HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2009 09 2010 Ad Valorem Tax Levy Public Hearing •
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
• AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 9
For Meeting Of: November 17, 2009
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on Revenue Sources and Consideration of Legislation pertaining
to Ad Valorem Taxes to be levied for collection in Fiscal 2010 Year:
Ordinance A—Declaring the City Council's intent to increase the City's 2010
regular property tax levy up to 100% of the amount levied in the previous year,
plus new construction and annexation.
Ordinance B—fixing and levying the 2010 ad valorem property taxes and excess
levy taxes for the City of Yakima.
SUBMITTED BY: Dick Zais, City Manager
Rita M. DeBord, Finance Director
Cindy Epperson, Deputy Director of Accounting & Budgeting
CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dick Zais / 575-6040
Rita M. DeBord / 575-6070
Cindy Epperson / 575-6070
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
lack:wound
State law, based on Initiative 747, requires several administrative and legal steps to establish the
property tax levy. (Even though 1-747 was ruled unconstitutional in the fall of 2007, the legislature met
and re-established property tax levy limits as set forth in the initiative.) Your package includes two (2)
separate ordinances. Ordinance A and B will set the property tax levy for collection in. 2010, currently
CONTINUED
Resolution Ordinances 2 Other (Specify) Exhibit 1, Attachments 1-5:
Funding Source
, •
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City Management is recommending that City Council conduct a •
public hearing on the 2010 property tax levy, and then pass ordinances"A", which declares Council's
intent to freeze the levy at the 2009 level, and only include amounts for new construction/annexation,
and "B", which fixes the levy amount. These ordinances follow state law consistent with the provisions
of 1-747, and are the basis on which the 2010 budget was developed .and balanced.
•
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
OUNCIL ACTION:
Legal/BD
Agenda Ad Val 1
11/12/2009
•
•
2010 Property Tax Agenda Statement — Continued page 2 of. 4
proposed to have no percentage increase over the prior year base levy (i.e.. freeze the 2010 levy at the ' -.
2009 level, and only increase the levy for new construction and annexation.. The 1 -747 limits property
tax levy increases approved by Council to the maximum of 1% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.
(Note: the initiative defines the rate of inflation as measured by the Implicit Price Deflator for consumer
goods.)
•
Even though the 2010 budget as currently proposed is built assuming no increase in the base property
tax levy, the current rate of inflation used to calculate the "limit" is a negative (0.848 %). In past years,
the effective limit has been the 1% maximum, as the inflation rate has been substantially more than
1%. A provision in the law is that Council can approve a levy limit greater than inflation, up to the 1%
maximum, if they declare a "substantial need" with a super- majority vote. In this peculiar case, with the
inflation rate being negative, the Council will need to declare "substantial need" just to maintain last
year's levy with no change. If a super - majority for "no change" is not achieved, the levy would need to
be reduced by about $132,000, and Council would then need to identify whether to make further
budget reductions, or increase the use of reserves.
Exhibit I details the calculation of the property tax levy with a base of 100% of the prior year using
preliminary information obtained from the County Assessor's office. According to state law, the
certification of ad valorem taxes must be filed with the Board of Yakima County Commissioners on or
before November.30, 2009 or the City will receive no funding from this source in 2010. The
Commissioners have requested to receive this packet by November 20, so they can incorporate all of
the requests into their required legislation.
Ordinance purposes are:
Ordinance A identifies Council's intent to authorize an increase in the tax levy over 2009 levels. This
ordinance typically requires a simple majority to pass, however with the negative inflation rate (as
explained above), this year it will require a super majority to keep the levy at last year's base. It is •
required by RCW 84.55:120:
•
Ordinance B fixes the tax levy for collection by the City in 2010. This ordinance includes not only the
regular tax but also special levy taxes for bond repayments. This ordinance complies with RCW
35.33.135.
These ordinances are in the same format as the prior year levy legislation.
General Government Revenue Discussion •
In reviewing General Government revenue, there are 4 revenues that each make up approximately
one /fourth of the total —i.e. there are four "legs" that support General Government operations: Sales •
Tax (including the City's allocation of both county -wide Criminal Justice sales taxes) represents about
26% of the total. Property tax as proposed is about 24 %; Utility Taxes as presented in the Preliminary
Budget make up about 21%; and all other revenue comprise the remaining 29 %. (See Attachment 1
for a summary of General Government revenues.)
