HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 2018-02-21 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Finance Committee
O De'Sean Quinn, Chair
O Dennis Robertson
O Kate Kruller
AGENDA
Distribution:
D. Quinn
D. Robertson
K. Kruller
V. Seal
Mayor Ekberg
D. Cline
C. O'Flaherty
L. Humphrey
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2018 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(At east entrance of City Hall)
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Update on priority -based budgeting.
a. Forward to 2/26 C.O.W. for
Pg.1
Mia Navarro, Community Engagement Manager; and
consensus.
Vicky Carken, Deputy Finance Director
b. Financial definitions.
b. Information only.
Pg.9
Vicky Carken, Deputy Finance Director
c. Financing the Public Safety Plan.
c. Information only.
Pg.17
Rachel Bianchi, Communicatons and Government Relations
Manager
d. Potential sale of City properties.
d. Forward to 2/26 C.O.W.
Pg.53
Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
and 3/5 Regular Mtg.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, March 6, 2018
SThe City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206-433-1800(TukwilaCityClerk(aTukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
TO:
CC:
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Finance Council Committee
Mayor Ekberg
FROM: Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
BY: Vicky Carlsen, Deputy Finance Director
DATE: February 14, 2018
SUBJECT: Update on Progress in Implementing Priority -Based Budgeting and Next
Steps Regarding Community Outreach and Engagement (Updated from
September 6, 2017 meeting)
ISSUE
As part of the City's 2017 work plan, staff reviewed the current budget process and recommended
enhancements to the 2019-2020 process by adopting Priority -Based Budgeting. Priority -Based
Budgeting will allow the City to meet its current biennial priority of "Ensuring organizational
effectiveness and responsible fiscal stewardship," while also directly aligning with the Strategic
Plan goal of maintaining "A high performing and effective organization."
BACKGROUND
A City budget serves several functions. The central goal of the budget process is to help Council
make informed decisions about what services should be funded, and how to promote stakeholder
participation in the process. A good budget process:
• Incorporates a long-term perspective,
• Establishes links to broad organizational goals,
• Focuses budget decisions on results and outcomes,
• Involves and promotes effective communication with all stakeholders, and
• Provides incentives to management and staff.
Based on GFOA's "Best Budgeting" practices, a budget is a policy document, a communications
device, a financial plan, and an operations guide. The City receives the GFOA budget award
every two years for this document, representing the City's ongoing commitment to conforming to
these guidelines. To keep current with these best practices, it is important for the City's budget
process to evolve over time. In planning for the next biennium, staff and Council reviewed the
various budgeting methods available and chose to move forward with Priority -Based Budgeting.
Priority -Based Budaetina
Priority -Based Budgeting helps us answer the following five questions:
1. What are we in business to do? These are the high-level and over -arching reasons the
City exists in the eyes of our community.
2. What exactly do we do? This is a comprehensive listing of all programs offered by the
City along with the associated costs and staff count.
3. How do we prioritize programs? Programs are scored against established attributes to
determine degree of relevance. Attributes could include the following:
a. Level of mandate to provide program
b. Reliance on City to provide program
c. Cost recovery of program
1
2
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
d. Change in demand for program
e. Size of population served
f. Community support for program
4. How do we know if we are successful? Performance measures can be used to determine
if we are going in the right direction.
5. How do we ask better questions that lead to better decisions about what we do and why
we do it? Resources can be allocated based on the prioritization of programs.
The following elements of Priority -Based Budgeting can be utilized to help answer these
questions:
• Community Involvement - In order to determine the answer to 'what are we in business to
do?, it is imperative to get community members involved in the budgeting process. Public
participation can help government be more accountable and responsive and can improve
the perception of the value the public receives from government. The Government Finance
Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that governments incorporate public
participation efforts in planning, budgeting, and performance management results
processes. Although the City has consistently provided opportunities for public input
through public hearings and budget workshops, there are always ways to improve
accessibility.
• Program Budgeting - Program budgeting answers the question 'what exactly do we do?'.
Program -based budgeting is a tool where all budgetary information is organized around
the City's programs and services, instead of by department and division. The result is a
budget that shows costs of the program, revenues generated by the program, and how
the program ties to citywide goals.
Departments and divisions typically include several individual programs. Budgeting by
programs increases transparency and accountability within departments by breaking
down budgets into smaller, easy to understand units. Programs are also easier to manage
and help hold staff accountable.
Rather than incrementally increasing or decreasing the budget each cycle, program
budgeting requires that the entire budget is reviewed during each budget process. When
economic downturns force difficult budget decisions, it's easier to trim the budget when
you know how programs stack up against the priorities of the City. Conversely, when new
revenue sources are identified, policy can ensure that the additional revenue sources are
applied to priorities.
• Prioritizing Programs and Aligning Programs to Strategic Goals and priorities - This next
step in the process helps answer the questions, 'how do we prioritize programs? and 'how
do we ask better questions that lead to better decisions about what we do and why we do
it?'. Once programs are identified and budgets are allocated to programs, each program
is then evaluated against established attributes. These attributes can include whether the
program is mandated, or how much of the population is served by the program. The higher
the program scores on the rating scale for each attribute, the higher the priority to the City
and the community. Once the programs are scored, then each program is linked to
strategic goals and priorities to demonstrate how much the City invests in each.
• Performance Measures - Measuring performance provides a quantifiable way to recognize
successes and identify areas needing improvement, and allows policy makers, managers,
and residents to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of government services. In other
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Finance\2.21.18\Info Memo - PBB Update 02.13.2018.docx
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
words, it answers the question 'how do we know if we are successful?' Performance
measures quantitatively evaluate the return from resources spent on programs and
services. Generating information about program results and outcomes and should be an
integral part of any budget process. Performance measure data can bring rationality to
planning and budget discussions by demonstrating how the use of resources over time
have met strategic goals.
Benefits of Priority -Based Budgeting
By implementing Priority -Based Budgeting, the City can move toward a more transparent budget
process with increased stakeholder participation.
Priority -based budgeting provides a comprehensive review of the entire City. Resources can be
reallocated to make positive change without laying off staff and without making significant
changes to programs and services the City offers. Staff time is reallocated from low priority
programs to high priority program staffing needs before additional staffing is considered.
Center for Priority -Based Budaetina
The Center for Priority -Based Budgeting is a leader in assisting organizations in implementing
priority -based budgeting. The Center provides technical and advisory services and will tailor the
scope of work to meet our specific needs. Due to the staff time necessary to lay the groundwork
ensure a successful implementation we contract with the Center for specific services including
informing the full Council on the benefits of priority -based budgeting, assisting departments in
identifying programs, and improving community involvement in the budget process. Cost for
services come from existing budget.
Timeline
Since these enhancements are long-term in nature, this transition will stretch over multiple budget
cycles. The 2019-2020 Budget Process will have elements of our current budget process and
Priority -Based Budgeting. We anticipate full implementation of Priority -Based Budgeting for the
2021-2022.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this memo is to update Council on progress to date in implementing Priority -Based
Budgeting, and the next steps in implementation, particularly regarding community outreach and
engagement.
Proaress to Date
In October the City officially partnered with the Center for Priority -Based Budgeting to assist with
the implementation of Priority -Based Budgeting. The Center is under contract through the end of
June, at which time, the City should have completed the following steps:
• Identifying programs
• Allocating 2017 and 2018 budgets to programs
• Develop attributes in which to score programs
• Score programs and group them in tiers
Through the end of January, most departments have completed identifying programs for the
general fund and capital project funds. Enterprise fund programs will be identified in the upcoming
weeks.
Departments have begun allocating 2017 and 2018 budgets to programs with the goal of all
budgets allocated to programs by mid-March. Also, during March, attributes to score programs
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Finance\2.21.18\Info Memo - PBB Update 02.13.2018.docx 3
4
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
will be drafted with the intent of completing the scoring step by the end of April. Scoring in April
will apply to the 2017-2018 budget using the existing strategic goals.
Once these steps have been completed, the backbone for priority -based budgeting will be in
place, and utilized, for drafting the 2019-2020 budget.
Next Steps
In order to score programs against the City's strategic goals for the 2019-2020 budget, it is
important to take the strategic plan back to the community to make sure it still reflects the
community's priorities. In 2012, the City underwent an extensive community process to develop
a strategic plan. (htto://www.tukwilawa.aov/departments/mayors-office/city-publications/) The
2012 Plan identifies five goals:
1. A Community of Inviting Neighborhoods and Vibrant Business Districts
2. A Solid Foundation for All Tukwila Residents
3. A Diverse and Regionally Competitive Economy
4. A High -Performing and Effective Organization
5. A Positive Community Identity and Image
The City's Community Engagement Manager, Mia Navarro, is developing an outreach plan to
check back with the community and with staff on the strategic goals and objectives, and present
recommended changes to Council and City leadership. The outreach plan includes the following
elements (more detail can be found in the attachment to this memo).
• At least one community workshop (Tentatively scheduled for 4/21/2018)
• A video in multiple languages introducing Priority -Based Budgeting and outlining the
strategic plan for both the community and employees
• A survey in multiple languages for both the community and employees that asks:
o What do you like about the plan? /What is important to you?
o What would you change about the plan? /What's missing?
• Internal meetings, presentations, and workshops
• Presentations at existing community meetings (Road Show)
• Promotion on our print and digital media outlets, and partner media outlets such as the
Tukwila School District
• Outreach to businesses
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend forwarding this discussion to the Committee of the Whole on February 26, 2018
to get full Council feedback and consensus on the proposed process for seeking community
feedback on the strategic plan and updating the strategic plan.
ATTACHMENTS
City of Tukwila Strategic Plan and Priority Based Budgeting DRAFT Outreach and Engagement
Plan
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Finance12.21.181Info Memo - PBB Update 02.13.2018.docx
OVERVIEW
City of Tukwila Strategic Plan and Priority Based Budgeting
DRAFT Outreach and Engagement Plan
The City of Tukwila is moving to a Priority Based Budgeting system, wherein we budget for programs and
priorities, rather than by line items. Part of this process is to score programs against the City's priorities.
In 2012, the City developed a strategic plan with a lot of community input. The City wants to make sure
those goals and priorities are still accurate before scoring City programs against those goals and
priorities.
PURPOSE gt GOALS
The purpose and goals of the in-person and online activities are to:
• Introduce Priority Based Budgeting
o Concept
o Timeline for Implementation
• Review 2012 Strategic Plan
• Get feedback from the community on the strategic plan:
o What do you like? What's important to you?
o What is missing? What would you change?
