,333 $500,500 $75,075 $576,000
® Fair Ave Nob Hill Pacific Grind & Overlay 37 $9.75 17,222 $167,917 $25,188 $194,000
Englewood Ave ...66th Ave 74th Ave Grind & Overlay 36 $9.75 6,556 $63,917 $9,588 $74,000
5th Ave Yakima Lincoln Grind & Overlay 37 $9.75 9,000 $87,750 $13,163 $101,000
64th Ave Ahtanum Nob Hill Grind & Overlay 37 $9.75 40,556 $395,417 $59,313 $455,000
48th Ave Englewood Fechter Grind & Overlay 38 $9.75 4,667 $45,500 $6,825 $53,000
Summitview Ave 40th Ave 48th Ave Grind & Overlay 40 . $9.75 16,444 $160,333 $24,050 $185,000
6th Street Nob Hill Pacific Grind & Overlay 41 $9.75 11,333 $110,500 $16,575 $128,000
32nd Ave Tieton Summitview Grind & Overlay 43 $9.75 6,444 $62,833 $9,425 $73,000
66th Ave Englewood Scenic Grind & Overlay 43 $9.75 3,111 $30,333 $4,550 $35,000
Fechter Road 40th Ave 4708 Grind & Overlay 43 $9.75 10,556 $102,917 $15,438 $119,000
Nob Hill Blvd 100 W 300 W Grind & Overlay 44 $9.75 20,444 $199,333 $29,900 $230,000
Viola Ave 18th St Rudkin Grind & Overlay 46 $9.75 3,556 $34,667 $5,200 $40,000
Walnut 6th St 8th St Grind & Overlay 46 $9.75 2,667 $26,000 $3,900 $30,000
Scenic Drive 4624 5800 Grind & Overlay 47 $9.75 12,000 $117,000 $17,550 $135,000
Mead Ave 300 1000 Grind & Overlay 48 $9.75 12,778 $124,583 $18,688 $144,000
Pierce Ave Summitview Lincoln Grind & Overlay 48 $9.75 4,444 $43,333 $6,500 $50,000
Nob Hill Blvd 44th Ave 52nd Ave Grind & Overlay 49 $9.75 14,667 $143,000 $21,450 $165,000
Walnut Street 3rd Ave 5th Ave Grind & Overlay 49 $9.75 4,111 $40,083 $6,013 $47,000
1st Street I Street City Limit Grind & Overlay 50 $9.75 23,333 $227,500 $34,125 $262,000
40th Ave Englewood Fruitvale Grind & Overlay 50 $9.75 28,889 $281,667 $42,250 $324,000
Division Street 3rd Ave 6th Ave Grind & Overlay 50 $9.75 5,333 $52,000 $7,800 $60,000
Castlevale Rd 2400 3200 Grind & Overlay 51 $9.75 7,889 $76,917 $11,538 $89,000
$4,325,000
•
2011 Bond Scenarios 110510.xls 3 of 4 6/16/2011
Arterial /Collector Maintenance Projects I`
0
72nd Ave Coolridge Washington Overlay 52 $6.25 2,889 $18,056 $2,708 $21,000
Englewood Ave 16th Ave 40th Ave Overlay 61 $6.25 26,444 $165,278 $24,792 $191,000
Scenic Drive 58th Ave 66th Ave Overlay 56 $6.25 7,667 $47,917 $7,188 $56,000
Chestnut Ave 8th St Fair Overlay 57 $6.25 6,000 $37,500 $5,625 $44,000
Viola Ave 1st St Fair Overlay 61 $6.25 10,556 $65,972 $9,896 $76,000
Lincoln Ave 46th Ave 56th Ave Overlay 61 $6.25 10,667 $66,667 $10,000 $77,000
48th Ave Randall Park Nob Hill Overlay 63 $6.25 4,889 $30,556 $4,583 $36,000
Mead Ave 1st St 10th St Overlay 52 $6.25 4,889 $30,556 $4,583 $36,000
Occidental Ave 64th Ave 85th Ave Overlay 55 $6.25 17,667 $110,417 $16,563 $127,000
Ahtanum Rd 16th Ave 26th Ave Overlay 56 $6.25 26,667 $166,667 $25,000 $192,000
32nd Ave Summitview Englewood Overlay 57 $6.25 5,222 $32,639 $4,896 $38,000
3rd Ave Npb Hill Tieton Overlay 57 $6.25 14,889 $93,056 $13,958 $108,000
Walnut Street 3rd St 6th St Overlay 57 $6.25 7,222 $45,139 $6,771 $52,000
32nd Ave Nob Hill Tieton Overlay 60 $6.25 6,667 $41,667 $6,250 $48,000
80th Ave Wide Hollow Tieton Overlay 60 $6.25 9,222 $57,639 $8,646 $67,000
Castlevale 32nd Ave 36th Ave Overlay 60 $6.25 4,000 $25,000 $3,750 $29,000
I Street 1st St 4th St Overlay 61 $6.25 5,778 $36,111 $5,417 $42,000
Tieton Drive. 16th Ave 32nd Ave Overlay 61 $6.25 25,889 $161,806 $24,271 $187,000
Mead Ave 100 W 300 W Overlay . 62 $6.25 21,667 $135,417 $20,313 $156,000
Tieton Drive 56th Ave 64th Ave Overlay 63 $6.25 13,333 $83,333 $12,500 $96,000 •
Fruitvale Blvd 21st Ave 40th Ave Overlay 64 $6.25 59,111 $369,444 $55,417 $425,000
1st Street Nob Hill Yakima Overlay 51 $6.25 42,000 $262,500 $39,375 $302,000
•
Summitview Ave 48th Ave 56th Ave Overlay 51 $6.25 16,778 $104,861 $15,729 $121,000
Lincoln Ave 1st St 4th St Overlay 57 $6.25 7,000 $43,750 $6,563 $51,000
Lincoln Ave 7th Ave 16th Ave Overlay 59 $6.25 12,778 $79,861 $11,979 $92,000
16th Ave Nob Hill Yakima Overlay 59 $6.25 29,000 $181,250 $27,188 $209,000
Nob Hill Blvd 1st St 18th St Overlay 59 $6.25 27,778 $173,611 $26,042 $200,000
1st Street Yakima I St Overlay 61 $6.25 42,000 $262,500 $39,375 $302,000
16th Ave Yakima Englewood Overlay 62 $6.25 20,222 $126,389 $18,958 $146,000
Nob Hill Blvd 52nd Ave 64th Ave Overlay 62 $6.25 24,222 $151,389 $22,708 - $175,000
MLK Jr Blvd 1st St 10th St Overlay 63 $6.25 20,444 $127,778 $19,167 $147,000 ( ,
Summitview Ave 14th Ave 23rd Ave Overlay 63 $6.25 18,778 $117,361 $17,604 $135,000
40th Ave Nob Hill Washington Overlay 64 $6.25 22,222 $138,889 $20,833 $160,000
Nob Hill Blvd 32nd Ave 44th Ave Overlay 64 $6.25 25,778 $161,111 $24,167 $186,000
Yakima Ave 1st St . 8th St Overlay 66 $6.25 20,778 $129,861 $19,479 $150,000
$4,480,000
Street Rehab Total $14,329,000
•
•
i l
2011 Bond Scenarios 110510.xls 4 of 4 6/16/2011
0 • 0
Scenario_1 r °;;;. .Scenario 2 . Scenario 3 Scenario:4'. Scenario .5 Scenario 6
Par Amount . $30 Million $25 Million $20 Million $30 Million $25 Million $20 Million
Length (yrs) 20 20 20 15 15 15
Structure Level Debt Level Debt Level Debt Level Debt Level Debt Level Debt
Total Debt Service $ 47,026,863 $ 39,185,293 $ 31,337,805 $ 40,977,934 $ 34,150,738 $ 27,317,859
Avg. Annual Debt Service $ 2,351,343 $ 1,959,265 $ 1,566,890 $ 2,731,862 $ 2,276,716 $ 1,821,191
' Net Interest Cost 5.09% 5.09% 5.09% 4.58% 4.58% 4.58%
Levy Rate(s) /$1,000 $0.43 - $0.25 $0.36 - $0.21 $0.29 - $0.16 $0.50 - $0.33 $0.42 - $0.28 $0.33 - $0.22
ScenarioF7 ;° ' . - Scenario:8 Scenario 9 ' cenario 10:-- :'; Scenario;11` ;: Scenario 12
Par Amount $30 Million $25 Million $20 Million $30 Million $25 Million $20 Million
Length (yrs) 20 20 20 15 15 15
Structure Level Levy Level Levy Level Levy Level Levy Level Levy Level Levy
Total Debt Service $ 49,921,433 $ 41,601,418 $ 33,275,091 $ 42,236,390 $ 35,099,780 $ 28,160,671
Avg. Annual Debt Service $ 2,496,072 $ 2,080,071 $ 1,663,755 $ 2,815,759 $ 2,339,985 $ 1,877,378
Net Interest Cost 5.22% 5.22% 5.22% 4.66% 4.66% • 4.66% •
Levy Rate(s) /$1,000 $0.34 $0.28 $0.23 $0.42 $0.34 $0.28
•
•
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
Calculation Factors -
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Debt Service
Issue 1 Total •
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $30,000,000 $30,000,000
(In 1,000's)
Bond '.. Debt Service „? Projected-Tax Rates
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
• 2011 $5,521528 $0 $0 $0 '$0.6OTA' < ;_' $0.00:,
2012 5,577,147 0 2,070 Z, 070 `' 0 00 - ; , ^,`<''�0'.43,, (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 2,368 2,368 ' "'' = : 0.00'', : -0` 0.42;
v ,
2014 5,802,464 0 2,364 2,364 , r.: ;,0.00 +z', ci „t.; 0:41`
2015 5,976538 0 2, 366 2,366 0:00 y>`r- !,- 0..40
2016 6,155534 0 2,364 2,364 i -4OAO : j „�Ot38:
2017 6,340,509 0 2,364 2,364 F, 0:00 :_= , i = ; 037 .4
2018 6,530,725 0 2,364 2, 364 , :'rr' ' -' - :`0 :36;
2019 6,726,646 0 2,364 2,364 " 0.00 :::=: x 0:35;
2020 6528,446 0 2,369 2,369 - ;: -'.0 00 .; , ;';0.34": ,
2021 7,136,299 0 2,368 2,368 0 00„ 0 33 '
2022 7,350,388 0 2,367 2,367 0 00,' , ,;;0 :32 '.