As described in the mid -year 2009 budget reduction transmittal, Yakima . started seeing the results of
the national economic recession in the last quarter of 2008. The 2009 year -end estimate of revenues is
virtually the same as 2008 actual results (i.e. no growth), while 2010 is conservatively estimated to
• increase by only 1.3 %. Even though revenues have been flat, there continues to be pressure on
•
•
•
•
•
•
Legal /BD
Agenda Ad Val 2 .
11/12/2009 •
•
2010 Property Tax Agenda Statement—Continued page 3 of 4
Jxpenditures, and there are increases in various categories such as utilities (i.e. electricity and phone
service), and employee healthcare coverage.
In response to these economic conditions, the City has exercised responsible budgetary restraint. City
management has proposed necessary cost reduction measures to stay within available resources, in
accordance with the Council's priorities of government budget model. Over $2.6 million of
budget/service reductions were identified in the 2010 Forecast, and an additional $200,000 has been
added since the publication of that document (primarily in response to falling interest rates and
corresponding revenue) which results in a net total reduction of $2.8 million in order to bring the budget
into an acceptable balance. Staffing levels in General Government operations are being reduced by
about 25 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employees. Additionally, expenditures for professional services,
capital outlay (some in the form of debt service), and supplies will be significantly reduced.
The initial estimates from the County on the 2010 property tax levy included a growth rate for new
construction of 1.5% compared to a budget estimate of 1 %, however, it appears that the collection rate
of the property taxes is being extended, so the property tax budget is not proposed to be adjusted from
the preliminary forecast.
Historically, staff does another review of revenues and expenditures, and proposes any adjustments to
the final budget in the Budget Wrap-up document, to be distributed the last week of November.
Because "General Government" revenues in 2010 are not estimated to cover all of the cost increases,
the City also expects to spend approximately $1.4 million from its reserves in order to balance the
- budget. Even though relying on reserves to pay for about 2.3% of next year's "General Government"
xpenses is within City budget guidelines, depleting the City's "savings account" at the same rate is not
,ustainable over the long term. Having one of the 4 major revenue sources limited to a rate below
inflationary cost drivers is a major factor in the annual effort to balance the tax-supported budgets in
the future.
Property Tax Discussion
• The total 2010 City of Yakima property tax levy includes the 100% levy, levies for voted bond issues,
and amounts for annexations and new construction. The budget currently includes an estimated
• revenue of__$15,522,265_for the regular_ levy,_an increase of $150,000-(made • up of an estimate of 1%
for new construction) over the 2009 year-end estimate of $15,372,265. The voted levy debt is
budgeted to be $297,000, slightly more than the 2009 budget, based on scheduled debt service for the
1995 voted Fire bond issue. The total operating tax rate for next year is estimated to be $2.9136 per
$1,000 of Assessed Valuation (AV), up from the 2009 rate of $2.8886. (The statutory limit is $3.60 less
the Library levy, which is capped at 50 cents per $1,000. The estimate for the 2010 Library levy is 475
cents per thousand) -- the bond rate is estimated to be $0.05492 per $1,000, down from $0.0649 in
2009. It should be noted that the amounts included in the budget differ from the levy as shown in
attached Exhibit I because of the timing of collections. In other words the budget is built on collection
estimates of the levy.
A home with an assessed value of $150,000 in 2009 paid $433.29 for the regular levy, and $9.75 for
the voted levy, for a total of $443.04. According to the valuation estimate provided by the County
Assessor, the underlying assessed value of all taxable property in the City decreased by 0.9%. If that
growth rate is applied to the $150,000, the 2010 assessed value would be $148,650 and the regular
levy tax would be $433.11, and the voted levy would be $8.24 for a total of $441.35—a slight
Legal/BD
Agenda Ad Val 3 •
11/12/2009 •
2010 Property Tax Agenda Statement—Continued page 4 of 4
reduction in the total levy, primarily because the fixed debt service is spread across a higher overall
assessed valuation because of new construction and annexation.
We believe the current request for the property tax levy is justified by the following conditions:
(1) The property tax is needed to help meet mandates and contractual obligations, principally
Public Safety pensions/medical costs. Attachment 2 demonstrates the amount of property
taxes dedicated to these areas.