AUDIENCES
• All Tukwila residents, including voters and non -voters, residents familiar with the project and
those who are not
• Community organizations
• Tukwila businesses and their employees
• City of Tukwila employees and volunteers
• Tukwila City Council
DRAFT Page 1 of 4
5
City of Tukwila Priority Based Budgeting and Strategic Plan
DRAFT Outreach and Engagement Plan
ACTIVITIES
MEETING
TARGET AUDIENCE
DATE / TIME
VENUE
VENUE CONTACT
ACTIVITY
TARGET AUDIENCE
DATE / TIME
VENUE
VENUE CONTACT
ACTIVITY
TARGET AUDIENCE
DATE / TIME
VENUE
VENUE CONTACT
ACTIVITY
TARGET AUDIENCE
DATE/TIME
VENUE
VENUE CONTACT
In -Person Workshop
School District, students, families, residents, and businesses
Saturday, April 21, 10 am to 12 pm
Foster High School or Sullivan Center. Food, child care, and
translation/interpretation will be available.
(TBD)
Online Feedback — Video and Survey and multiple languages
All
24/7 March -April
Online
N/A
Roadshow
All
March -April
In -Person
(TBD)
Internal Engagement
City Staff
Feb/March/April
Department Meetings (Intro)
Mayor's Brown Bag
Break Room feedback
Workshop(s)
BD)
Last updated: February 13, 2018 Page 2 of 4
6
City of Tukwila Priority Based Budgeting and Strategic Plan
DRAFT Outreach and Engagement Plan
EVENT AND SURVEY PROMOTION
Big picture:
• Beginning six weeks before the in-person workshop—save-the-date notices will start about six
weeks in advance of the in-person workshop.
• Beginning four weeks before the in-person workshop—targeted, thorough notifications will
provide reminders about the in-person and online opportunities for feedback.
• Follow-up post event—This is perhaps the most critical part of this and any outreach and
engagement project. We will identify report back points throughout the year after the survey
and workshop to tell the community and employees, including but not limited to:
o How the information will be/is being used
o How/if Council and City leadership decided to change the strategic plan
o Budget process timeline and hearings
The workshop, survey, and follow-up messaging will be promoted via:
o Postcard (mailing)
o Social Media Posts (Facebook, Twitter)
o City of Tukwila project website
o Email
o Posters/Flyers/Kid mail
o Press Release
o Hazelnut
o E -Hazelnut
o High School Youth
o Community Connectors
o TukTV
o Tukwila Reporter
o Internal
o Yammer
o Email
o Postcard
Last updated: February 13, 2018 Page 3 of 4
7
City of Tukwila Priority Based Budgeting and Strategic Plan
DRAFT Outreach and Engagement Plan
ROAD SHOW LIST
PTA and other school groups
City of Tukwila Boards and Commissions
Foster High School Civics and Leadership Classes, Bulldog Academy
Friends of the Hill(?)
Rainbow Haven and Orchard Park Communities
Refugee women's Alliance
Duwamish and Southcenter Rotary Clubs
Tukwila Pool
TI BAC
Tukwila School District Providers Network
Tukwila Houses of Worship
Neighborhood Groups
Ethiopian Center of Seattle
Community Connectors
Last updated: February 13, 2018 Page 4 of 4
8
City of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance Committee
CC: Mayor Ekberg
FROM: Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
BY: Vicky Carlsen, Deputy Finance Director
DATE: February 6, 2018
SUBJECT: Financial Definitions
Issue
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
At the January 17,2018 Finance Committee, staff was asked to provide definitions of terms regularly used
when discussing financial matters in the City.
Discussion
The following terms are used regularly during financial discussions.
Allocated Budget
The monthly budget for the current year is calculated by analyzing the spending pattern from the previous
year and applying the same spending pattern to the current year. For example, if 10% of the budget was
spent in January of the previous year, then it would be assumed that 10% of the current year budget would
be spend in January of the current year.
Annual Budget
The annual budget is the original adopted budget plus any amendments adopted by Council.
Prorated Budget
The budget for the current year is simply divided by 12 and assumes that each month 12% of the budget
would be spent.
Spend Patterns
How much a department or line item spends each month over the course of a year.
Variance
The difference between the allocated budget and actuals.
For additional information, the Glossary of Terms found at the back of the Biennial Budget document has
been included as an attachment.
Recommendation
For information only.
Attachments
Glossary of Terms — 2017-2018 Biennial Budget document.
9
10
2017 - 2018 Biennial Budget City of Tukwila, Washington
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ACCOUNT. A classification established for the purpose of recording revenues and expenditures.
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM. The methods and records established to identify, assemble, analyze, classify,
record and report a government's transactions and to maintain accountability for the related assets and
liabilities.
ACCRUAL BASIS. The recording of the financial effects on a government of transactions and other
events and circumstances that have cash consequences for the government in the periods in which those
transactions, events, and circumstances occur, rather than only in the periods in which cash is received
or paid by the government.
ANNUAL BUDGET. A budget applicable to a single fiscal year.
APPROPRIATED BUDGET. The expenditure authority created by the appropriation bills or ordinances,
which are signed into law, and the related estimated revenues. The appropriated budget would include
all reserves, transfers, allocations, supplemental appropriations and other legally authorized legislative
and executive changes.
APPROPRIATION. A legal authorization granted by a legislative body to make expenditures and to incur
obligations for specific purposes. An appropriation usually is limited in amount and time it may be
expended.
ASSESSED VALUATION. A valuation set upon real estate or other property by a government as a basis
for levying taxes.
BALANCED BUDGET. A budget with revenues equal to expenditures. Total Revenues are equal to or
greater than Total Expenses.
BARS. Budgeting, Accounting & Reporting System. Refers to the accounting rules established by the
Washington State Auditor's Office, including a prescribed chart of accounts.
BASIS OF ACCOUNTING. A term used in reference to when revenues, expenditures, expenses and
transfers -and the related assets and liabilities -are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial
statements. Specifically, it relates to the timing of the measurements made, regardless of the nature of
the measurement, on either the accrual method for proprietary funds or modified accrual method for
governmental funds.
BENEFITS. Costs paid by the City on behalf of its employees. Examples include: medical and dental
insurance, retirement, deferred compensation, life insurance and worker's compensation.
BIENNIAL BUDGET. A budget applicable to a two-year period.
BUDGET. A plan of financial operation embodying an estimate of proposed expenditures for a given
period and the proposed means of financing them. Used without any modifier, the term usually indicates
a financial plan for a single fiscal year.
BUDGET AMENDMENT. The method used to make revisions to the adopted budget. Adjustments are
made through an ordinance approved by the City Council.
403
11
2017 - 2018 Biennial Budget City of Tukwila, Washington
BUDGET CALENDAR. The schedule of events that need to occur and the date or period of time for
each to occur in the preparation, review and adoption of a budget.
BUDGET DOCUMENT. The instrument used to present a comprehensive financial program to the
appropriating governing body. The budget document usually consists of three parts. The first part
contains a message from the budget -making authority, together with a summary of the proposed
expenditures and the means of financing them. The second consists of schedules supporting the
summary. These schedules show in detail the past years' actual revenues, expenditures and other data
used in making the estimates. The third part is composed of drafts of the appropriation, revenue and
borrowing measures necessary to put the budget into effect.
BUDGET MESSAGE. A general discussion of the proposed budget as presented in writing by the
budget -making authority to the legislative body. The budget message should contain an explanation of
the principal budget items, an outline of the government's actual financial experience during the past
period and its financial status at the time of the message, and recommendations regarding the financial
policy for the coming period.
BUDGETARY CONTROL. The control or management of a government or enterprise in accordance
with an approved budget to keep expenditures within the limitations of available appropriations and
available revenues.
CAPITAL ASSETS. Long term assets such as land, improvements to land, easements, buildings and
related improvements, vehicles, machinery and equipment, infrastructure, and all other tangible or
intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single
reporting period. See also Fixed Assets.
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES. Expenditures of current financial resources for constructing or purchasing
capital assets. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting these acquired assets appear as
expenditures in the fund statements, however under the current reporting model these acquired assets
are recognized as assets in the basic financial statements.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. A program for capital expenditures to be incurred each year
over a fixed period of years to meet capital needs arising from the long-term work program or other capital
needs. It sets forth each project or other contemplated expenditure in which the government is to have
a part and specifies the resources estimated to be available to finance the projected expenditures.
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND. A fund created to account for financial resources to be used for the
acquisition or construction of major capital facilities.
CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLD. Dollar value at which a government elects to capitalize tangible or
intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single
reporting period. The City's capitalization threshold is established at a cost of $5,000.00, or greater.
CONTINGENCY FUND. An account set aside for emergencies or other unanticipated needs not
otherwise included as part of the budget.
DEBT. An obligation resulting from the borrowing of money or from the purchase of goods and services.
Debts of governments include bonds, time warrants and notes.
DEBT SERVICE FUND. A fund established to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the
payment of, general long-term debt principal and interest.
404
12
2017 - 2018 Biennial Budget City of Tukwila, Washington
DELINQUENT TAXES. Taxes remaining unpaid on and after the date to which a penalty for nonpayment
is attached. Even though the penalty may be subsequently waived and a portion of the taxes may be
abated or canceled, the unpaid balances continue to be delinquent taxes until abated, canceled, paid or
converted into tax liens.
EXPENDITURES. Decreases in net financial resources. Expenditures include current operating
expenses requiring the present or future use of net current assets, debt service and capital outlays, and
intergovernmental grants, entitlement and shared revenues.
FISCAL YEAR. A 12 -month period to which the annual operating budget applies and at the end of which
a government determines its financial position and the results of its operations.
FIXED ASSETS. Long-lived tangible assets obtained or controlled as a result of past transactions, events
or circumstances. Fixed assets include buildings, equipment, improvements other than buildings and
land. See also Capital Assets.
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE). An employment indicator that translates the total number of hours
worked in a year by all employees, including part-time workers, to an equivalent number of work years.
For example, one FTE equals 2,080 hours and .75 FTE equals 1,560 hours.
FUND. A fiscal and accounting entity with a self -balancing set of accounts in which cash and other
financial resources, and related liabilities and residual equities, or balances, and changes therein, are
recorded and segregated to carry on specific activities or attain certain objectives in accordance with
special regulations, restrictions or limitations.