2023 7570900 0 2,367 2,367
2024 7,798,027 0 2,366 2,366 , : : : :; 0:00 ::%.0.30'
2025 8531,968 0 2,369 2,369 - - . 0 :00.'•''` : ; : ?j ;i0.29
2026 8,272,927 0 2,365 2,365 =; , 0:00;'-; .1
2027 8521,114 0 2,366 2,366 :`b0 ' 5,: . ; , n
2028 8,776,748 0 2,365 2,365 ;z .- -0:00 "0:27.
2029 9,040050 0 2,367 2,367 r0 :00 026:;
2030 9,311,252 0 2,366 2,366 <'= " 'i .: ,,,,, ,A);25;
2031 9,590,589 0 2,368 2,368 + : - -0J 00 , n ,5 - '' '0.
Total Debt Service: $47,027 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $17,027
Net Interest Cost: 5.09%
Yakima 01
Prepared 5/9/2011 N W
G G 0
0 41110-,- ,. O.
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
°;xsl ,;;: ::. ,-.'.:., r:. Calculation Factors;; » •. - ... .
■
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Debt Service
Issue 1 ota
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $25,000,000 $25,000,000
(in 1,000's)
Bond "Y : :, •- Debt Service -. '`` " - %- :n Projected Tax Rates . ::
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 .-' $0.00 �- : $0:00;
i;...5 :%, yi`o o 2- 'S, % 0 tit,- -,‹
2012 5,577,147 0 1,738 1,738 vt:,k,- .10.004 c-r '0:36; (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1,968 1,968 -64'• 0.00`:: =K :,' ;0:35'
2014 5,802,464 0 1,969 1,969 _ "` =';0:00= :
2015 5,976,538 0 1,971 1,971 . " 0.00'. =::: ; =,0:33'
2016 6,155,834 0 1,969 1,969 ".:0.00; : :: , '?<'s0:32'
2017 1341509 0 1,970 1,970 :- ; ;x'1).31'
2018 1530,725 0 1,971 1,971 ' ; - 0:00;; },:- :'it=0.30
2019 6,721646 0 1,969 1,969 ?;- :0:00_ ? „:0.29
2020 6,928,446 0 1,972 1 ,972 ':.0 :00 0:28'.
2021 7,131299 0 1,971 1,971 - - - "' '0.00:." ";`'- 028r
2022 7,351388 0 1,970 1,970 ":0:00 , ;0.27:;
2023 7,571900 0 1,971 1,971 = -s 0:00;:X._.',`,,: :26;:
2024 7,798,027 0 1,972 1,972 � •.`0:00' --0.25>
2025 1031,968 0 1,972 1,972 - ':':''0.00:` � j: 0:25;:
2026 8,272,927 0 1,973 1,973 = :`+.0.00i. ;0:24.`
2027 1521,114 0 1,973 1,973 - '- ;: 100=,'s =n ";_'0:23
. 2028 8,771748 0 1,973 1,973 ° 2 ' 0:00`:;_ >xn0 :22
2029 9,040,050 0 1,972 1,972 ''=i 0.00 = - 1 . -' =v 0 22'
2030 9,311,252 0 1,970 1,970 . :;;0.00;,;': -. ?' 0.21:
2031 9,590,589 0 1,971 1,971 000'.x:- :'.`sa:,0i21:
Total Debt Service: $39,185 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves. •
Total Interest: $14,185 .
Net Interest Cost: 5.09%
Yakima_02
Prepared 5/9/2011 EES S NW
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
: ' Calculation Factors :
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Debt Service
Issue 1 Total
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $20,000,000 $20,000,000
(in 1,000's)
Bond .. :Debt ',Service - ..,. Projected:Tax Rates y`
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 - - „: =$0: " ; ;$0.0 0
2012 5,577,147 0 1,397 1,397 1 - , '0:00` i '_ ' = '_ "1'0:29.' (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1574 1574 - 1`,0.00:;: 0.28:
2014 5,802,464 0 1,578 1,578 E- _ :;. 0.27
2015 5576538 0 1,575 1, 575 `' :., . ti00, :.: ,0.26
2016 6,155,834 0 1574 1574 :::=0.00: -:.. . ;016-
2017 6540509 0 1,575 1,575 '0.00:.. 045
2018 6,530,725 0 1,578 1,578
2019 6,726546 0 1,578 1,578 >- 0.00,; -',. " ?:0 :23;
2020 6,928,446 0 1,575 1,575
2021 7,136,299 0 1,578 1578 - - 0.00 - =':. ; 0.22
2022 7550,388 0 1577 1577
2023 7570,900 0 1,574 1,574 : 00 ' ' ;:': 0
2024 7,798,027 0 1,577 1,577 ;00 " :::::..-=`'
_ ; .0 !_ , 20'
2025 8,031,968 0 1575 1,575 ::: : :: _ _ 4 ",0.20-
2026 8,272,927 0 1,575 1,575 0.00 : i ;0.19';
2027 8,521,114 0 1575 1,575 :;_.0.00;" -.'.::= :'0.18:
2028 8,776,748 0 1576 1576 ` "0.00 -" 0.18
2029 9540050 0 1578 1578 '1050 , .` `” • ::.0.17:
2030 9511,252 0 1574 1574
2031 9,590,589 0 1,575 1,575 ' - 0.00' ?:'. - .. - ,:0.16:
Total Debt Service: $31,338 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $11,338
Net Interest Cost: 5.09%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9-
'SNdY
Prepared 5/9/2011a
4110 II 110
• •v •,,
. .
_ ,_
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
. -.a:'' c,;y._:f1:1_= { _;'7:: - -:: �:YCalculationFaitors'::i ......:..