(2) In the Street budget, property tax represents nearly 71 % of all revenue in this budget. (see
Attachment 3) Investing in maintaining and repaving the City streets has been a high Council
priority for several years. The other major revenue source in this fund is Gas Tax, which is
based on a per gallon" charge. The escalation in gas prices and economic downturn affected
consumption, and the 2009 gas tax is currently running 8.1% behind 2008.
(3) Property tax is also a key revenue source for the Parks and Recreation Division, representing
over 40% of all Parks revenue. Parks maintenance is supported entirely by property taxes,
while other programs such as the Senior Center and Aquatics are supported in part by the
property tax. The cost to maintain and operate these facilities increases annually. (Also see
Attachment 3)
(4) Again this year, the City is not expected to collect the full levy because of higher senior citizen
exemptions, delinquent taxes and other uncollectible accounts. For the year 2010, the City is
budgeting conservatively and estimating a reduction of up to 4% in actual collections from the
authorized levy offset by a portion of delinquent taxes that are predicted to be collected.
(5) Yakima's per capita property tax ranks $89 below the average of comparable Washington cities
with populations of 45,000 to 120,000 in 2008, the most recent year this information has been
compiled. Yakima ranks 10th out of 12 cities in this group. Further, for these same cities,
Yakima's total per capita revenue collected from all taxes, fees and charges is $698 less than
the average and again ranks 10th out of the 12 cities. Our residents are currently taxed
substantially less than other similar size cities. (see Attachments 2 & 4)
(6) - Th current property tax levy represents only 25% 1/4) of ttielbtal -
property taxes paid by City residents. The State, local School District levies and County
government receive approximately 3/4 of all property taxes paid. (See Attachment 5)
(7) Finally, Public Safety continues to be Council's highest priority, and even with recent
enhancements to the Criminal Justice program funded by a voted county sales tax, a gain in
property taxes as a result of the City's annexation into the Library District, and grants the Police
Officers per thousand of population is 1.69 in 2010—still 9 officers below the Western States
Average of 1,8 officers per thousand.
In conclusion, based upon the previous discussion, property tax is a vital component of General
Government revenue. Management/budget staff respectfully requests the passage of both Ordinances
A and B to set the 2010 property tax levy, which is the basis on which the 2010 budget was developed.
Legal/BD
Agenda Ad Val 4
11/12/2009
ORDINANCE A
ORDINANCE NO. 2009
AN ORDINANCE relating to the annual property tax levy; declaring the City Council's intent
to increase the City's 2010 regular levy for new construction, annexation
and growth in state-assessed property values from the amount levied the
previous year.
WHEREAS, RCW 84.55.120 requires a taxing district that collects regular levies to hold
a public hearing on revenue sources for the district's following years current expense budget,
including consideration of possible increases in property tax revenues; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120 and the City Charter, on November 17, 2009,
upon due and proper legal notice, the Yakima City Council held a public hearing to consider
the City's general govemment revenue sources for the 2010 current expense budget, and the
total proposed property tax levy amount pertaining to 2010 revenues from real and personal
property taxes; and
WHEREAS, Section 2009 of Referendum Bill 47 (RCW 84.55.120) provides that no
increase in property tax revenue, other than that resulting from the addition of new,
construction and improvements to property in any increase in the value of state-assessed
property, may be authorized by a taxing district, except by adoption of a separate ordinance or
resolution, pursuant to notice, specifically authorizing the increase in terms of both dollars and
percentage; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after the public hearing on November 17, 2009, and after
duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, has determined that the City
requires an increase in property tax revenue from the previous year, resulting from the addition
of new construction and improvements to property and any increase in the value of state-
assessed property, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the City,
and'as being necessary and in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the amount of property tax levied for collection in 2009 was $15,508,982
for general govemment purposes; and
WHEREAS, the discretionary increase in property tax levied for collection in 2010 shall
be in the amount of $0, which is a percentage increase of zero percent (0%) from the previous
year; and
WHEREAS, the non-discretionary increases in property tax levied for collection in 2010
can only be estimated due to the absence of final values to be provided by the Yakima County
Assessor, now, therefore,
cpe/property-tan-ord 2010 0%-ce 11/12/2009
ORDINANCE A
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1. The following increases in the regular property tax levy, over the amount
of the previous year's levy, are hereby authorized to be cumulatively levied for collection in
2010:
A. A discretionary increase of $0, which is a percentage increase of zero
percent (0%) over the amount levied for collection in 2009; plus
B. An estimated increase of $14,919 for recent annexations; plus
C. An estimated increase of $232,498 for new construction and
improvements to property; plus
D. An increase authorized by state law for state-assessed property values.
Section 2. The City Clerk is directed to transmit and file a certified copy of this
ordinance with the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and the Yakima County Assessor
on or before November 30, 2009.