FUND BALANCE. The difference between assets and liabilities reported in a governmental fund. Fund
balances are either designated to a particular purpose or undesignated as to the remaining un-
appropriated balance of the fund after accounting for the designated funds.
GENERAL FUND. The fund used to account for all financial resources, except those required to be
accounted for in another fund.
GENERAL LONG TERM DEBT. Long term debt expected to be repaid from governmental funds.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Bonds that are secured by the local government's full faith and
credit to use legally available resources, including tax revenues to repay bond holders.
GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP). Uniform minimum standards and
guidelines for financial accounting and reporting. The primary authoritative body on the application of
GAAP to state and local governments is the Government Accounting Standards Board.
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS. Funds generally used to account for tax supported activities. There are
five different types of governmental funds, of which the city uses four of these. The general fund, is the
main operating fund of the city. The special revenue funds, are used to account for proceeds from specific
sources to be used for legally restricted purposes, but normally not for major capital projects. The debt
service funds, which are for the accumulation of resources to pay principle and interest on the City's
general long term debt. The capital project funds, which are used for the acquisition or construction of
major capital facilities.
LEGAL LEVEL OF BUDGETARY CONTROL. The level at which spending in excess of budgeted
405
13
2017 - 2018 Biennial Budget City of Tukwila, Washington
amounts would be a violation of law. The legal level of budgetary control is at the fund level.
LEVEL OF BUDGETARY CONTROL. One of the three possible levels of budgetary control and authority
to which organizations, programs, activities and functions may be subject. These levels of budgetary
control are (a) appropriated budget, (b) legally authorized non -appropriated budget process or (c) non -
budgeted financial activities, which are not subject to the appropriated budget and the appropriation
process or to any legally authorized non -appropriated budget review and approval process, but still are
relevant for sound financial management and oversight.
LEVY. (1) (Verb) To impose taxes, special assessments or service charges for the support of
government activities. (2) (Noun) The total amount of taxes, special assessments or service charges
imposed by a government.
MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS. The basis of accounting associated with the governmental fund -type
measurement focus. Under it, revenues and other financial resources are recognized when they become
susceptible to accrual, that is when they become both "measurable" and "available" to finance
expenditures of the current period. Expenditures are recognized when the fund liability is incurred except
for inventories of materials and supplies that may be considered expenditures either when purchased or
when used. All governmental funds, expendable trust funds and agency funds are accounted for using
the modified accrual basis of accounting.
OBJECT DESCRIPTION. The classification of expenditures on the basis of categories called line -items
or objects -of -expenditure (e.g., 10 -Salaries & Wages, 20 -Personnel Benefits, 40 -Other Services &
Charges, 60 -Capital Outlay, etc.) and within each category more detailed line -items (e.g., salaries, travel,
telephone expense, etc.).
OPERATING BUDGET. Plans of current expenditures and the proposed means of financing them. The
annual operating budget is the primary means by which most of the financing, acquisition, spending and
service delivery activities of a government are controlled. The use of annual operating budgets is usually
required by law. Even when not required by law, however, annual operating budgets are essential to
sound financial management and should be adopted by every government.
OPERATING TRANSFERS. All interfund transfers other than residual equity transfers (e.g., legally
authorized transfers from a fund receiving revenue to the fund through which the resources are to be
expended).
PROGRAM BUDGET. A budget wherein expenditures are based primarily on programs of work and
secondarily on character and object class.
PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES. Sometimes referred to as income determination or commercial -type
funds, the classification used to account for a government's ongoing organizations and activities that are
similar to those often found in the private sector. The GAAP used are generally those applicable to similar
businesses in the private sector and the measurement focus is on determination of net income, financial
position and changes in financial position.
REVENUES. (1) Increases in the net current assets of a governmental fund type from other than
expenditure refunds and residual equity transfers. Also, general long-term debt proceeds and operating
transfers in are classified as "other financing sources" rather than as revenues. (2) Increases in the net
total assets of a proprietary fund type from other than expense refunds, capital contributions and residual
406
14
2017 - 2018 Biennial Budget City of Tukwila, Washington
equity transfers. Also, operating transfers in are classified separately from revenues.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. A compulsory levy made against certain properties to defray all or part of
the cost of a specific capital improvement or service deemed to benefit primarily those properties.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND. A fund used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources (other
than expendable trusts or major capital projects) that are legally restricted to expenditure for specified
purposes. GAAP only require the use of special revenue funds when legally mandated.
TAXES. Compulsory charges levied by a government to finance services performed for the common
benefit. This term does not include specific charges made against particular persons or property for
current or permanent benefits, such as special assessments. Neither does the term include charges for
services rendered only to those paying such charges (e.g., sewer service charges).
TAX LEVY ORDINANCE. An ordinance through which taxes are levied.
TAX RATE. The amount of tax stated in terms of a unit of the tax base (e.g., specified amount per $1,000
of assessed valuation of taxable property).
TAX RATE LIMIT. The maximum rate at which a government may levy a tax. The limit may apply to
taxes raised for a particular purpose or to taxes imposed for all purposes, and may apply to a single
government or to a class of governments operating in a particular area. Overall tax -rate limits usually
restrict levies for all purposes and of all governments, state and local, having jurisdiction in a given area.
407
15
16
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Rachel Bianchi
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: February 12, 2018
SUBJECT: Financing the Public Safety Plan (Updated from February 6 Meeting)
NOTE: Because this topic is building on previous Committee meetings, the original
memo has been updated in underline font below. This intent is to continue to preserve
the information from one meeting to the next given that each discussion will build upon
the previous.
ISSUE
Due to market conditions and cost escalation, the City has a significant gap in the Public Safety
Plan budget. The Finance Committee has been tasked with reviewing options and identifying
potential recommendations for the full Council to consider later this spring. The Justice Center
will also finish Schematic Design this spring and will provide for better understanding of the
costs associated with that project. Merging these timelines will provide the necessary
information for the City Council to provide direction on the next steps on the Public Safety Plan.
BACKGROUND
Process:
Due to the gravity and complexity of this issue, staff worked with the Committee Chair to identify
the following schedule for covering the various information associated with tackling the funding
gap:
February 6, 2018 Finance Committee:
• Project costs as known
• Overview of voter -approved bonds
• Debt capacity and term
• Fire Impact Fees
• Land sales and other one-time funds
• REET 1
February 21, 2018 Finance Committee:
• New revenue options
March 6, 2018 Finance Committee:
• General fund and operations
• CIP prioritization
March 20, 2018 Finance Committee:
• Review project schedule
Staff proposes that the Committee review the information presented and provide direction to
staff at each meeting as to which options are of interest to the council. Staff will then use the
intervening time to build an iterative financial model that can be reviewed and added to at
subsequent meetings. For instance, if the Committee is interested in dedicating land sales to
filling the gap, this would be a tool we would build into the model and bring back to show you the
17
18
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
implications as to how that tool — along with others agreed to by the committee — would work
together to fill the gap. By the end of this process, the goal is to have a collaboratively built
model to inform the full Council and any final decisions.
Staff has provided its recommendations after each tool to inform the Council of its position.
Project costs as known:
Before we discuss tools for filling the gap, it is important that everyone has the same
understanding of the current known project costs.
Below are the current budget estimates for the Public Safety Plan projects. Fire Station 51 has
completed the schematic design phase, allowing for more certainty on the estimates associated
with the fire stations. However, the estimate for the Justice Center is carrying many significant
costs, such as budget allotted for site preparation and the Public Works facility estimate is the
most extreme, assuming none of the buildings on the current site could be reused. The Justice
Center will be done with Schematic Design in May and at that point there will be more certainty
on the budget estimate. The Public Works facility will not hit that stage until toward the end of
this year.
Public Safety Plan Project Cost Estimates as of January, 2018 (in millions)
Project
Initial Budget
Updated
Gap
Fire Station 51
$11,446
$12,509
$1,063
Fire Station 52
$5,657
$17,652
$11,9951
Fire Station 53
$7,329
$14,753
$7,424
Justice Center
$28,629
$68,536
$39,907
Public Works Facility
$29,493
$63,270
$33,777
Total Gap for Projects
$94,166
Utility Fund Gap Obligation for PW
($16,888)
Total Unfunded Gap
$77,278
The cash flow spreadsheet for the projects, on the current schedule, is attached.
Voter -Approved Bonds:
The voters approved a $77.4 million bond measure in November 2016. In December 2016,
$36.7 million, of these bonds were issued. Based on the cash flow analysis provided by SOJ in
December 2017, the remainder of the bond authorization, or $40.6 million, will be needed in
2018 and 2019 to fund property purchases and construction costs. The recommendation is to
issue the bonds in the fall of 2018 so the debt service can be included with the 2019 property
tax assessments.
Debt Capacity and LTGO Bonding:
In order to address the Public Safety Plan funding gap, it is likely that the City would need to
issue additional bonds, this time councilmanic ones.
1 The headquarters station was moved from Fire Station 51 to Fire Station 52
during the siting phase, technically flipping the budgets for Stations 51 and
52, hence the relatively small gap for 51 and huge one for 52.
W:12018 Info Memos\FinancingPSPlan2-21-18.doc
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
State law limits the amount of debt the City can carry. For councilmanic/limited tax general
obligation (LTGO) debt, the City is limited to 1.5% of taxable assessed valuation. Total debt
(including voted and non -voted debt) is limited to 2.5% of assessed valuation. As of December
31, 2017, the City had capacity for an additional $59 million in councilmanic debt. This number
will increase as assessed valuation goes up and existing debt is paid off, providing the City
additional capacity in the out years.
Bonds are normally issued for a 20 -year term. However, debt payments can be spread over the
useful life of the underlying asset. In the case of structures such as the Justice Center and the
Fire Stations, the debt payback period could be increased to 30 years since the life of the
structures will be 30 or more years. A longer payback period translates into lower annual debt
service payments, albeit over a longer period of time.
Staff recommendation: Use LTGO bonds to cover the Public Safety Plan gap in a manner that
allows for some cushion in the event of an economic downturn; leverage the fact that some
existing debt drops off in 2020 and 2024 freeing up additional capacity to pay back the bonds.