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
•
2015 -2060 3.00% '
Issue Structure: Level Debt Service
issue 1 Tota
Bonds issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $30,000,000 $30,000,000
(in 1,000's)
.., _,_. - -Debt Service'= : -:; ; - >'� ��;c :.� =:.° - Pro ected,7az,Ratesi ;`` °
Bond �-
j ..
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 " '-''' 0I ;' z:- :
2,434 2,434 : "' $ s $ 0.5 0,
2012 5,577,147 0
F:�;- (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 2,751 2,751 F-,5!,?' ,....
2014 5,802,464 0 2,755 2,755 . ^ >- ; 0.00 , :- r` =''; "0:47'
2015 5,976,538 0 2,753 2,753 l r ' = 0.00 ":0.46;
2016 6,155,834 0 2,754 2,754 = .000 =;: 0.4
2017 6,340,509 0 2,751 2,751 ,4,':',1:,:c,-- `. � ;0.
2018 6,530,725 0 2,754 2,754 : `0:00` ; ; ' ;-' k' '0:42` .
2019 6,726546 0 2,751 2,751 0,,-{ � `0.00 _i : ;;'0:41- ,
2020 6528,446 0 2,755 2,755 - ,:;: ` , 0 00 ' >''! ° .,„ 0:40'
2021 7,136,299 0 2,755 2,755 - `: - :' ' .': , 0.39'
2022 7550588 0 2,753 2,753 _' x.0.00. " }. ; ` : ' „0:37 -t.
2023 7570500 0 2,753 2,753 ; :'`0:00'` ; 0:36
2024 7,798,027 0 2,756 2,756 - % 0.00:'.'.=' ::::0.35;;
2025 8,031,968 0 2,753 2,753 :0.00: "^, ' ' 0:34
2026 8,272,927 0 2,751 2,751 OAO;::.., <.0 33:
2027 8,521,114 0 0 0 :. : 0 :00_>=- `0.00
2028 8,776,748 0 0 0 :0.00:'';= ict?,: 0:00
2029 9540550 0 0 0 : v 0.00
2030 9,311,252 0 • 0 0 „ - x.0 " ; - ? 0. 0 0F,
2031 9,590,589 0 0 0 ` . -: ' ''0.00 ` ?:-:.- 0.00E
Total Debt Service: $40,978 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $10,978
Net Interest Cost: 4.58%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9-
Prepared 5/9/2011 53 S NW
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
- _ ::Calculation Factors•
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Debt Service
Issue 1 Total
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $25,000,000 $25,000,000
(in 1,000's)
Bond . :Debt Service `` ^': Projected Tax Rates °:'?
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value - Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 ,;114 w
x-•-.
2012 5577,147 o Z025 2,025 1 ; ;; 5 .1' . .:4.`0.0044 , :;',K.0: ; 42
; (1)
2013 5588,690 0 2,294 2,294 :-:`:0.00 ' .40
2014 5,802,464 0 2,294 2,294 ° '- i ?0.00 - ° :' `,0.40'
2015 5,976538 0 2,294 2,294 >=20:00 0.38-
2016 6,155,834 0 2,294 2 ,294 `. 0.00 °,;: : : ;: -- 0:37
2017 6540509 0 2,294 2,294 - "`=0.00' , :;:::::= _
2018 6530,725 0 2,293 2,293 :;0.00` ` `'- .0.35:
2019 6,726,646 0 2,296 2,296
2020 6528,446 0 2,292 2,292 0.00: _ ; 033
2021 7,136,299 0 2,297 2,297
2022 7550,388 0 2,295 2,295 .e "0.00,:'x'.'.;_;:
2023 7570900 0 2,297 2,297 - ` 7l` 0 .00_, ' ::.;' , 030 .,
2024 7,798527 0 2,297 2,297 <`_: _ ' 019
2025 8531,968 0 2,294 2,294 0.00;, ,r' °;;0.29
2026 8,272,927 0 2,293 2,293 0.00 '_ - ,'.x•.,0:28
2027 8521,114 0 0 0 -- ' _':0.00.- ; j' " -' l'0.00
2028 8,776,748 0 0 0 ,'i;0. ";:1:• 0:00=
2029 9540550 0 0 0 <.0:00' vi. 0 ,QP:
2030 9,311,252 0 0 0 ‘' :0.00 = ; t:- .
2031 9590589 0 0 0 0 ' ,: - .
Total Debt Service: $34,151 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $9,151 -
Net Interest Cost: 4.58%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9- N Prepared 5/9/2011 z S I V V V
11111 ® 0
0 ® -- 4
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
. -.. ' :.1 Calculation Factors- y :. ::_.._... :, . _ ',
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Debt Service
Issue 1 To
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $20,000,000 $20,000,000
" (in 1,000's)
Bond . Debt Service' - - _ :` "Projected Tax:Rates <::
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $o ''Y` °'$0 00 ; i'$0 00
2012 5,577,147 0 1,621 1,621 . -::0.00: ..0:33, (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1,837 1,837 " ":,`.0.00. ;'. ;. "i:0 :32
2014 5,802,464 0 1,833 1,833 " .:!c0:00.i' -: ?- :'0.32 ::
2015 5,976,538 0 1,835 1,835 t.1: :0.00:,
2016 6,155,834 0 1,838 1 ,838 , ": ..0.00 -T' -:1 : -.`' 0:30
2017 6,340,509 0 1,837 1,837 ' :0.00;: _ -. 0.29_
2018 6,530,725 0 1,836 1,836 0:00. ``. 2: 0.28;.
2019 6,726,646 0 1,836 1,836 '_: ::,0 :00 , ;:-: :0:
: :: 27:'
2020 6,928,446 0 1,835 1,835 `?0:00.: :;`:;0.26'
2021 7,136,299 0 1,833 1 ,833 i�;0.00s
2022 7,350,388 0 1,837 1,837 : c: >`, z , :; 0 :25-
2023 7,570900 0 1,835 1,835
4i:,: „`6 ; 0.00;; %_s ±> _ 0.24.,
2024 7,798,027 0 1,834 1,834 y ; - ,0. =' ='3: ;0 : 24'
2025 8,031,968 0 1,835 1,835 5 = - 0.00 <. ; x':0:23::
,:;5`.::::'7,,-7 - . :.:., . yam'.:
2026 8,272,927 0 1,836 1,836 - . - 0. ^ , . 0
2027 8,521,114 0 0 0 ';`y0.00 " "0:00'
2028 8,776,748 0 0 0 is :0.00 :',= <'0 :00`.
2029 9,040,050 0 0 0 - ,.:0.00;; r' ' 0.00'
2030 9,311,252 0 0 0 - % 0.00 n "• :, == .0.00;'
2031 9,590,589 0 0 0 ?'0:00 y' '0.00`
Total Debt Service: $27,318 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $7,318
Net Interest Cost: 4.58%
•
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9-
Prepared 5/9/2011 ®O S N W
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
.:.:. - ,.:;::"_.;.... Calculation Factors'; " - _
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Levy Rate
Issue 1 of
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $30,000,000 $30,000,000
(in 1,000'5)
' :F:'Projected:Taz Rates` .
Bond ' °.' Debt Service:. _. • - ..... '.: . --
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 ?'$0.00; w' :;%'$0.00 -
2012 5,577,147 0 f 0. 00 vim.- , .`! , ; " -- :0 :34 -.
1,640 1,640 ;- .r, 0.== .'` � =;- 10: (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1,941 4941 =:`'. ;0.00 ^_- ?_ --:.' -" -0.34,
2014 5,802,464 0 1,979 1,979 ' :'''0.00,;;_r; `
2015 5,976,538 0 2,039 2,039
2016 6,155534 0 2,100 2,100 - }.0.00 '.': :? :0 :34
2017 6,340509 0 2,162 2,162 `: 00 := .::?:'0.
2018 6,530,725 0 2,229 2229 ; "0.0Q` ".; x;0.34.