• Section 3. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the Yakima City Charter, this
ordinance shall take effect on November 17, 2009.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 18th day of November,
2009.
•
ATTEST: David Edler, Mayor
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
cje/property-tax-ord 20100%- 11/12/2009
ORDINANCE B
ORDINANCE NO. 2009
AN ORDINANCE fixing and levying the amount of ad valorem taxes necessary to balance
estimated revenue with estimated expenditures for the 2010 Budget for
the City of Yakima.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the total net amount of $15,906,398 in revenue
• must be raised by ad valorem taxes on real and personal property within the corporate limits of
the City of Yakima to balance estimated revenues and expenditures for the 2010 Budget for
the City of Yakima, now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
Section 1. There is hereby fixed to be raised by general property taxes upon real
and personal property within the City of Yakima the amount of $15,906,398 for the following
purposes:
General Govemment Levy
Operating Funds $14,403,633
Firemens' Relief & Pension Fund 1,502,765
Amount of tax levy for General
Govemment Purposes (1) $15,906,398
Special Purpose Tax Levy 297,000
Total Levy Amount (1) $16,203,398
(1) Includes an additional $150,000 to provide for final adjustments in State assessed, new
construction and annexation values.
Section 2,. The City Clerk is directed to transmit and file a certified copy of this
ordinance with the Board of Yakima County Commissioners and the Yakima County Assessor
on or before November 30, 2009.
Section 3. Pursuant to Article VI, Section 2 of the Yakima City Charter, this
ordinance shall take effect on November 17, 2009.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, signed and approved this 17th day of
November, 2009.
ATTEST: David Edler, Mayor
City Clerk
Publication Date:
Effective Date:
ecl-valorem-ond 20101% ce 11 /12/ 2009
EXHIBIT I
City of Yakima
Property Tax Limitation Calculation
(Dollars in Thousands)
2009 Tax 2010
Assessed Rate Levy
Values Applied Dollars
Prior Year (2009) = Base $5,368,959.341 $2.8886 $15,508,982
0% Increase $0
Base 100`)/0 $15,508,982
Valuation Increase (Decrease) ($46,744.47) N/A $0
New Construction (1.5%) S80,488.003 $2.8886 $232,498
State Assessed Value $2.8886 $0
Tax Limit Before Annexations $5,402,702.875 $2.9136 $15,741,480
Add for Annexation $5,120.350 $2.9136 $14,919
Limit for Subsequent Years $5,407,823.225 S2.9136 $15,756,398
Plus Contingency (And Refunds) $150,000
Total-ordinance $15,906,398
State of Washington Constitutional Limit
Assessed Valuation $5,407,823.225 $3.6000 $19,468,164
Less: Library Levy (Estimate) $0.475 $2,568,716
2009 Levy for Collection in 2010 (Estimate) $3.125 $16,899,448
cje 11/11/2009
ATTACHMENT #1
. GENERAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE
(BASED ON 2010 BUDGET OF $58.1 MILLION)
26.2 21.2 7.2' 4,1'
Sales Tax Franchise & Intergovemment & Other
Utility Tax State Shared Revenue Revenue
(S15.2 Million) ($12.3 Million) ($4.2 Million) (2.4 Million)
1 I I
-
NM" li!*WAirc- K..-
' ''• ' ' • '
. f ..-.,... .."' ' 4 , ''-:•- 9 : *
1
wii,,9P .:': ' ' . - ,-. ' '':11" ' ''' ' ' ' '. '': : , ?.. •
:-,.,,,..'. ::•..,,,,.., :. :*!:;:.) 221 2 i565 ,-, ,!:. '
''., Nr, ,:- ..::::-..o:;:..,t -::::. -....-..f:,
, ', 1) i: , ;.., - ; i „ , , - -:,1,?: r ;41,f , ','! , -;;;,.'•:-.;;Li
v
ar .,.4-!.., , 1 1,, , ,, , , ; .:‘: , ,:-,.:. ..,,:',
3cF,,,,:, ...vzni,t ..: ,:,::zy, '..- f:nili iT ':,:,-,;:l.f. ; i , i,i-': : Is
T, ..- 4.. .;t..,..,,... ':" , 1 ,:' ' '7 ;' IA . '
(-* ,,'; ,.. .--',,,, , i..." . .:,: . .. 1 \ : f '. 4, i.- ,; .:...„
; ii.:;1;,...i:lic e 1 4 p. ? y )9,..,/u4t.;A., 4
„ % ,: ,/„! :7::::::i A :. ,,,,,,,: ,, ;:.