Fire Impact Fees:
Fire impact fees are charged on residential and commercial development to pay for the impact
of growth on fire facilities. Fire impact fees, on average, have yielded $120K over the past 9
years, excluding the $500K fire impact fee deposit received in 2017 through the Tukwila South
Development Agreement. The City has not increased its fire impacts fees in more than a
decade, and there is additional capacity in these fees to support the new fire stations. The
update of the fire and park impact fees is scheduled to be presented to the Finance Committee
in March, 2018. Should the Council adopt the new impact fees, staff estimates that they would
generate between $200,000 and $400,000 per year that could be used to pay off LTGO bonds.
An additional $1.5 million in fire impact fees exist today that will be dedicated to the fire station
projects.
Staff recommendation: Dedicate current and future Fire Impact Fees to the Fire Stations.
Land Sales and other one-time funds:
The City owns a variety of land that could be sold with the proceeds being dedicated to the
Public Safety Plan. Staff estimates there is approximately $15 million in proceeds that could be
available to fill the gap. Potential land sales include:
• Newporter site
• Tukwila Village Phases 1, 2 and 3
• Longacres site
• Old Fire Station 53 site
• Current Fire Station 51
• Current Fire Station 52
• Current Fire Station 54
• George Long Shops
• Minkler Shops
Additionally, the City currently has $3 million in the 301 fund for parks acquisition from REET 1.
The Council recently gave the authority for REET 1 to be used for the Public Safety Plan and
this funding could be dedicated to the public safety plan in a one-time manner similar to the land
sales.
W:12018 Info Memos\FinancingPSPlan2-21-18.doc
19
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
Staff recommendation: Dedicate land sales identified above and the $3 million in the 301 fund
to the Public Safety Plan.
Ongoing REET 1:
The City also has the opportunity to dedicate REET 1 funding to the Public Safety Plan moving
forward. Given historical REET 1 accruals, staff believes that approximately $500,000 per year
could be dedicated to the Public Safety Plan gap.
Staff recommendation: Dedicate ongoing REET 1 to the Public Safety Plan; funds above
$500,000 per year would go to parks acquisition.
Outcome of February 6, 2018 Finance Committee
After the February 6, 2018 Finance Committee, staff used the discussion to begin building the
iterative model discussed on page one of this memo. There are two different versions of the
model attached, one that shows 20 -year councilmanic bonds and one that uses a 30 -year span.
Both include the full cost of debt service and annual payment necessary to repay the bonds.
Also included in this phase of the model are identified land sales and one-time funds available
to dedicate to the Public Safety Plan, as well as ongoing REET 1.
The new revenue options on the attachment are meant to be potential tools for Council to
deliberate as it considers how to repay councilmanic bonds, should the Council choose to move
forward with those tools. However, it is not the recommendation of staff that the entire bonds be
paid back with new revenues, nor that each of these revenues should be used. As identified in
the schedule above, the Committee will also be reviewing operational changes that could occur
to find existing funds to dedicate to the Public Safety Plan projects. Additionally, the Committee
will review the project's existing schedule to determine whether there should be some deviation.
New Revenue Options
Attached is a spreadsheet of new revenue options available to Council to make decisions
regarding the Public Safety Plan funding gap. Staff recognizes that some options may not be
palatable to the Council but has provided them in order to give a complete picture of the funding
tools available. Where possible, we have provided context for neighboring jurisdictions' rates
and specific information on amount available, mechanisms and types. Staff will discuss each
option with the Committee in detail at the February 21, 2018 Finance Committee meeting.
Outstanding Questions from the February 6, 2018 Finance Committee
The Committee asked for the following information and/or clarification to assist in making
decisions on filling the Public Safety Plan gap:
• Provide the debt chart that Vicky Carlsen has previously shared in order to get a better
understanding of the long-term implications of existing and any future councilmanic
debt. See attached.
• Provide information of what the implications are of 20 -year vs. 30 -year councilmanic
bonds. See two attached versions of the model.
•Report by year on what has been paid to the City for Fire Impact fees since they were
implemented. See attached document.
20 W:12018 Info Memos\FinancingPSPlan2-21-18.doc
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 5
•Provide an estimate of what the Public Safety Plan would pay in impact fees. Because the
City is in the middle of updating its impact fees, we cannot calculate this information at
this time. Staff will do this once impact fees are updated, scheduled in the first quarter
of 2018.
• Indicate whether an automatic escalator can be included in the impact fees update coming
before Council shortly. An escalator has been included in the impact fees legislation
coming before Council.
• Provide information on Parks' REET 1 expenditures. In 2018, Parks intends to spend
REET 1 funds on the following:
o Second Dog Park
o TCC Lobby Improvements
o Trail Repairs
o Fort Dent Overlay
o TCC Seismic Evaluation
•What is the recommendation for when the Committee brings the full recommendations to
Council? Staff recommends that the Finance Committee initiates the meeting with the
full Council in early May so that there are multiple opportunities to have this discussion
and deliberations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking committee interest in the various tools presented today. At the next Committee
meeting there will be a full discussion of the various potential new revenue tools the Committee
may want to employ to fill the funding gap. Subsequent to that meeting, the Committee will also
discuss any potential general fund obligations that could be used for the gap. This direction will
allow staff to build a model based on the Council's priorities and Administration
recommendations. Finally, a discussion on the project schedule and potential cost implications
of accelerating/delaying projects, can be placed into the model to understand the cash flow and
facility ramifications.
ATTACHMENT
Public Safety Plan Cash Flow
DRAFT Iterative Model, 20 -year version
DRAFT Iterative Model, 30 -year version
New Revenue Matrix
Adopted Debt Chart
Adopted Debt Chart Graph
Existing Debt Chart
Existing Debt Chart Graph
Fire Impact Fees Revenues
W:12018 Info Memos\FinancingPSPlan2-21-18.doc
21
22
Updated February 6, 2018
City of Tukwila - Facilities Plan
Conceptual Cash Flow Plan
YOE $ (in thousands)
based on Budget updates through January 30,2018
Justice Center
2016 2017
2018 2019 2020 2021
01 Q2 Q3 Q4 01 Q2 Q3 Q4 01 Q2 Q3 Q4 01 Q2
Category
Construction Costs
Site Acquistion
Soft Costs
YOE$ (x$1K)
$35,555 OK
$14,269 OK
$17,090 OK
TOTAL $66,913
$ -
$ 36
$ 449
$ - $ -
$ 1,346 $12,387
$ 854 $ 854
$ - $ -
$ 400 $ 100
854 $ 1,196 $ 1,709
$ 4,267 $ 6,044 $ 7,822
$ - $ - $ -
$ 1,709 $ 1,709 $ 1,709
$ 8,178 $ 6,400 $ 2,844 $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 1,709 $ 1,709 $ 1,709 $ 833
$ 85
$ 485
$ 2,201 $ 13,241 $ 854 $ 1,596 $ 1,809 $ 5,976 $ 7,753 $ 9,531
$ 9,887 $ 8,109 $ 4,553 $ 833
$ - $
Fire Station 51
2016
2017
01
2016
2017
Q1
2018
Q4
Q1
2019
Q4
Q1
2020
Q4
2021
Q2 Q3
Q2 Q3
Q2 Q3
Q1 Q2
Q2
Category
Category YOE$ (x$1K)
YOE$ (x$1K)
Construction Costs
$8,005
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ 80
$ 1,201
$ 1,601 $ 2,001
$ 1,761
$ 1,121
$ 240 $ -
$ -
$ - $
Site Acquistion
$ 4,735
$0
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ - $ -
Soft Costs
$ -
$4,503
OK
$ 23
$ 185
$ 180
$ 225 $ 360
$ 540
$ 540
$ 540 $ 540
$ 540
$ 450
$ 378 $ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ 777
TOTAL
$12,508
$ 777
$ 23
$ 185
$ 180
$ 225 $ 360
$ 620
$ 1,741
$ 2,141 $ 2,542
$ 2,302
$ 1,571
$ 618 $ -
$ -
$ - $ -
Fire Station 52
$ 812
$ 846
$ 812
$16,893
$ 777
$ 777
2018
$ 2,502
$ 6,290
2019
$ 7,868
$ 7,868
2020
$ 4,014
2021
- assume
2016
2017
2019
2020
2021
2016
2017
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1 Q2
Category
Q1
YOE$ (x$1K)
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Category YOE$ (x$1K)
Construction Costs
$11,297
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ 226
$ 2,824
$ 3,389 $ 2,824
$ 1,469
$ 565 $
Site Acquistion
Construction Costs
$0
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ - $ -
Soft Costs
$ 3,824
$6,355
OK
$ 32
$ 238
$ 127
$ 127 $ 318
$ 318
$ 508
$ 508 $ 635
$ 635
$ 635
$ 635 $ 635
$ 635
$ 366 $ -
$ -
TOTAL
$17,652
$ -
$ 32
$ 238
$ 127
$ 127 $ 318
$ 318
$ 508
$ 508 $ 635
$ 861
$ 3,460
$ 4,024 $ 3,460
$ 2,104
$ 931 $ -
Fire Station 54
$ 471
$ 565
$ 942
$ 942
$ 942
$ 942
2018
$ 631
$ 408
2019
$44,817
2020
$ 303
2021
$ 540
$ 505
$16,587
$ 471
2016
2017
$ 2,854
$ 3,810
$ 3,810
$ 4,766
$ 4,766
$ 2,543
$ 2,321
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4
Q1 Q2
Category
YOE$ (x$1K)
Construction Costs
$8,896
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ 178
$ 2,224
$ 2,669 $ 2,224
$ 1,156
$ 445 $
Site Acquistion
$854
OK
$ -
$ 0
$ 854
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ -
$ - $ -
$ -
$ - $ -
Soft Costs
$5,004
OK
$ 25
$ 98
$ 100
$ 100 $ 250
$ 250
$ 400
$ 400 $ 500
$ 500
$ 500
$ 500 $ 500
$ 500
$ 378 $ -
TOTAL
$14,753
$ 25
$ 99
$ 954
$ 100 $ 250
$ 250
$ 400
$ 400 $ 500
$ 678
$ 2,724
$ 3,168 $ 2,724
$ 1,657
$ 822 $ -
City Shops (PW5 Site - w/Surface Parking)
2016
2017
01
2018
Q4
01
2019
Q4
Q1
2020
Q4
2021
Q2
Q3
Q2
Q3
Q2
Q3
Q1
Q2
Category YOE$ (x$1K)
Construction Costs
$31,568
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 947
$ 4,735
$ 4,735
$ 6,314
$ 6,314
$ 5,367
$ 3,157
Site Acquistion
$16,277
OK
$ -
$ 24
$ 34
$ 69
$ 34
$16,116
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Soft Costs
$15,548
OK
$ -
$ 279
$ 777
$ 777
$ 777
$ 777
$ 777
$ 777
$ 933
$ 1,555
$ 1,555
$ 1,554
$ 1,555
$ 1,555
$ 1,042
$ 857
TOTAL
$63,393
$ -
$ 303
$ 812
$ 846
$ 812
$16,893
$ 777
$ 777
$ 933
$ 2,502
$ 6,290
$ 6,289
$ 7,868
$ 7,868
$ 6,408
$ 4,014
City Shops (PW5 Site - w/Surface Parking
- assume
2018
2019
2020
2021
2016
2017
reuse of existing building)
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
Category YOE$ (x$1K)
Construction Costs
$19,122
OK
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,912
$ 2,868
$ 2,868
$ 3,824
$ 3,824
$ 1,912
$ 1,912
Site Acquistion
$16,277
OK
$ -
$ 24
$ 34
$ 69
$ 34
$ 16,116
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Soft Costs
$9,418
OK
$ -
$ 279
$ 471
$ 471
$ 471
$ 471
$ 471
$ 471
$ 565
$ 942
$ 942
$ 942
$ 942
$ 942
$ 631
$ 408
TOTAL
$44,817
$ -
$ 303
$ 505
$ 540
$ 505
$16,587
$ 471
$ 471
$ 565
$ 2,854
$ 3,810
$ 3,810
$ 4,766
$ 4,766
$ 2,543
$ 2,321
RANGE OF PROJECT COSTS (LOW -HIGH)
2016 2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 43 Q4 Q1 Q2
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
LOW
HIGH
YOE$ (x$1K)
$156,644 OK
$175,220 OK
$ 165
$ 165
$ 1,310
$ 1,310
$ 3,967 $ 14,233 $ 2,288 $ 19,372
$ 4,273 $ 14,539 $ 2,594 $ 19,678
$ 4,930 $ 9,497 $11,996 $16,226
$ 5,236 $ 9,803 $12,364 $ 15,874
$ 21,452 $ 19,729 $15,504 $ 9,360
$ 23,932 $ 22,208 $18,606 $ 12,462
$ 4,296 $ 2,321
$ 8,161 $ 4,014
N
-P
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 20 Year LTGO Amortization
N
01
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy
1 of 2
B
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
1
TOTAL
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
8
Revenues:
I
I
I
I
I
9
UTGO bond proceeds, Voted
77,385,000
36,709,954
40,675,046
°
10
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
86,000,000
I
20,000,000
66,000,000
I
I
I
I
I
11
Fire Impact fees & deposit - Segale
4,750,000
I
500,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 I
300,000
300,000 I
300,000
300,000 I
300,000
300,000 I
300,000
300,000 I
350,000
12
Fire Impact fees - other
10,917,000
I
1,017,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 i
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
13
F301, Lnd & Prk Acq contribution
3,000,000
I
3,000,000
14
Property/land sales
15,038,000
5,038,000 !