2019 6,726,646 0 2,295 2,295 ' "0 :00::; , ?,:;044,;
2020 6,928,446 0 2,365 2,365 0.00 ;-; - - . >.0.34
2021 7,136,299 0 2,432 2,432 - .'0.00= ::z .- '0:34
2022 7,350,388 0 2,507 2,507 "`.;10.00 r'; -:0.34 j
2023 7,570,900 0 2,584 2584 - 1' . ` 0 :00; - '- '_: -, 0:34:
2024 7,798,027 0 2,657 2,657 ' 0 :00 : =f °,
2025 8,031,968 0 2,740 2,740
2026 8,272,927 0 2,822 2,822 = 0:00 ; . .0.34
2027 8,521,114 0 2,908 2,908 ` :0.00 _ 0.34
2028 8,776,748 0 2,993 2,993
2029 9,040,050 0 3,084 3,084 r;';!0 :00,; :
2030 9511,252 0 3,175 3,175 L .. % /: ::: ;,0.34'
2031 9,590589 0 3,271 3,271 er 44....-..:7,0.06_ >, %x".':`:0.34
Total Debt Service: $49,921 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $19,921
Net Interest Cost: 5.22%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9-
Prepared 5/9/2011 14 \ Y A d / ^
0 415 0 .
• II)-
. ..
,
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
:, ... -.. °,. f.> >,.; -s: ;:''';:,.. - =: >: Calculation Factors ±` - -
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Levy Rate
ago _l_ Total
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $25,000,000 $25,000,000
(in 1,000's)
Bond ' -. '.'.:." Service.: .r7';::. .'t % : Pro)ected:Taa Rates -"' `:
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 j " .
2012 5,577,147 0 1,371 1,371 - x`. 0 :00;N = ;`0.28' (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1,616 1,616 ;?" "`-,>_;,-s`0.28-
2014 5,802,464 0 1,651 1 ,65 1 ;;.:1''''::.:0.00::'!: ;?' : 0.28
2015 5,976,538 0 1,698 1,698 ' '. :0:00 ' >_:,0 :28,
2016 6,155,834 0 1,747 1,747 _- -', .;0:00- % ` x'0:28'.
2017 6,340,509 0 1,804 1, 804 • = -2'.0:001 ; a "0.28
'
2018 6,530,725 0 1,855 1,855 - ..r :_- ,:.'0.28'
2019 6,726,646 0 1,912 1,912 "r.'i0.00z :* -,; !0 :28x
2020 6,928,446 0 1,968 1, 968 ::-0.00 =`- ,'`:0:28
2021 7,136,299 0 2,028 2,028 c '' 0 :do-`- ±:0:28
2022 7,350,388 0 2,087 2,087 ;,. }, -z"0.005;_ =0 :28 1.
2023 7,570,900 0 2,155 2,155 - 0.00`'<;^ -. ; ;;; „ 0128 '
2024 7,798,027 0 2,215 2,215 ;"; :, : "- ;0:28.
2025 8,031,968 0 2,282 2,282 �'.i'0:00 -s '= :± ;1:0.28'
2026 8,272,927 0 2,354 2,354 .:=0.00 = `
2027 8,521,114 0 2,423 2,423 : -: , 0.00 :: .: ; -- -0.28
2028 8,776,748 0 2,496 2,496 = '0.00 = `;:0.28: ,
2029 9,040,050 0 2,569 2,569 `0.00 .,j`: - 0 =28:
2030 9,311,252 0 2,645 2 ,6 4 5 ';:]: = ;,-- ;_0.28:
2,727 2,727 % 0.001•, ? = .`
2031 9,590,589 0 0.28
Total Debt Service: $41,601 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $16,601
Net Interest Cost: 5.22%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9-
Prepared 5/9/2011 ENS S I v �I
W
- I
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
Calculation Factors
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00% ,
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Levy Rate
LIB leA Tom
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $20,000,000 $20,000,000
fin 1,000's)
Bond ... - x . Debt Service ProjectedTax Rates "
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 So $0 f.::, ;` 1$0.00: -; . _.- `$0 ;00<
2012 5,577,147 0 1,101 1,101 . ` � (wog "z .- L, 0 :23 : (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 4295 1,295 -: 0 :00.; y- ;•.`0 :23
2014 5,802,464 0 4317 4317 ",;"0:00';=-",,
2015 5,976,538 0 4357 1,357 0.00: "; •,,•• - ',..,A23-
2016 6,155,834 0 1,400 1, 400 ::'.,0.00;:' - . .. 0:23,
2017 6,340,509 0 4440 1,440 :• `0.00 - 4 - -,• 0.23 -,
2018 6,530,725 0 1,486 4486 '; O.OQ )•j ;: ;.: 0.23
2019 6,726,646 0 1,528 1,528 ':;0.00': ; - „-' "0:23
2020 6,928,446 0 4576 4576 0.00`_. - ':..'.0.23'
2021 7,136,299 0 4624 4624 = -_>'= •'0.00: ;:" "<',..0.23`
2022 7,350,388 0 4672 4672
2023 7,57%900 0 4720 1,720 " _ ° :;x1: 0.00 :``.'= : - '0.23%
2024 7,798,027 0 1,773 1, 773 ` .:0.00 '',' - ;,
2025 8,031,968 • 0 4823 4823
2026 8,272,927 0 1,881 1,881 . ...0.00 • -• :' 0.23'
2027 8,524114 0 1,937 1,937 .- '.;0 :00;'?.:.,'.423
2028 8,776,748 0 1,995 1,995
2029 9,040,050 0 2,054 2 ,054 %0.00; : • - :' 0 :23 .'
2030 9,314252 0 2,119 2,119 •.' 0.00' = : ' :0:23,
2031 9,590,589 0 2,177 2,177 •` .:0.00?;= : 0.23'
Total Debt Service: $33,275 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $13,275
Net Interest Cost: 5.22%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9- p' , q'
Prepared 5/9/2011 SN V V
40 40 0 .
® • i
City of Yakima
Projected Bond Tax Rates
, . ,, .,. - r -
. - . _ ,. ..,,.,. � e.,.. xs:.
.<: �:::::.r �= I". r. r;-_. Caieulatiori F ,actors.W":::F:`_::- :'.:'::-'. :,f,'.: "_° r -_
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value increases at:
' R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Levy Rate
su 1 oal
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $30,000,000 $30,000,000
(in 1,000'5)
Bond _. ; . _ . :`, 5 _ - : ' Debt Service --,:„ ; ?rc & :, , z ; _s ; : .;;; Projeded. Rate Y:
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
- - mss; =:-;
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 � ` x4, x'$0.0 : ::),: ;; $
r, O ,0 4•,�,; 4 25 (1)
2012 5,577,147 0 2,020 2,020 k ' ` ° -7, b0 O Ni.
2013 5,688,690 0 2,377 2377 _ 000 i : ? 0:42
2014 5,802,464 0 2,421 2,421 -4 za
0 : 00� ':' ` •
2015 5,976,538 0 2,494 2 ,494 %O . ,
0:42'
2016 6,155,834 0 2,570 2,570 '0.007 x;`0:42:
2017 6,340,509 0 2,650 2,650 'e3,0.00 > ! s' 0.42 ,
2018 6,53%725 0 2,726 2,726 <:_a0.00_.p4 ,0:42'
2019 6,726,646 0 2,807 2, 807 °s-, ,o00 0:42`
2020 6,928,446 0 2,893 2,893 " '' "`z�0 60' '- i iii.
:
2021 7,136,299 0 2,977 2,977 0:00;x x.-:`
2022 7,350,388 0 3,070 3,070 f•'.. - ';0:00? ?`•? !:;!`0.42;
2023 7,57%900 0 3,161 3,161 I :'` ..0.0O ` .`':0.42'
2024 7,798,027 0 3,259 3,259 tip' =000�•N
2025 8,031,968 0 3,355 3,355 ;.
. _
2026 8,272,927 0 3,456 3456 - ;0:0p, f,S >' " :;:;,0.42;:
2027 8,521,114 0 0 0 " -_ ` '";<0:00 <-;:i�? ; 0:00
2028 8,776,748 0 0 0 - - .,0:00 :N `.;.0:00;;
2029 9,040,050 0 0 0 ,, 0.!!-:::::: .0:00.