, :: , --.--7. - .::441;'- , ': - . - ------:, 0:k --'--r t: Iff--,.; ,- :g
l 01KN ?..
--,i,.., jit ,,,..,g.44, rf "IL at 10114NAIV '.-::., ai, .:; ' :4 At ,„
f. ' " .. .6.k -:,-. 'i. '*".;,. 11
, It. > III I, . "E is
uttiCit S 1,11:31.4.1 1, ,:.::-:;, , •- 11 { . ,..
I I I
24.1 11.5' 5.7
Property Fax Licenses, Permits Fines &
($14.0 Million) & Charges Other Taxes
for Services ($3.3 Million)
($6.7 Million)
GENERAL GOVERNMENT RESOURCES
THREE YEAR COMPARISON
2010 % OF ......, 2010 vs. 2009 --
2008 2009 PERCENT BUDGET 2010 INCREASE PERCENT
SOURCE ACTUAL ESTIMATE CHANGE FORECAST TOTAL (DECREASE) CHANGE
General Sales Tax $13,719,058 $12,425,000 (9.4%) $12,610,000 21.7% $185,000 1.5%
Criminal justice Sales Tax 0 ) 2,605,242 - 2,601,000 (0.2%)- 2,642,000 4.5% - $41,000 .1.6%
Property Tax 13,45Z989 13,840,000 2.8% 14,019,500 24.1% 179,500 1.3%
Franchise & Utility Taxes 11,099,995 12,008,000 8,2% 12,316,100 21.2% 308,100 2.6%
Charges for Services 5,729,397 5,731,770 0.1% 6,068,805 10.4% 337,035 5.9%
State Shared Revenue 3,021,705 2,979,956 (1.4%) 3,003,100 5.2% 23,144 0.8%
Fines and Forfeitures 1,582,815 1,751,700 10.7% 1,776,900 3.1% 25,200 1.4%
Other Taxes 1,499,292 1,530,950 2.1% 1,518,200 2.6% (12,750) (0.8%)
Other Revenue 1,446,639 1,210,399 (16.3%) 1,174,920 2.0% (35,479) (2.9%)
Transfers from other Funds 1,086,359 1,139,000 4.8% 1,197,000 2.1% 58,000 5.1%
Other Intergovernmental 1,193,758 1,572,416 31.7% 1,177,008 2.0% (395,408) (25.2%)
Licenses and Permits 993,122 620,400 (37.5%) 635,000 1.1% 14,600 2.4%
TOTAL REVENUE $57,435,371 $57,410,591 (0.1%) $58,138,533 100.0% $727,942 1,3%
Beginning Fund Balance 8,186,216 8,622,738 5.3% 5,747,724 (2,875,014) (33.3%)
TOTAL RESOURCES $65,621,587 $66,033,329 0.6% $63,886,257 ($2,147,072) (3.3%)
(1) Some Criminal Justice sales tax is allocated to the Law and Justice capital fund and Public Safety Com-
munications fund (non-general Governmental funds). The allocation to both of these funds were reduced
in 2009 to help support General Government operations.
ATTACHMENT #2
PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION BY FUNCTION
2010 GENERAL LEVY
PROPERTY TAX TOTAL - 515,522,265
Fire & Police Pension
$2,875,805
• -
18.5%
4.t!
r *
General Fund •
„.i
$7,149,960 ' Parks
46.1% u 1. S1,755,500
111 11.5%
: 11 , 114 1 .1. 1 4 .14 4 2- 4 V,:f f :
'
1tri'X'4117 litiVidA41,54-P,4114.1'
.11'4.74
Fill;cift4:
4
'';orofemmvs-7-t.i viAA,
Street
$3,708,000
23.9%
2010 PROPOSED
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
2009 2010 2009 EsT.