3,000,000
2,000,000
5,000,000 I
I
I
I
I
15
REET 1
16,500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000 `
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
17
Investment earnings
727,560
9,562
277,998
200,000
100,000
100,000
40,000
°
19
Additional capacity from maturing,
existing debt
64,270,000
810,000
810,000
810,000
810,000
1,360,000
1,910,000
1,910,000 I
1,910,000
1,910,000 ;
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
23
Revenue Total
278,587,560
36,719,516
1,794,998
70,013,046
1,200,000
71,010,000
3,950,000
6,910,000 ;
1,910,000
2,460,000 ;
3,010,000
3,010,000 °
3,010,000
3,010,000
3,010,000
3,010,000 °
3,060,000
2,710,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
I
I
°
I
I
I
25
Project Expenditures
I-
I
I
I
I
26
Justice Center
68,536,343
123,833
398,261
21,581,872
30,155,657
16,276,721
-
27
FS 51
12,509,000
59,853 I
222,146
1,982,035 I
8,429,736
1,815,230 I
-
I
I
I
I
I
28
FS 52
17,652,000
8,256
158,993
1,000,590
3,551,391
12,698,348
234,422
-
I-
I
I
I
I
29
FS 54
14,753,000
132,413
1,950,103
2,728,590
9,765,775
176,119
30
Apparatus & equip
29,371,751
14,447
420,921
1,629,428
2,589,580
362,385
1,333,578
1,672,191 I
507,480
2,597,023 I
384,755
271,667 I
806,277
2,709,784 I
3,512,566
518,538 I
1,597,411
2,865,957
31
Shops
63,270,566
-
265,858
19,386,684
7,199,389
28,316,967
8,101,668
-
I
I
i
35
Project Expenditures Total
206,092,659
206,389
1,598,591
47,530,712
54,654,343
69,235,425
9,845,787
1,672,191
507,480
2,597,023 °
384,755
271,667 °
806,277
2,709,784 °
3,512,566
518,538
1,597,411
2,865,957
37
Debt Service
interest only I
interest only
interest only
interest only
full DS
38
Debt service LTGO
129,786,474
800,000
800,000
3,440,000
3,440,000
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960 '
6,929,960
6,929,960 I
6,929,960
6,929,960
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(48,500,000)
(400,000)
(400,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,300,000)
(2,600,000) i
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)A
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)i1i
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
40
GF Debt Service Total
81,286,474
-
-
400,000
400,000
2,140,000 '
2,140,000
4,329,960 ;
4,329,960
4,329,960 '
4,329,960
4,329,960 '
4,329,960
4,329,960 `
4,329,960
4,329,960
4,329,960
4,329,960
41
Expense Total
287,379,133
206,389
1,598,591
47,930,712
55,054,343
71,375,425
11,985,787
6,002,150 `
4,837,440
6,926,982
4,714,715
4,601,627
5,136,237
7,039,744
7,842,525
4,848,497
5,927,371
7,195,916
1
42
I
o
I
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
(8,791,573)
36,513,127
196,407
22,082,334 I
(53,854,343)
(365,425)1
(8,035,787)
907,850 I
(2,927,440)
(4,466,982)1
(1,704,715)
(1,591,627)1
(2,126,237)
(4,029,744)i
(4,832,525)
(1,838,497)1
(2,867,371)
(4,485,916)
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
-
-
36,513,127
36,709,534.
58,791,868
4,937,525 '
4,572,099
(3,463,687):
(2,555,838)
(5,483,278):
(9,950,260)
(11,654,975)1
(13,246,602)
(15,372,839)1
(19,402,583)
(24,235,108):
(26,073,605)
(28,940,976)
1
i
I
I
i
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
(8,791,573)
36,513,127
36,709,534
58,791,868
4,937,525
4,572,099
(3,463,687)
(2,555,838);
(5,483,278)
(9,950,260);
(11,654,975)
(13,246,602);
(15,372,839)
(19,402,583);
(24,235,108)
(26,073,605);
(28,940,976)
(33,426,892)
N
01
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy
1 of 2
N
0)
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 20 Year LTGO Amortization
N
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy 2 of 2
B
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
Al
AJ
AK
AL
AM
1
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
8
Revenues:
I
I
i
9
UTGO bond proceeds, Voted
10
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
I
I
I
I
11
Fire Impact fees & deposit - Segale
I
I
I
12
Fire Impact fees - other
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
13
F301, Lnd & Prk Acq contribution
14
Property/land sales
I
I
I
I
15
REET 1
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000 i
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
17
Investment earnings
Additional capacity from maturing,
I
I
I
19
existing debt
1,910,000
1,910,000
2,170,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
23
Revenue Total
2,710,000
2,710,000
2,970,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
I
I
I
I
25
Project Expenditures
I
I
I
I
26
Justice Center
27
FS 51
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
28
FS 52
I
I
I
I
29
FS 54
30
Apparatus & equip
888,681
3,667,573 I
243,009
609,751
168,749
- I
-
-
-
- I
-
-
-
- I
-
-
-
-
31
Shops
!
I
I
35
Project Expenditures Total
888,681
3,667,573 :
243,009
609,751
168,749
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
Debt Service
I
I
I
I
38
Debt service LTGO
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
5,213,560 I
5,213,560
-
I
I
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)P
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(1,750,000)1
(1,750,000)
-
-
I
I
40
GF Debt Service Total
4,329,960
4,329,960 ,
4,329,960
4,329,960
4,329,960
3,463,560
3,463,560
I
I
I
41
Expense Total
5,218,640
7,997,533
4,572,969
4,939,711
4,498,709
3,463,560
3,463,560
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
42
I
i
I
i
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall) (2,508,640)
(5,287,533)1
(1,602,969)
(1,579,711)1
(1,138,709)
(103,560)1
(103,560)
3,360,000 1
3,360,000
3,360,000 1
3,360,000
3,360,000 i
3,360,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000 i
3,360,000
3,360,000
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
(33,426,892)
(35,935,533):
(41,223,066)
(42,826,034):
(44,405,745)
(45,544,454):
(45,648,013)
(45,751,573):
(42,391,573)
(39,031,573)
(35,671,573)
(32,311,573)
(28,951,573)
(25,591,573):
(22,231,573)
(18,871,573):
(15,511,573)
(12,151,573)
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
(35,935,533)
(41,223,066);
(42,826,034)
(44,405,745)
(45,544,454)
(45,648,013);
(45,751,573)
(42,391,573);
(39,031,573)
(35,671,573);
(32,311,573)
(28,951,573)
(25,591,573)
(22,231,573);
(18,871,573)
(15,511,573);
(12,151,573)
(8,791,573)
N
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy 2 of 2
28
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TO CLOSE THE GAP
Line Item Descriptions and Comments
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy
29
2/15/2018 12:32 PM
A B
C
1
Line Item
Description
8
Revenues:
UTGO bond proceeds, Voted
Bond measure passed in November 2016 for $77,385,000. Based on need, assumes the remainder of the voted
debt is issued in 2018.
9
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
2018 $20,000,000 issuance was approved by Council in 2017; 2020 issuance is within debt capacity if City's
assessed valuation grows by 4.5% from 2018 to 2020 and the bonds are issued at a premium (premium does not
count towards debt capacity). The assumed interest rate is 4%. No debt issuance costs have been included in the
analysis.