•
2030 9,311,252 0 0 0 0:006,;= '0:00r
2031 9,59%589 0 0 0 . - :0.0 % ";-0.00_`
Total Debt Service: $42,236 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $12,236
Net Interest Cost: 4.66%
Yakima_10
Prepared 5/9/2011 116 S N w
City of Yakima ,
Projected Bond Tax Rates
_. Calculation Factors •.:
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R &P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Levy Rate
sue 1 IQ1
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $25,000,000 $25,000,000
(in 1,000's)
Bond , . - „ ` ° 'Debt'Service - .:' Projected;TaxRates
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value • Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 `" :i.7
0 z $ O.00 i , :;'; = ..,..: 0
00 -_
2012 5,577,147 0 1,914 1,914 :- , ; `- :;-,0:3 (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1,960 1,960 0.001 f'';'''s0.34°
2014 5,802,464 0 1,998 1,998 'MOO t : ? : ' 034
2015 5,976,538 0 2,057 2,057 :, -0.00 - -'r.:- '
2016 6,155,834 0 2,120 2,120 - %.:0.00; :`:'
2017 6,340,509 0 2,183 2,183 :t0:00'- ,0:34:
2018 6,530,725 0 2,253 2, 253 <`' ; 0.00: _ , ;:;'_,'0.35'
2019 6,726,646 0 2,316 2,316 '' ':6.60,,,,..-..:- . ::0 :34' 2020 6,928,446 0 2,390 2,390 .•;; %0.00:° ,``:;- ;0.34
2021 7,136,299 0 2,459 2,459 = 0 ,. ::i ,:.::: ;'.0;34-
2022 7,350,388 0 2,534 2,534 :'..0.00`,? :•;; x:`;034:
2023 7,570,900 0 2,608 2,608 =' :0:00, " ; ';,'=034 ,
2024 7,798,027 0 2,688 2,688 , ; 0.00'i i2 0.34;
2025 8,034968 0 2,768 2,768 ' :MOO ?.-.=, -:'-t1.34-
2026 8,272,927 0 2,851 2,851 •••0.00 r �:!.' -- :':0:34
2027 8,524114 0 0 0 : t0.00 tr,' 0.00
2028 8,776,748 0 0 0 .;0.00 : ; - :..;;:
2029 9,040,050 0 0 0 ; 0.00:' :s €.?n =s 0.00
2030 9,311,252 0 0 0 `. 0.00,---:,--'t :. 0.00,
2031 9,590,589 0 0 0 0.00 : ,; ; =: 0.00.
Total Debt Service: $35,100 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $10,100
Net Interest Cost: 4.66%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9- , q /
Prepared 5/9/201 g i g S N V V
•
0 41 0 .
.. . • .
City of Yakima •
Projected Bond Tax Rates
: °r>'... = 1 ... W , _ "::CalculationFactors ': _ .,-a._:`. :'r ° ; "
Rating: A+
Interest Rates: 2012 Issue: Current Plus 1.00 Percent
Assessed Value Increases at:
R&P
2012 1.00%
2013 -2014 2.00%
2015 -2060 3.00%
Issue Structure: Level Levy Rate
Issue 1 Total
Bonds Issued: 6/1/2012
Issue Size: $20,000,000 $20,000,000
(in 1,000's)
Bond Debt Service:' " < ' : ', Projected Tax Rates?: r :,`
Levy Assessed Prior 2012 Total Prior 2012
Year Value Debt Issue Bonds Debt Issue
2011 $5,521,928 $0 $0 $0 =`f $00o;° --" 5 $000;
2012 5,577,147 0 1,338 1,338 ^ 1' 0.00' ' ° `` ; _;' 0:281 (1)
2013 5,688,690 0 1,583 1,583 _ - 0.00 " ? , .0
2014 5,802,464 0 1,616 1,616 ' f;E0.00- !` ' .F.;;: 0428,
2015 5,976,538 0 1,665 1, 665 '"`,,` —. > 0:00' „�' ` - ;: :0:2 8 :
+.�- F :
2016 6,155,834 0 1,714 1,714 - .., 0:00, : ,'= ' 0:28.:
2017 6,340,509 0 1,764 1,764 : i ?'`0:00; %e ; - ' ' ,.' y 0:28:
2018 6,530,725 0 1,817 1,817 - ` ' 0 ^2
>'Y *``0:00'�rr'� ; 0:288
::
2019 6,726,646 0 1,875 1,875 «.0.00 ' ' ',0:28-;
2020 6,928,446 0 1,931 1,931 '_° ;0 0M -
2021 7,136,299 0 1,989 1,989 " = n'0.00?:
2022 7,350,388 0 2,049 2,049 .: - '0 8
_0.00, ;;:;
2023 7,570,900 0 2,111 2,111 a:;- ;g -
_•.0.00`=' - -0.26
�'. ..
2024 7,798,027 • 0 2,169 2,169 r :: %
2025 8,031,968 0 2,237 .2,237 +' gli000 ' - 0.28;
.:
2026 8,272,927 0 2,304 2,304 X50.00:; )= >'<0.
2027 8,521,114 0 0 0 r "=' . =,. ?
O : . 0.00:
2028 8,776,748 0 0 0 - w" ` '0:00'
2029 9,040,050 0 0 0 - 0.002x' s r"�- 0 00;
2030 9,311,252 0 0 0 ; t- 4 O:OO -; > 1 0.00.:
2031 9,590,589 0 0 0 0. 00; = 4 . ; . , . = 0.00<
Total Debt Service: $28,161 (1) Builds DS Fund reserves.
Total Interest: $8,161
Net Interest Cost: 4.66%
Levy Rate Summary (5 -9-
Prepared 5/9/2011 E R E S N W
•
•
July 2 0 1 0
a.► A A:I--
Transportation Benefit ASSOCIATION
OF WASHINGTON
CIIIES
District Legislation in Effect
Through the cooperative efforts of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the Washington State Associations of
Counties (WSAC), significant legislation went into effect in 2007, which resulted in the most important local transportation
tool for cities and counties in sixteen years — Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). Newly enacted 2010 legislation
enhanced the TBD's authority.
TBDs are independent taxing districts that can impose an array of taxes or fees either through a vote of the people or through
district board action.TBDs are flexible -- they allow cities and counties to work independently or cooperatively on addressing
both local and regional transportation challenges.
•
Frequently Asked Questions additional jurisdictions through interlocal agreements,
Background then the governing body must have at least five members,
In 1987, the Legislature created TBDs as an option for local including at least one elected official from each of the
governments to fund transportation improvements. In 2005, participating jurisdictions, or may be the governing bc(
the Legislature amended theTBD statute to expand its uses a metropolitan planning organization if the TBD boundal
are identical to the boundaries of the metropolitan planning
and•revenue authority. In 2007, the Legislature amended
the statute to authorize the imposition of vehicle fees organization serving the district
and transportation impact fees without a public vote. In What are the boundaries of aTBD?
2010, the Legislature amended the TBD statute again to The boundaries of a TBD may be less than the boundaries
clarify project eligibility, the use of impact fees, and sales tax of those jurisdictions participating in the TBD. For example,
expenditures, and make TBD governance more flexible. a county or city may choose to have the TBD boundaries
What is a Transportation Benefit District (TBD)? identical with the county or city, or it may choose just to
•
ATBD is a quasi- municipal corporation and independent include a portion of the county or city. However, if a TBD
taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring; chooses to exercise the tax authority that does not require
constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation a public vote (e.g. vehicle and impact fees), the boundaries of
improvements within the district. the TBD must be countywide, citywide, or unincorporated
countywide.
Who may create aTBD?
The legislative authority of a county or city may create aTBD Why create a TBD if the county or city legislative
by ordinance following the procedures set forth in Chapter authority is the governing board?
36.73 RCW.The county or city proposing to create aTBD ATBD is an independent.legal creature.Although a TBD
may include other counties, cities, port districts, or transit has many of the powers of a county and city (impose taxes,
districts through interlocal agreements. eminent domain powers, can contract and accept gifts,
etc.), - it is a separate taxing district. Additionally, by being a
Who governs the TBD? separate legal and taxing entity,TBDs have more flexile-
The members of the legislative authority (county or city) For example, more than one type of jurisdiction can by.
proposing to establish a TBD serves as the governing body of aTBD and the boundaries can be less than countywide or
of the TBD.The legislative authority is acting ex officio and citywide.
independently as the TBD governing body. If a TBD includes
r--,
0
Can a TBD be created without imposing fees or proposing What transportation improvements can be funded
voter approved revenue options? by aTBD?