2008 AMENDED 2009 BUDGET VS,
ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED FORECAST 2010 BUDGET
General $7,437,787 $7,726,000 $8,007,000 $8,523,000 6.4%
Parks & Recreation 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,623,500 1,788,500 10.2%
Street & Traffic 4,220,202 4,314,000 4,209,000 3,708,000 (11.9%)
SUB-TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 13,457,989 13,840,000 13,839,500 14,019,500 1.3%
Fire Pension 1,551,730 1,532,765 1,532,765 1,502,765 (2.0%)
TOTAL $15,009,719 $15,372,765 $15,372,265 $15,522,265 1.0%
The City has compiled data from the State Auditor's Office that identifies per capita prop-
erty tax for comparable cities throughout the State. The following chart compares the
City's per capita property tax income for 2008. It shows the City of Yakima's property tax
per capita is $163, which is $89 less than the average of all the comparable cities. Yakima
ranks third lowest in tax per capita of the 12 comparable cities.
•
2008 PER CAPITA PROPERTY TAXES (1)
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$450
Yakirna's per capita property tax is $163, which is $89 less $362 $ 371
$400
than the average city per capita of $252
$350 $298 4 trtt.1,4
$300 $272 OPLELLIO
$242 1 .1,t;g:Vt' 12; f
';!7•;•'..' •
$250 $215 '.
$180 4.:s4
$200 $163 : Lt-Atta-i c :E1
$147 4. t
rz," ; . 0.41teZ":'
$150 "16 '
1 Y
S IC° , z ' Kev;- rNo
$50 - tipa fp$•
4 .VA l'YM: 11R brAl k:04 1?,04
Pasco Kennewick Yakima Auburn Bellingham Bellevue Richland Kirkland Kent Everett Redmond Renton
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative Statistics.
_ _
- ATTACHMENT #3
•PROPERTY TAX AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FUND REVENUE
2010 BUDGET YEAR
10 a am iimyr •
a ::,01.
= Al.:6ri
% 111 ME ME 11.111
"ak 5 11111 1.111"1111e
60% ii am
MIIMMII till
3
1
, 4.
5°% I IIII Mill kk 1111. .
40%
Il Illr NW
- '
10% in fo Mill e k.s t mir. No r ,,,
20% "JI, ,,a1•7,
A no
. VtA NM eMiii-A0111111,0AM
General Parks Streets Fire Pension
Fund:
0 % Property Tax 0 % Other Revenue
. .
•
ATTACHMENT #4
The largest revenue source for the General Government Funds is sales tax. Yakima is in the
lower half of per capita sales tax compared with similar cities in the State. However, Yakima
is also in the lower 1/3 of rankings in all other revenue comparisons per capita and is the
third lowest out of the twelve cities compared in combined per capita revenue. Yakima's
$1,239 per capita taxes is $698 below the average of $1,937 based on 2008 actual data, as dem-
onstrated in the chart below. The most important conclusion from this analysis is that the
City of Yakima has a very limited revenue/tax base compared with most cities of its size in
the state, and yet provides similar or enhanced services and programs to its citizens.
2008 PER CAPITA TOTAL REVENUES (I)
COMPARABLE CITIES BETWEEN 45,000 AND 120,000 IN POPULATION
(rounded to the closest dollar)
$3,500-
$2,997
Yakima's per capita total revenue is $1,239, which is $698 $2,835 4a,---.0
$3,000- less than the average city per capita of $1,937 lig
$2,477 it 10;!