10
Fire Impact fees & deposit - Segale
The Tukwila South development agreement provides for $1,750,000 in a non refundable deposit and $3,000,000 in
advance payment of Tukwila South generated impact fees.
11
Fire Impact fees - other
Represents fire impact fees earned on development other than in the Tukwila South area. The annual average fee
shown in the model assumes an increase in the fee per unit of development and an increase in development. The
annual average fee collected over the 9 year period since inception is $120,000.
12
F301, Lnd & Prk Acq contribution
This fund contains over $3,000,000 of accumulated REET 1 revenue that can be transferred and devoted to the
PSP.
13
Property/land sales
See the detailed list of properties and estimated proceeds.
14
REET 1
In 2017, the City Council resolved to dedicate REET 1 revenue to the Pubic Safety Plan. The annual average REET
collection is based on average actual collections over the past 10 years of $494,000.
15
17
Investment earnings
Investment earnings for 2016 and 2017 are actuals; the remaining years are estimates.
19
Additional capacity from maturing,
existing debt
Beginning in 2021, certain existing debt issuances will be paid off. The funds required to pay the annual debt
service on these debt issuances are now available for other uses.
23
Revenue Total
Total revenue for each year and for the 35 year period diplayed in the model.
Project Expenditures
Project expenditures for the facilities match with the February 6, 2018 information presented to Council.
25
Apparatus & equip
Expenditures are from the most recently updated apparatus and equipment schedule.
30
Project Expenditures Total
Total estimated project expenditures, including Fire apparatus and equipment, as of February 6, 2018.
35
Debt Service
Debt service on the LTGO debt issued. Assumes a 20 year pay back period, a 4% per annum interest rate, interest
only payments during construction, and 50% of debt service paid by the utility funds as rent for the portion of the
facility used for these activities.
37
Debt service LTGO
Pay back of amount borrowed plus interest. See the debt service worksheet for break down of principal and
interest.
38
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
Assumes utilities will pay a facility lease in an amount equal to 50% of the debt service.
39
41
Expense Total
Project expenditures plus General Fund portion of debt service
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
Revenue less expenditures for each year.
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
Carryover from prior year.
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
Beginning cash balance, or carryover from prior, year plus annual activity [revenue less expenditures].
52
53
Key to Highlighted Cells on Financing Plan Recap
54
Revenue
55
Project expense
56
Debt service expense
57
Total expense
58
Funding Gap, Cash Surplus or (Shortfall)
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy
29
2/15/2018 12:32 PM
30
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization
1
B
D
TOTAL
E
2016
F
2017
G
2018
H
2019
I
2020
J
2021
K
2022
L
2023
M
2024
N
2025
0
2026
P
2027
Q
2028
R
2029
S
2030
T
2031
U
2032
8
Revenues:
I
I
I
I
I
9
UTGO bond proceeds, Voted
77,385,000
36,709,954 I
40,675,046
I
I
1
I
I
10
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
86,000,000
I
20,000,000
66,000,000
I
I
I
I
I
11
Fire Impact fees & deposit - Segale
4,750,000
I
500,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 1
300,000
300,000
350,000
12
Fire Impact fees - other
10,917,000
I
1,017,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000
13
F301, Lnd & Prk Acq contribution
3,000,000
1
3,000,000 !
I
I
I
I
I
14
Property/land sales
15,038,000
1
5,038,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
5,000,000 I
I
I
I
I
15
REET 1
16,500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
17
Investment earnings
727,560
9,562
277,998
200,000
100,000
100,000
40,000
I
I
I
I
I
Additional capacity from maturing,
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
19
existing debt
64,270,000
810,000
810,000
810,000
810,000
1,360,000 ;
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000 :
1,910,000
1,910,000
23
Revenue Total
278,587,560
36,719,516 I
1,794,998
70,013,046 I
1,200,000
71,010,000 I
3,950,000
6,910,000 I
1,910,000
2,460,000 I
3,010,000
3,010,000 I
3,010,000
3,010,000 I
3,010,000
3,010,000 I
3,060,000
2,710,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
I
I
I
I
I
25
Project Expenditures
26
Justice Center
68,536,343
123,833 I
398,261
21,581,872 I
30,155,657
16,276,721 I
-
I
-
- I
I
I
I
27
FS 51
12,509,000
59,853
222,146
1,982,035
8,429,736
1,815,230
I
I
I
I
I
28
FS 52
17,652,000
8,256
158,993
1,000,590
3,551,391
12,698,348
234,422
-
-
29
FS 54
14,753,000
132,413
1,950,103 I
2,728,590
9,765,775 I
176,119
I
I
I
I
I
30
Apparatus & equip
29,371,751
14,447
420,921
1,629,428
2,589,580
362,385
1,333,578
1,672,191
507,480
2,597,023
384,755
271,667
806,277
2,709,784
3,512,566
518,538
1,597,411
2,865,957
31
Shops
63,270,566
-
265,858
19,386,684
7,199,389
28,316,967
8,101,668
-
35
Project Expenditures Total
206,092,659
206,389
1,598,591
47,530,712
54,654,343
69,235,425
9,845,787
1,672,191 I
507,480
2,597,023 I
384,755
271,667 I
806,277
2,709,784 I
3,512,566
518,538 I
1,597,411
2,865,957
37
Debt Service
interest only
interest only
interest only
interest only
full DS I
I
I
I
I
38
Debt service LTGO
151,919,016
800,000
800,000
3,440,000
3,440,000
5,212,204 ;
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 :
5,212,204
5,212,204 °
5,212,204
5,212,204 :
5,212,204
5,212,204
I
I
I
I
I
I
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(56,700,000)
I
(400,000);
(400,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,950,000)1
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)1
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)1
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)1
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
40
GF Debt Service Total
95,219,016
-
-
400,000
400,000
2,140,000
2,140,000
3,262,204 ;
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 °
3,262,204
3,262,204 °
3,262,204
3,262,204 ;
3,262,204
3,262,204
41
Expense Total
301,311,675
206,389
1,598,591
47,930,712
55,054,343
71,375,425
11,985,787
4,934,395
3,769,684
5,859,227
3,646,959
3,533,871
4,068,481
5,971,988
6,774,769
3,780,742 :
4,859,615
6,128,161
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
42
I
I
I
I
I
1
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
(22,724,115)
36,513,127
196,407
22,082,334 1
(53,854,343)
(365,425)
(8,035,787)
1,975,605 1
(1,859,684)
(3,399,227)1
(636,959)
(523,871)1
(1,058,481)
(2,961,988)1
(3,764,769)
(770,742)1
(1,799,615)
(3,418,161)
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
-
-
36,513,127
36,709,534 ;
58,791,868
4,937,525
4,572,099
(3,463,687);
(1,488,082)
(3,347,766);
(6,746,993)
(7,383,952);
(7,907,823)
(8,966,305);
(11,928,293)
(15,693,063);
(16,463,804)
(18,263,419)
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
(22,724,115)
36,513,127:
36,709,534
58,791,868:
4,937,525
4,572,099:
(3,463,687)
(1,488,082):
(3,347,766)
(6,746,993):
(7,383,952)
(7,907,823):
(8,966,305)
(11,928,293):
(15,693,063)
(16,463,804):
(18,263,419)
(21,681,580)
GJ
2/15/2018
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
1 of 2
W
N
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization
(A)
W
2/15/2018
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B 2 of 2
B
V
W
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
Al
AJ
AK
AL
AM
1
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
8
Revenues:
I
I
I
I
I
9
UTGO bond proceeds, Voted
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
11
Fire Impact fees & deposit - Segale
12
Fire Impact fees - other
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 ;
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
13
F301, Lnd & Prk Acq contribution
I
I
14
Property/land sales
I
I
I
I
15
REET 1
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000 ;
500,000
500,000 ;
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
17
Investment earnings
I
I
I
I
I
Additional capacity from maturing,
I
I
I
I
19
existing debt
1,910,000
1,910,000 °
2,170,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000 °
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000 ;
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000 °
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
23
Revenue Total
2,710,000
2,710,000 I
2,970,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000 i
3,360,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000 I
3,360,000
3,360,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
I
I
I
I
25
Project Expenditures
26
Justice Center
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
27
FS 51
I
I
I
I
28
FS 52
29
FS 54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
Apparatus & equip
888,681
3,667,573
243,009
609,751
168,749
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I-
I
I
31
Shops
35
Project Expenditures Total
888,681
3,667,573 I
243,009
609,751
168,749
- I
-
-
-
- I
-
-
-
- I
-
-
-
-
37
Debt Service
I
I
I
I
38
Debt service LTGO
5,212,204
5,212,204 °
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 ;
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 °
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 °
5,212,204
3,960,856
3,960,856
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)1
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)1
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,300,000)
-
40
GF Debt Service Total
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 °
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 ;
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 °
3,262,204
2,660,856
2,660,856
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
41
Expense Total
4,150,885
6,929,777 ;
3,505,213
3,871,955
3,430,953
3,262,204 ;
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 ;
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 °
3,262,204
2,660,856
2,660,856
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
42
I
I
I
I
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall) (1,440,885)
(4,219,777)
(535,213)
(511,955)
(70,953)
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
97,796
699,144
699,144
3,360,000
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
(21,681,580)
(23,122,465);
(27,342,242)
(27,877,455);
(28,389,410)
(28,460,363);
(28,362,567)
(28,264,771);
(28,166,975)
(28,069,179);
(27,971,383)
(27,873,586);
(27,775,790)
(27,677,994);
(27,580,198)
(27,482,402);
(26,783,259)
(26,084,115)
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
(23,122,465)
(27,342,242):
(27,877,455)
(28,389,410)I
(28,460,363)
(28,362,567):
(28,264,771)
(28,166,975):
(28,069,179)
(27,971,383):
(27,873,586)
(27,775,790)I
(27,677,994)
(27,580,198):
(27,482,402)
(26,783,259):
(26,084,115)
(22,724,115)
(A)
W
2/15/2018
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B 2 of 2
34
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TO CLOSE THE GAP
Line Item Descriptions and Comments
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
35
2/15/2018 12:36 PM
A B
C
1
Line Item
Description
8
Revenues:
UTGO bond proceeds, Voted
Bond measure passed in November 2016 for $77,385,000. Based on need, assumes the remainder of the voted
debt is issued in 2018.