Yes.A county or city takes legislative action through the The definition of transportation improvements is broad.This
ordinance process to create aTBD.The ordinance must can include maintenance and improvements to city streets,
include a finding that the creation of aTBD is in the public's county roads, state highways, investments in high capacity
interest, describe the boundaries of the TBD, and specify the transportation, public transportation, transportation demand
activities or functions to be implemented or funded by the management and other transportation projects identified in
district.The county or city ordinance creating the TBD may a regional transportation planning organization plan or state
also specify and authorize what fees or revenues that the plan.
TBD may pursue.TheTBD, acting in its own official capacity, In developing criteria for a transportation improvement, it
has the authority to identify proposed fees or revenue can include one or more of the following. reduced risk of
options. transportation facility failure and improved safety; improved
travel time; improved air quality; increases in daily and peak
Are TBD revenues required to be spent as they are
collected? period trip capacity; improved modal connectivity; improved
freight mobility; cost - effectiveness of the investment; optimal
No.The governing body which creates aTBD must develop performance of the system through time; and other criteria,
a plan that specifies the transportation improvements to as adopted by the governing body.
be provided or funded by the TBD.As part of this plan, the
.-- -.. TBD's governing board can indicate if the funds will be used Note: In 2010, cities within King County are specifically
immediately, or if they will be collected for a specified period, authorized to provide or contract for supplemental
4110 " prior to spending the accumulated funds.Typically, funds that public transportation improvements to meet the mobility
P P P Y
are collected for a specified period before being expended needs of the city, and may contract for such improvements
are used to fully fund large projects, when bonding, or serve with private and nonprofit entities and may also form public -
as a match for state or federal funds that may only become private partnerships.
available in a specified time frame.
If a jurisdiction uses the SEPA process to collect
Does aTBD have to meet certain tests? impact fees, would this preclude aTBD from using
There are three threshold tests for transportation impact fees?
improvements in aTBD: I) the type of transportation No. However, the law requires the jurisdiction to provide
improvement contained within the boundaries of the TBD, a credit to commercial or industrial developments that are
2) whether the improvements are identified in any existing subject to SEPA, or transportation impact fees authorized
state, regional, county, city or eligible TDB jurisdiction's (port under GMA.This is commonly called a "no double- dipping"
or transit), transportation plan and that the improvements provision.
are 3) necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable
congestion levels. The definition of "congestion" does not
have a set standard in law; each TBD has the discretion to
tailor and make its own determination of congestion levels
when implementing its TBD ordinance.
continued
110 ..
What revenue options do TBD's have? after enactment of the 2007 legislation.Today, a county that
TBD's have several revenue options subject to voter creates a countywide TBD (incorporated and unincorporated
approval: areas) and proposes to impose up to a $20 non -voted
• Property taxes — a I-year excess levy or an excess levy vehicle fee should first attempt to impose a countywide
for capital purposes; fee to be shared with cities by interlocal agreement. Sixty
percent (60 %) of the cities representing seventy-five (75 %)
• Up to 0.2% sales and use tax; of the incorporated population must approve the interlocal
• Up to $100 annual vehicle fee per vehicle registered in agreement for it to be effective.The Legislative expectation is
the district; and that if an interlocal agreement cannot be reached between a
• Vehicle tolls. county and city or cities, the county is authorized to create a
Please Note:There are exemptions or unique requirements TBD and impose the fee only in the unincorporated area of
when using the vehicle fee or vehicle tolls. the county.
TBD's have two revenue options that do not Credits must be provided for previously imposed TBD
vehicle fees. Credits are not required for voter approved
require voter approval, but are subject to
additional conditions:
vehicle fees.
I. Annual vehicle fee up to $20.This fee is collected at Commercial and Industrial Transportation
the time of vehicle renewal and cannot be used to fund Impact Fees:
passenger -only ferry service improvements. ATBD that is either countywide or citywide must pro "" •a
2. Transportation impact fees on commercial and industrial credit for a commercial or industrial transportation ii
buildings. Residential buildings are excluded. In addition, a fee if the respective county or city has already imposed a
•
county or city must provide a credit for a commercial or transportation impact fee.This is commonly called a "no
industrial transportation impact if the respective county double- dipping" provision.
or city has already imposed a transportation impact fee. If we create a countywide TBD for the up to $20
Please Note: Foregoing a vote is an option only. A county vehicle fee, how is the revenue distributed to
or city still has the option of placing either the annual fee of cities?
up to $20 or the impact fees to the vote of the people as an The revenue must be shared according to the interlocal
advisory vote or an actual requirement of imposition. agreement.The law does not prescribe what the interlocal
agreement contains. Consequently, the revenue can be shared
What are the additional conditions required to by population, number of vehicles within each jurisdiction,
impose revenue options not subject to voter project list, a combination of these, or whatever the county
approval? and cities can reach agreement on.
To impose either fee, the TBD's boundaries must
be countywide or citywide, or if applicable, in the What happens if a city imposes the up to $20
unincorporated county. vehicle fee and then the county imposes a
countywide fee without voter approval?
Vehicle Fees: The law requires TBDs to provide a credit for vehicle fees
When the Legislature revised the TBD authority in 2007 to previously imposed by aTBD.
enable councilmanic vehicle fees, it was intended to ensure
a county-wide or regional approach for first consideration
of this new option.That is why counties had the exclusive
authority of the $20 vehicle fee for the first six months
continued
For example, if a city was the first to create aTBD and What other requirements should I be aware of?
impose a $20 vehicle fee and subsequently its county Revenue rates, once imposed, may not be increased, unless
creates a countywide TBD imposing a $20 vehicle fee, the authorized by voter approval.
county TBD must provide a $20 credit against its fee for If project costs exceed original costs by more than 20
vehicles registered within the city.As a result, no fee would percent, a public hearing must be held to solicit public
be collected by the county TBD from vehicles registered comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved.
within the city. Additionally, the city would not be part of the This is typically called a material change policy.
interlocal agreement with the county or be included in the
number /percentages needed for the interlocal agreement to The TBD must issue an annual report to include the status
be effective. of project costs, revenues, expenditures, and construction
schedules.
However, if in the same example, the city TBD imposed only
$10 of the $20 vehicle fee and the county TBD imposed . The TBD must be dissolved upon completion of the
a countywide $20 vehicle fee, only a $10 credit would be project(s) and the payment of debt service.
provided for vehicles registered within the city.The county Who has imposed aTBD?
TBD would collect $10 from vehicles registered in the city.
Consequently, the county TBD would need to include the
The cities of Lake Forest Park, Edmonds, Des Moines,
city in the interlocal agreement discussions and the city is
Olympia, Prosser, and Shoreline imposed the $20 vehicle
included in the number /percentages needed for the interlocal
fee. Ridgefield and Sequim passed the 2/10% sales tax.
agreement to be effective. Point Roberts and Liberty Lake formed TBD's prior to the
legislative changes in 2005. •
III If a county or city is considering the $20 vehicle
fee, how does a county or city estimate revenues?
Currently, no TBD has been in effect for an entire year and
therefore revenue estimates and histories are incomplete. Checklist
What TBDs around the state have learned to date: vehicles For a checklist that highlights many of the important
per household calculations vary significantly around the considerations when creating a Transportation Benefit
state. Statistical data shows that there tends to be about District (TBD), please see www.awcnetorg/tbd.
one vehicle per person in rural areas and 0.8 vehicles per
person in urban areas. Another factor to strongly consider Eligibility requirements vary. For additional questions on
is seasonality; vehicles sales are not evenly distributed Transportation Districts, please contact AWC staff
throughout the year and this will affect monthly receipts. Ashley Probart at ashleyp @awcnet.org
Finally, a city or county must understand and recognize that Sheri Sawyer at sheris @awcnet.org.
other factors such as people failing to register their vehicles,
and data accuracy can affect actual revenues when compared
to forecasted revenues.