$2,530-
W, p4
44
$1955 $1,959 $2,055 „ stili , , V,,i.',4 4 Cj
739 r"mstlr. •
, 447,77, 14:4 tt' trh '
$2,000- -----"' ,1 ' 1 ' 0,2'1 .., .; _'.:L5!
m. , ...:,-...1 w ,
•.., .---4, , k- ry pfl 114„
1 ng r trz: ,, ' , V , ' , '" Iti ' 40 •;.4 ! tirti‘ s 1; , 1•11 . tc:: .:'
$1,500 - $ 1 , 072 .- ' i. Vt • :,',W ' 0 :9.4?' . :!'''', ,4% '',fr..0 ‘,,',4
69
,..-- ', .$'`t . ef,,S1 ' . 1 . WI
$1 0a ; i..r.t ji,f;.-.4
$7 ,, ,,,„ 1 ,,,, r , , ,,,,,k‘iiei:-.A.: :kW< tfo.rw fit:A / ,,'A',51 I
' ' - *%
' ti . ial
$500 : elt :' , 3;;I'Al : triA,.;;, 44' ,-;. f.'?,';11
as: -..,At ) : ri , I Op _ - 1,N1 . , :ct t'..,14 --- .:-.. ,-..,
-, :: p. .__..,::......,—...f.—' .
Kennewick Pasco Yakima Auburn Bellingham Renton Kirkland Kent Everett Bellevue Richland Redmond
(1) Data compiled from the State Auditor's Local Government Comparative, Statistics. Includes state and
federal grants, taxes and charges for services, and excludes debt proceeds.
ATTACHMENT #5
PROPERTY TAXES
The total property taxes paid by property owners within the City of Yakima include taxes
levied by several governmental entities: the State, School Districts, Special County-wide
voted levies and the City's general and special voter approved levies. The percentage of
the total property taxes levied by, and allocated to, each individual governmental entity
will change slightly from year to year. The City's portion is generally under 30% of the to-
tal amount collected. (Refer to the graph and chart below for how the 2009 property taxes
were allocated between these governmental entities.)
2009 PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION
Yakima School District City of Yakima Library
.38 25 .04
1 I I
invprArE ,..-,, ' - --K 1 ; .'- - : ::6-'
v ..
. ' :',‘," ' , ' , ' '',:VT ,'1 .• .:---,. ' ..c.:.^. F;Fi,:■!: "i ,:..•': t ':!\ ,' ,,--,,
.. ''''• , .-" , -'9 I '. .. .'cf4 g212i565':1 'N,:=,,I, 'W\...,-, •-• -...:-., -
, ,.:],:, 1 ,-r , : .
,` :-',..› ::-.;':.:::-i;,:: .:':,,-7.; ,:; f.'.. \ '.t Z ' ; \,,,-; ';I;; 4 4 , .', 41 4rAll
•,; , ,., t. 1 II i ,,T.`,-, -*.4,44$ .,/,.(:. - 74,A1,1- iv....is ,a't ,-:. .4 yt R vi .. p
4 :. ,,,,,.: - ,,,, 4 .4,,.,40s:.11 1.•, ..-;
:4,..,:.:_.,17: ,:c.,,, -,2:,:t i:1 ,,,,.,;...: A 1 t; '.P:' _ i. , ,,...?, 5 f.1; . 2
,-,': 4. ,: ,....:'
„.,„,....
, =.::: - - ., - :::,,, 4 i;74, :=,:,:Y-: 4 : i::: : , , ,„',.:' :■j,, 1 i ' .
L 4 56 ..,,,A..,0 --;i--:§\\ '':': 11. '- ::';-:::A;f:',4
.--.,....,1
E - ,,: ;1)00,LAIIr
, .7411 _. , :,. , 9 Am.s. , ml.: 21) KVA 0 i.{ ' ''...:1" ."'" '" i
I I I
State of Washington Schools Yakima County EMS
.17 14 .02
CITY OF YAKIMA PROPERTY TAX — In 2009, a typical City resident pays approximately $11.75 per
thousand of assessed value on - property taxes, Only $3.01, of about 25.7% goes to the City,
with the balance divided between the County, schools, and other special districts.
DESCRIPTION OF How PROPERTY TAXES ARE LEVIED — The following explanation is included to help the
reader understand how property taxes are assessed to the individual property owners. To
aid in this explanation, three commonly used terms must be understood. They are Prop-
erty Tax Levy, Property Tax Rate and Assessed Value.
Property Tax Levy - is the total amount of money that is authorized to be collected.
Property Tax Rate - is the property tax amount that will be applied to every $1,000 of
assessed value; the rate is determined by simply dividing the levy amount by the total
assessed value amount and dividing that number by 1,000.
Assessed Value - is the total value, as determined by the County Assessor's Office, of all
property within the City.