9
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
2018 $20,000,000 issuance was approved by Council in 2017; 2020 issuance is within debt capacity if City's
assessed valuation grows by 4.5% from 2018 to 2020 and the bonds are issued at a premium (premium does not
count towards debt capacity). The assumed interest rate is 4%. No debt issuance costs have been included in the
analysis.
10
Fire Impact fees & deposit - Segale
The Tukwila South development agreement provides for $1,750,000 in a non refundable deposit and $3,000,000 in
advance payment of Tukwila South generated impact fees.
11
Fire Impact fees - other
Represents fire impact fees earned on development other than in the Tukwila South area. The annual average fee
shown in the model assumes an increase in the fee per unit of development and an increase in development. The
annual average fee collected over the 9 year period since inception is $120,000.
12
F301, Lnd & Prk Acq contribution
This fund contains over $3,000,000 of accumulated REET 1 revenue that can be transferred and devoted to the
PSP.
13
Property/land sales
See the detailed list of properties and estimated proceeds.
14
REET 1
In 2017, the City Council resolved to dedicate REET 1 revenue to the Pubic Safety Plan. The annual average REET
collection is based on average actual collections over the past 10 years of $494,000.
15
17
Investment earnings
Investment earnings for 2016 and 2017 are actuals; the remaining years are estimates.
19
Additional capacity from maturing,
existing debt
Beginning in 2021, certain existing debt issuances will be paid off. The funds required to pay the annual debt
service on these debt issuances are now available for other uses.
23
Revenue Total
Total revenue for each year and for the 35 year period diplayed in the model.
Project Expenditures
Project expenditures for the facilities match with the February 6, 2018 information presented to Council.
25
Apparatus & equip
Expenditures are from the most recently updated apparatus and equipment schedule.
30
Project Expenditures Total
Total estimated project expenditures, including Fire apparatus and equipment, as of February 6, 2018.
35
Debt Service
Debt service on the LTGO debt issued. Assumes a 30 year pay back period, a 4% per annum interest rate, interest
only payments during construction, and 50% of debt service paid by the utility funds as rent for the portion of the
facility used for these activities.
37
Debt service LTGO
Pay back of amount borrowed plus interest. See the debt service worksheet for break down of principal and
interest.
38
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
Assumes utilities will pay a facility lease in an amount equal to 50% of the debt service on the Public Works facility.
39
41
Expense Total
Project expenditures plus General Fund portion of debt service
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
Revenue less expenditures for each year.
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
Carryover from prior year.
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
Beginning cash balance, or carryover from prior, year plus annual activity [revenue less expenditures].
52
53
Key to Highlighted Cells on Financing Plan Recap
54
Revenue
55
Project expense
56
Debt service expense
57
Total expense
58
Funding Gap, Cash Surplus or (Shortfall)
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
35
2/15/2018 12:36 PM
36
February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 1
Revenue Amount
V hide . Avaiiabte
hanisr�a. Type and Estimated
payee Average Crs.
RtVENUE OPTI NS ABOVE $50
and Rates
estrictions
0
Levy Lid Lift
2 Voter
Approved
Bond
3 B&O Tax
$6,100,000
$25 million
(after
remaining
voted debt
issued, if
issued in
2018)
$4,000,000
annually
Voter
approved @
50%
Property tax
— property
owners
Levy lid lift to
the cap would
add $299 in
annual
property taxes
for a $300,000
home.
Voter Property tax Bonding to
approved @ — property the cap would
60% plus owners add $409 in
validation annual
property taxes
for a $300,000
home.
Councilmanic Tax on gross Unable to
receipts — calculate
businesses because cost
dependent on
a businesses'
gross receipts.
• Auburn current rate is 2.03239
• Bellevue current rate is 1.02655
• Burien current rate is 1.23516
• Federal Way current rate is 1.06161
• Kent current rate is 1.62704
• Renton rate is 1.15364
• Seattle rate is 2.36209
• SeaTac rate is 2.75273
Note: as of 2/12/18 no information available as to what cities have lid lifts in
place.
• Kent attempted general obligation bonds to fund a criminal justice and
training facility for $34M which failed in 2014.
• Seattle's rate of 2.62352 also includes a general obligation bond increase of
0.13040 that funds libraries (voter approved in August of 2012) and the
waterfront seawall (voter approved in November of 2012). This rate may
include other bonds.
• Bellevue levies 0.001496 on all four sectors
• Burien levies 0.001 on all four sectors
• Kent levies 0.00046 on manufacturing and retail and 0.00152 services and
wholesale
• Renton levies 0.00085 on manufacturing, services and retail with a rate of
0.0005 on retail. Threshold is $500,000 per year.
• Seattle levies 0.00222 on manufacturing, retail and wholesale and 0.00427
on services. All are above the 0.002 councilmanic due to voter approval
Restriction lies
in ballot title
and cannot
exceed
maximum
rate.
Restriction lies
in ballot title
and cannot
exceed a
percentage of
total AV in the
City.
.2% available
to cities.
Could exceed
.2% if voter
approved
Tukwila's current
regular levy rate is
$2.46285 per
1,000; the cap is
$3.45818. Excess
levy rate for voted
debt is $0.45579
for a total levy rate
of $2.91864
Bonds largely used
for capital projects.
B&O tax can be
sized to exempt
small businesses
via an employee or
gross receipts
threshold. Can
also be targeted
for specific
industries and vary
by industry type.
4 Transportation $3,900,000. Voter Sales tax — Dependent on • Seattle 0.001 sales tax approved by voters 11/14 dedicated to increased Must be .2% sales tax
Benefit District annually approved @ largely out of purchases. Metro service in the city. dedicated for available to cities.
50% town visitors transportation
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011 present. If a city is not listed, then the issue does not apply.
5 Transportation
Benefit District
Car Tab
$ 500,000 Councilmanic Car tab — car
owners and
fleets
February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 2
$20 per
vehicle if
councilmanic;
up to $100 per
vehicle if full
capacity
allowed by
voters
•
Seattle: $20 car tab; additional $60 fee approved by voters 11/14,
dedicated to increased Metro service in the city.
Burien $10 car tab; $30 fee failed at ballot
Des Moines $40 car tab
-related
projects.
Must be
dedicated for
transportation
-related
projects.
No longer required
to create a
separate TBD
entity; form is just
another fund
within the existing
city government
$20 car tab
available
councilmanic, up to
$100 if approved
by a public vote at
50%.
Jurisdictions with a
$20 car tab can to
go to $40
councilmanicly if
the fee was in
place for two years.
Two years later,
the jurisdiction can
go to $60
councilmanicly.
Tukwila remains
constrained to the
$20.
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011- present. If a city is not listed, then the issue does not apply.
7 local
Improvement
District
Depends
on project
Councilmanic
and petition
February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 3
Assessment — Cost
properties completely list.
around the dependent on
specific project and
project number of
property
owners
Many cities utilize LIDs for a wide variety of projects. Would not be feasible to
Dedicated to Could be used for a
the specific LID variety of capital
project. infrastructure
projects if nearby
property owners
are supportive.
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011 - present. If a city is not listed, then the issue does not apply.
8 Reexamining
existing taxes
and fees
Unknown
Councilmanic Varies
February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 4
Varies
• Auburn:
o Admissions tax: 5%
• Bellevue:
o Admissions tax: 3%
• Burien:
o Admissions tax: 5%
o Parking tax: $3.00 per parking transaction
• Kent:
o Admissions tax: 5%
• Renton:
o Business Licenses: Beginning in 2018, the business license fee is a flat $150
per business
• SeaTac:
o Parking tax: $3.09 per parking transaction. Beginning in 2018, the flat fee of
$3.00 is adjusted for inflation.
• Seattle:
o Admissions tax: 5%
o Commercial parking tax: 12.5%
o No RGRL but square footage tax
No restrictions
with the
exception of
Impact Fees
which must be
dedicated to
what they are
for — i.e. fire,
traffic, parks.
Includes:
• Admissions
tax
• Parking tax
• RGRL
• Fire, Traffic
and Park
Impact
fees
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011- present. If a city is not listed, then the issue does not apply.
Utility Tax -
external
enterprises
$600,000
per 1%
increase
Councilmanic
up to 6%;
Voter
approval
required to
exceed 6%
Utility tax -
gas, electric,
telephone,
cable, solid
waste
February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment - Page 5
Additional 1%
= approx. $30-
$50 per
household
depending on
usage and
consumption.
10 Utility Tax - $200,000 Councilmanic Utility tax - Additional 1%
internal per 1%,
enterprises
Water/sewer = Approx $20
60% of per household
Tukwila depending on
property consumption;
owners; commercial
surface based on
water 100% consumption
of Tukwila
parcels
Utility
Abn
Bvue
Burn
Kent
Rent
STac
Sea
Tuk
Electric.
6.0%
5.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
Natural
6.0%
5.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
Gas
Teleph.
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
Cable
6.0%
4.8%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
6.0%
10.0%
6.0%
Solid
7.0%
4.5%
6.0%
18.4%
6.8%
5.0%
14.2%
6.0%
Waste
Sewer
7.0%
5.0%
9.5%
6.0%
12.0%
10.0%
Water
7.0%
10.4%
13.0%
6.8%
15.54%
10.0%
Storm
7.0%
5.0%
19.5%
6.8%
6.0%
11.5%
10.0%
11 Utility Tax - $60,000 Councilmanic Utility tax - Cost Many cities charge utility taxes and/or have negotiated a franchise fee for
Water & sewer per 1% of everyone on dependent on utilities operating within their jurisdictional boundaries.
districts tax Tukwila whether
utilities extending tax
12 Utility
franchise fee
Negotiated Seattle City
Light
to non -City
utilities or
negotiating a
franchise fee.
The City is
currently at
6%. Must be
voter
approved to
go higher.
The City is
currently at
6%. Must be
voter
approved to
go higher.
Limit in RCW
35.21.870 of 6% is
on electricity,
telephone, natural
gas or steam
energy. No vote is
needed to raise the
rate above 6% for
other utilities such
as water, sewer,
stormwater and
cable television.
agencies serving
Tukwila residents.
The City is Opportunity to
currently at extend current
6%. Must be utility tax to other
voter agencies serving
approved to Tukwila residents.
go higher.
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011- present. If a city is not listed, then the issue does not apply.