Transportation Benefit Districts 7/12/11 8:55 AM
•
if, M Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington
Working Together for Excellence in Local Government
Updated 02/11
Transportation Benefit Districts
Contents
• About Transportation Benefit Districts
• Transportation Benefit District Legislation
• Transportation Benefit Districts, Including Proposals
About Transportation Benefit Districts
Transportation benefit districts (TBDs) are quasi - municipal corporations with independent taxing
authority, including the authority to impose property taxes and impact fees for transportation purposes.
RCW 36.73.020 governs formation by counties, and RCW 35.21.225 governs formation by cities. For an
overview, see:
• Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs) (E)) in the Transportation Resource Manual, Joint
Transportation Committee, updated 2009
• Transportation Benefit Legislation in Effect (M), AWC Fact Sheet, 07/10/2010
Prior to 2007, only three TBDs had been formed - Fords Prairie (Centralia and Lewis County) in 199
Point Roberts (Whatcom County) in 1992, and Liberty Lake in Spokane County in 2002. Fords Prairie
was dissolved after two attempts to obtain voter approval of the funding package. Funding was
approved by the majority of the voters, but the requirement of a three - fifths majority was not met.
[See history in Transportation Benefit Districts Analysis and Report (M), Washington State Department
of Transportation, 1998, and Centralia TBD Ordinances (1]).]
Transportation Benefit District Legislation
• Laws of 2007, ch. 329 (ESKB 1858) (In)
• Final Bill Report (!)
• Local Transportation Benefit District Fees, Department of Licensing
Transportation Benefit Districts, Including Proposals
• Bellingham Transportation Benefit District - Funded by $.002 Sales Tax
• Bellingham Ordinance No. 2010 -07 -240 (n), passed 07/2010 - Establishing a TBD; specifying that
the boundaries of the district will coincide with city boundaries; and specifying the transportation
improvements to be funded by the district
• Bellingham TBD No. 1 Resolution #2010 - ('--) - Concerning a sales and use tax to fund
transportation improvements - Proposition No. 1 (November 2010 ballot)
• Bremerton Transportation Benefit District
• Ordinance No. 5076 (M), passed 02/04/2009
• Proposal to impose an annual $30.00 vehicle fee to finance transportation improvements for a
period of three years was voted down in November 2009 general election.
• Burien Transportation Benefit District - Funded by Vehicle Registration Fee
http: / /www.mrsc.org/ Subjects /governance /spd /tbd.aspx Page 1 of 3
Transportation Benefit Districts 7/12/11 8:55 AM
• Burien Ordinance No. 516 (in), passed 07/20/2009 - Creates district and provides for election to
pass a $30 vehicle registration fee
410 Vehicle registration fee of $30 voted down at November 2009 election.
, Vehicle registration fee of $10
• Covington - Proposed
• Presentation on Transportation Benefit District ('1), Council Meeting Packet, 01/12/2010 - Includes
Power Point Presentation -
• Covington City Council Decides Against Transportation Benefit District, by Kris Hill, Covington
Reporter News, 01/27/2010
• Des Moines Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Des Moines Ordinance No. 1 (1), passed 11/20/2008
• Rules of Procedure
• Des Moines TBD Board Resolution No. 0001.TBD (CO, passed 12/2008
• Edmonds Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Documents
• Edmonds Ordinance No. 3707 (E), passed 11/18/2008
• Edmonds Resolution No. 1181 (1) - Sets public hearing date for TBD
• Staff Report (`), 11/13/2008
• TBD Presentation (') 11/18/2008
• Edmonds TBD Ordinance No. 2 (l), passed 08/2010 - Proposal to raise vehicle registration fee by
$40; measure was defeated at the November 2010 general election.
• King County Transportation Benefit District
• King County Ordinance No. 16742 (t2), passed 01/04/2010 - Created a TBD in unincorporated King
County
• Documents relating to formation of King County TBD
• , ' nke Forest Park Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
ake Forest Park Ordinance No. 983 (M), passed .10/23/2008 - Excerpt from•Lake Forest Park
-'Council Packet, 10/09/2008; re: Transportation Benefit District
• Leavenworth Transportation Benefit District - Funded by $.002 sales tax
• Leavenworth Ordinance No. 1372 (l), passed 07/2010 - Creates a TBD
• Index of Leavenworth TBD documents
• Liberty Lake Transportation Benefit District
• Liberty Lake Ordinance No. 82 (M), passed 2002
• Lynnwood Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Lynnwood Ordinance No. 2837 (CI), passed 05/2010 - Establishes a TBD
• Olympia Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Olympia Ordinance No. 6611 (1), passed 12/16/2008
• Transportation Benefit District Charter (E1)
• Olympia Ordinance No. 1, passed 03/2009
• Point Roberts (Whatcom County) - Funded by $0.01 gas tax available to border towns
• Whatcom County Resolution No. 91 - 036 g) - Sets hearing on proposed Point Roberts TBD
• Whatcom County Ordinance No. 91 - 043 (M) - Creates Point Roberts TBD
• Whatcom County Resolution No. 91 - 059 (M) - Proposition to voters to impose gas tax on the retail
sale of fuel within the Point Roberts TBD
• Whatcom County Resolution No. 92 - 002 (1) - Adopts gas tax on the retail sale of fuel within the
Point Roberts TBD
• Whatcom County Resolution No. 92 - 013 (�Y�1--) - Establishes bylaws for governing body of the Point
Roberts TBD
• Prosser Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Prosser Municipal Code Ch. 3.90, passed 01/20/2009 - TBD
'gefield Transportation Benefit District - Funded by $.002 sales tax
a)rdinance No. 998 ( », passed 06/26/2008 and Press Release, 11/0.5/2008 - Passage of TBD at
general election
http: / /www.mrsc.org/ Subjects /governance /spd /tbd.aspx Page 2 of 3
Transportation Benefit Districts 7/12/11 8:55 AM
• Seattle Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Seattle Ordinance No, 123397, passed 09/2010 - Creates a TBD
• Seattle TBD Resolution No. 1 - Authorizing a $20 vehicle license fee pursuant to RCW 36.73.06
• Sequim Transportation Benefit District - Funded by $.002 sales tax
• Sequim Ordinance No. 2008 - 008 (==), passed 07/2008 - Creates a TBD
• Sequim Ordinance No 2008 - 012 (1) - Amends Ordinance No. 2008 -008
• Proposition 1, the sales and use tax levy for the TBD did not pass, 11/05/2008 (49.08%
Yes /50.92% No)
• Sequim TBD Resolution No. 2009 - 10 (1), passed 07/2009 - Sales and use tax levy proposition
• Shoreline Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Ordinance No. 550 (l), passed 06/22/2009
• Snohomish Transportation Benefit District - Includes documents
• Snohomish Municipal Code Ch. 12.52 - Transportation Benefit District (Ordinance No. 2197, passed
09/2010)
• Snoqualmie Transportation Benefit District - Funded by vehicle registration fee
• Snoqualmie News Release, 06/15/2010
• Snoqualmie Ordinance No. 1061 (M), passed 06/14/2010
• Snoqualmie Agenda (E) for meeting of August 9, 2010 and TBD Draft Agenda Bills: AB 10 - 001 .M) -
Resolution No. 001, approving Charter; AB 10 -002 (in) - Resolution No. 002, approving bylaws; AB
10 -003 (°_) setting a hearing date on $20 license fee; AB 10 -004 (1) setting a hearing date on
TBD projects; AB 10 - 005 (M) - Resolution No. 003, adopting the $20 license fee; AB - 10 - 006 (=) -
Resolution No. 04, approving interlocal agreement between TBD and the Washington State
Department of Licensing; AB 10 - 007 (1) - Resolution No. 005, approving certain transportation
improvement projects; AB 10 - 008 (M) - Resolution No. 006, approving interlocal agreement
between TBD and city, for city to provide staff support; AB 10 -009 (m) - Resolution 007, approving
a material change policy; and AB 10 - 010 (M), approving appendix No. 88 -10 of interlocal
agreement creating the Washington Cities Insurance Authority wherein TBD agrees to be bound( 0
that agreement.
• Spokane County Regional Trans ortation Benefit District (Proposed)
• Draft Interlocal Aareernent (1), Washington State Department of Transportation
• University Place Ordinance No. 562, passed 12/07/2009 - Establishes a TBD
• Yakima County conducted an advisory vote November 2007; based on the vote, the county did not
form the TBD
Return to Transportation Taxes
Related Resources
MRSC Index - Formation of special districts, creation of special districts
MRSC Index - Special Purpose Districts - General
MRSC Index - Transportation benefit district (Ch. 36.73 RCW, Ch. 327 Laws 1987)
•
http: / /www.mrsc.org/ Subjects /governance /spd /tbd.aspx - Page 3 of 3
Sequim,WA -TBD- Overview 7/12/118:52 AM
City Hall (360) 683 -4139, Public Works (360) 683 -4908, Police (360) 683 -7227
Ill ,. i
1
of - SE c . TBD
Search Website Contact Us Home
. ['''',:, '''''' '
w• A•S- 11.1•N•0-T-O -N
•
*verview
What Is a Transportation Benefit District?
• Overview - TBD Home
A Transportation Benefit District (TBD) is a quasi - municipal corporation and . 2011 TBD Fiscal.Year Budget
independent taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring, • FAQ
constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements
within the district. The boundaries of the TBD are identical with the City • Agendas
limits. • Minutes
Background • Ordinances
• Resolutions
Statutory authority for Transportation Benefit Districts has existed for 20 • Inter -Local Agreements
years. However, until 2007 to establish a TBD required a vote of the people.
In 2007, the Association of Washington Cites (AWC) worked with the
Legislature to provide some relief to cities and counties for traffic
congestion. AWC was successful in amending the law to allow some
0 flexibility. A City (or County) may (but Sequim has chosen not to) implement
up to a $20 per vehicle fee with City Council (or County Commissioner)
approval under Chapter 36.73 RCW. Sequim Chose to submit to the voters
a proposed 2 /10ths of 1% sales tax increase to fund the TBD. This sales
tax increase passed in November 2009 with a 58% affirmative vote of the
citizens. The members of the legislative authority proposing to establish the
district, in this case the Sequim City Council, make up the TBD Board.
Members of the TBD Board are acting ex- officio and independently from
City Council.
Sequim City Council Establishes a TBD
On behalf of the Sequim Transportation Benefit District, the Washington
State Department of Revenue will be remitting collected TBD sales tax
revenue after April 2010, when the tax is implemented. Revenues are
expected beginning in June, 2010.
As referenced above, Washington State legislature permits local
governments to establish a TBD and accompanying funding sources to
provide for the preservation, maintenance, and construction of local public
ways. •
In July of 2008 and in an August 2008 amendment, after conducting public
hearings, the Sequim City Council approved Ordinances 2008 -008 and
2008 -012 that formed the Sequim Transportation Benefit District and
adopted a new chapter to the Sequim Municipal Code, entitled
"Transportation Benefit District ". The ordinance specifies that the
410 , for the TBD be coextensive with the City limits. Funds used to
operate the District must make transportation improvements that are
consistent with existing regional, state, and local transportation plans and
http: / /www.ci.sequim.wa.us /TBD /index.cfm Page 1 of 2
Sequim , W A - TBD-Overview 7/12/11 8:52 AM
necessitated by existing and reasonably foreseeable congestion levels as
provided in Chapter 36.73 RCW.
1The council further determined that it is in the public interest to provide for
transportation improvements that specifically focus on reducing the risk of
transportation facility failure and improving safety, decreasing travel time,
increasing daily and peak period trip capacity, improving modal connectivity,
and preserving and maintaining optimal performance of transportation
•
infrastructure. The governing board of the TBD shall be the Sequim City
Council serving in an ex- officio and independent capacity as per RCW
36.73.020. This was done through an Interlocal Agreement between the
City and the TBD.
•
In March 2010, the Sequim TBD Board approved the Charter and Bylaws
of the Sequim Transportation Benefit District outlining the conditions by
which the TBD is organized and defining its rights and privileges.
With the establishment of a TBD, the TBD and the City can begin to replace
the transportation funding that has been lost over the years, and be better
able to preserve, maintain or expand the City's transportation infrastructure
into the future.
Contact the TBD
c/o City of Sequim
152 W. Cedar Street
Sequim, WA 98382
City Council I City Manager I Clerk I Finance Planning I Police I Public Works
City of Sequim . City Hall •152 West Cedar St. • Sequim, WA 98382 • (360) 683 -4139 • Fax: 360 - 681 -3448
Sitemap I Contact Us
http: / /www.ci.sequim.wa.us /TBD /index.cfm Page 2 of 2
WA State Licensing: Local transportation benefit district fees 7/12/11 8:48 AM
•
Local transportation benefit district fees
i . 11 .
A law passed in 2007 allows city or county governments to create local transportation
benefit districts and impose a local vehicle registration fee to fund local transportation
projects.
Transportation benefit districts and fees
If you live in any of the following locations, you must pay an additional local
transportation benefit district fee when you renew your vehicle tabs:
District Fee Effective date Location ` Contact phone
(Tabs expiring on or after...) code
Burien No. 1 $10 February 1, 2011 17 -34 , 206 - 241 -4647
Des Moines $20 September 1, 2009 17 -09 206- 870 -7586
Edmonds , $20 September 1, 2009 31 -04 425- 771 -0260
Lake Forest Park $20 September 1, 2009 17 -17 206- 368 -5440
Lynnwood $20 July 1, 2011 31 -10 425- 670 -5020
Olympia $20 October 1, 2009 34 -03 360 -570 -3727
Prosser $20 November 1, 2009 03 -03 509- 786 -2332
Seattle $20 May 1, 2011 17 -26 , 206 -233 -5005
Shoreline $20 February 1, 2010 17 -37 206- 801 -2302
Snoqualmie 1$20 March 1, 2011 17 -28 425- 888 -1555, Ext.
1135
City of Spokane $20 - September 1, 2011 32 -10 509- 625 -6255
Vehicles subject to fees
• Passenger vehicles
• Trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
• Motorcycles
• Commercial passenger vehicles and trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
• Combination trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
• Tow trucks
• House moving dollies
• Trucks used exclusively for hauling logs that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
• Taxicabs
• For -hire or stage vehicles with 6 seats or less
• For -hire or stage vehicles with 7 or more seats that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
• Private use trailers over 2,000 pounds
• Motorcycle trailers
• Travel trailers
• Fixed load vehicles that weigh 6,000 pounds or less
• Mobile homes licensed as vehicles
Exempt vehicles
• All farm vehicles
• Campers
• Off -road vehicles
• Snowmobiles
• Mopeds
• Personal use trailers with a single axle and less than 2,000 pounds scale weight
• Commercial trailers
• Combination trailers
• Trailers used exclusively for hauling logs
http: / /www.dol.wa.gov/ vehicleregistration /localfees.html Page 1 of 2
WA State Licensing: Local transportation benefit district fees 7/12/11 8:48 AM
• Horseless carriage, collector, or restored -plate vehicles
• Converter gear
• Government vehicles
• Private school vehicles
• Vehicles properly registered to disabled American veterans
How a transportation benefit district works •
Once a local transportation benefit district is set up, the district's board of directors
may vote to charge a local vehicle licensing fee due when a vehicle owner buys new
tabs.
• The transportation benefit district board has the authority to impose a fee of up to
$20 per vehicle without voter approval.
• A transportation benefit district may impose a vehicle renewal fee of up to $100 per
vehicle or seek other sources of funding if approved by voters.
•
• Related laws
• RCW: 36.73: Transportation benefit districts
• RCW 82.80.140: Vehicle fee — Transportation benefit district — Exemptions
CONTACT US ABOUT US DO MORE ONLINE DRIVER GUIDE STAY CONNECTED
Office locations What we do Renew your tabs English
Contact us Rulemaking activity Replace your license or ID card
News center Re E ` P ` "�
i.:,< �: • port the sale of vehicle
-`' -` •'.'bv1'' ' Reports and data Check the status of a driver license =c
Jobs Get a form
...more ...more
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
http:// www .dol.wa.gov /vehicleregistration /localfees.html Page 2 of 2