42
2017 - 2018 Biennial Budget
City of Tukwila, Washington
This chart represents the general obligation debt service of the City. It includes debt being repaid with
general fund revenue as well as debt that is being repaid from other sources. The City receives funds
from the Tukwila Metropolitan Park District to repay the MPD capital loan, funds to repay the urban
renewal LOC (line of credit) are proceeds from land sales. Since 2015, SCORE bonds have been paid
directly by SCORE jail.
$7,000
R
o $6,000
L
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
City of Tukwila
General Obligation Bond Debt Service
5 y� y1 1b y� 'y0 't1 1'')' 1 1b 15 L(o A Lcb l� 1 1)1' 33 h 3d lib "?oi
0 '0 '1. 'y0 1. 'y0 '1. 'y0 `V 'ti0 ' . 'y0 'y0 'ti0 'y0 1. 'y0 '1. 'y0 1. 'ti0 ' . 'y0 'y0 'ti0
■ SCORE ■ SC Parkway Extension/HHD U Arterial Street, KC Bridge ■ City Hall Annex, Tukwila Village • Valley Corn
■ TCC, Fire Station #S3 ■ MPD Capital Loan ■ Urban Renewal Urban Renewal LOC ■ Interurban Ave S/BAR Bridge
91 New - 42nd/53rd New - PW Shops -Land New - PW Shops -Construction
PW Shops Debt: 1/2 paid by general fund, 1/2 paid by utility funds
261
43
44
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
Totals
SCHEDULE OF PRIOR, EXISTING, AND FUTURE ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM DEBT SERVICE
Section 1
Existing General Obligation Debt
Section 2
Future Anticipated General Obligation Debt
Section 3
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5
Column 6
Column 7
Column 8
Column 9
Column 10
Column 11
Column 12
Column 13
Column 14
Column 15
Column 16
Column 19
Column 17
Column 18
Column 19
Column 20
Fund 205
Fund 210
Fund 211
Fund 216
Fund 217
Total Existing
Fund 201
Special
Fund 207
Fund 208
Fund 209
LTGO
LTGO
Fund 212
Fund 214 LTGO
LTGO
LTGO
Fund 218
Fund 200
Fund 200New
Fund 200
Total F ''sting
New Debt-
New Debt -PW
Debt-
Total
and Future
LTGO Bonds
Assessment
LTGOBonds,
1999
LTGO
Bonds,
LTGO
Bonds,
Refunding.
Refunding,
LTGO Bonds,
2009
2010
Refunding,
Refunding,
LTGO, 2013
LTGO, 2014
LTGO, 2014
LOGObligation
LTGO, 2015
GO Debt
42nd/53rd
Shops (Land)
PW Shops
Construction
MDed
b
Future Debt
General
Bonds
,2
2003
2008
2010
2011
Debt
$6,000,000
$382,900
$10,000,000
$2,551,600
$6277,500
$4,195,000
$6,180,000
$1,065,000
$4,620,000
$1,000,000
$3,850,000
$5,825,000
$8,400,000
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
Original
$6,898,800
$5,870,000
Original
Original
Original
Original
$2,250,000
Original
Planned
86,150,000
$23,343,000
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue
Issue
Original issue
Original Issue
Issue
Issue
issue
Issue
Line of Credit
Issue
Issue
Planned Issue
Planned Issue
City Hall
Interurban
Streets /
South Park
TCC, Fire
Anne&
SC Parkway
Arterial
Urban
Urban
Avenue
Subtotal =
$672,000 per
$492.,000 per
$492,000 per
Subtotal=
Total =
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Br, Art. St.,
Golf Course
Station #53
TtAulkage ila
SCORE
Extension/HHD
Valley Com
Street, KC
Bridge
FPD Loan
Renewal
Renewal
SoSouth& BAR
Bridge
Columns l-15
year for 20
years
year for 20 years
year for 20
years
Columns l7-
18
Columns 16
and 19
512,385
26,875
834,343
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,373,603
-
-
-
-
1,373,603,
516,100
-
833,623
245,882
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,595,604
-
-
-
-
1,595,604-
513,973
-
834,223
250,595
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,598,790
-
-
-
-
1,598,790`
516,173
-
834,148
250,963
49,871
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,651,155
-
-
-
-
1,651,155
-
-
832,873
250,067
272,026
489,676
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,844,642
-
-
-
-
1,844,642
-
-
830,535
250,812
272,026
489,900
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,273
-
-
-
-
1,843,273
-
-
832,105
250,877
272,026
486,900
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,841,908
-
-
-
-
1,841,908
-
-
832,305
250,839
272,026
488,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,670
-
-
-
-
1,843,670
-
-
831,305
250,479
272,026
489,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,310
-
-
-
-
1,843,310
-
-
488,948
190,104
533,323
489,900
324,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,027,075
-
-
-
-
2,027,075
-
-
-
193,200
585,949
489,700
816,000
-
199,222
230,186
-
-
-
-
-
2,514,257
-
-
-
-
2,514,257
-
-
-
-
584,881
488,900
815,400
-
586,225
171,790
-
-
-
-
-
2,647,196
-
-
-
-
2,647,196
-
-
-
-
718,375
487,500
809,000
91,791
584,425
232,910
166,964
-
-
-
-
3,090,965
-
-
-
-
3,090,965'
-
-
-
-
3,379,788
490,500
737,000
430,157
584,075
204,880
167,975
113,130
-
-
-
6,107,504
-
-
-
-
6,107,504
-
-
-
-
-
488,250
812,000
429,815
583,425
229,280
547,675
113,130
-
-
-
3,203,574
-
-
-
-
3,203,574.
-
-
-
-
-
-
811,300
432,885
585,650
228,800
545,825
113,130
249,404
18,118
102,107
2,985,111
-
-
-
-
2,985,111
-
-
-
-
-
-
811,100
427,960
585,450
-
548,675
113,130
260,918
22,000
392,575
3,091,340
-
-
-
3,091,340..
-
-
-
-
-
-
809,900
427,461
581,190
-
552,300
113,130
260,175
40,000
390,975
5,414,731
-
-
-
-
5.414.731
-
-
-
-
-
-
809,100
428,288
575,152
-
549,250
113,130
260,775
2,290,000
389,225
3,131,670
672,000
492,000
-
1,164,000
4.295.670
-
-
-
-
-
-
810,900
427,973
567,307
-
548,700
113,130
260,455
-
392,325
3,127,690
672,000
492,000
933,720
2,097.720
5.225,410'.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
427,869
558,182
-
545,300
113,130
260,290
-
390,125
2,302,096
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031.440
5,333,536
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,239
552,520
-
546,300
113,130
260,074
-
387,775
2,293,387
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031.440
5,324,827
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
427,532
543,175
-
551,500
113,115
260,589
-
390,275
2,293,686
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031.440
5.325.126:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
427,379
533,018
-
545,900
-
260,159
-
392,475
2,166,731
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
5,198,171
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,885
527,050
-
-
-
259,871
-
389,375
1,611,281
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,642,721
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,356
-
-
-
-
260,783
-
391,125
1,088,514
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,117,954
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,130
-
-
-
-
260,169
-
387,575
1,082,424
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,113,864
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,896
-
-
-
-
260,412
-
391,050
1,083,882
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,115,322.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,636
-
-
-
-
260,484
-
392,050
1,087,170
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,118,610
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,335
-
-
-
-
260,385
-
387,750
1,082,769
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,114,209
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
424,791
-
-
-
-
260,115
-
388,300
1,062,655
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,114,095
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
424,762
-
-
-
-
260,674
-
388,550
1,083,736
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,115,170
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
424,201
-
-
-
-
260,033
-
388,500
1,082,784
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,114,224
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
423,889
-
-
-
-
260,222
-
388,150
1,082,611
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,114,051
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
423,792
-
-
-
-
260,211
-
392,500
1,087,153
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
4,118,593
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
423,485
-
-
-
-
-
-
391,400
825,985
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
3,857,425
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,950
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
434,350
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
3,465,790
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,561
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,561
672,000
492,000
1,867,440
3,031,440
3,454,001
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,284
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,284
-
-
933,720
933,720
1,356,004
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,085
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,085
-
-
-
-
422,085
$2,058,631
$ 26,875
$ 7,984,406
$2,383,818
$7,212,318
$5,379,226
$ 8,366,500
$11,596,387
$ 8,146,062
$1,297,846
$ 5,816,364
$ 1,131,285
$ 5,196,194
$ 2,370,118
$ 7,904,182
$76,813,213
$13,440,000
$ 9,840,000
$ 35,481,360
$ 58,761,360
$ 135,574,573
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
Tabpn9 ieiuue!9 860Z - L60Z
umbu!UseM `BI!M 1nl 40 AID
4
C)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
Totals
SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AND EXISTING GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION FOR LTGO
Section 1
Existing General Fund Obligat'on
Section 4
Section 5
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5
Column 6
Column 7
Column 8
Column 9
Column 10
Column 11
Column 12
Column 13
Column 14
Column 15
Column 16
Column 17
Column 18
Column 19
Column 20
Column 21
Column 22
Column 23
Column 24
Column 25
Column 26
Fund 201
Fund 205
Special
Fund 207
Fund 208
Bonds,
Fund 209
Fund 210
LTGO
Fund 211
LTGO
Fund 212
Fund 214 LTGO
Fund 216
LTGO
Fund 217
LTGO
Fund 218
Fund 200
Fund 200
Fund 200
Fund 209
Fund 200
Total Existing
SC Parkway
Total Funding
available to offset
Net Impact to
LTGO Bonds
Assessment
LTGO Bonds,
LTGO
LTGO Bonds,
Refunding,
Refunding,
LTGO Bonds,
2010
Refunding,
Refunding,
LTGO, 2013
LTGO, 2014
LTGO, 2014
LTGO, 2015
LTGO, 2017
LTGO, 2017R
GO Debt
Extension/H
MPD
SCORE
Fund Balance
Land Sale
Refunded Debt
General Fund
General Fund
Bonds
1999
2000
2003
2003
2008
2009
2010
2011
LOC
HD
Obligations
1999
2000
2003
2003R
2008R
2009
2010
2010R
2011R
2013
2014
2014A
2015
2017
2017
$6,000,000
$382,900
$10,000,000
$2,551,600
$6,277,500
$4,195,000
$6,180,000
$6,898,800
$5,870,000
$1,065,000
$4,620,000
$1,000,000
$3,850,000
$2,250,000
$5,825,000
$8,180,000
$2,276,000
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original issue
Original Issue
Line of Credit
Original Issue
Original Issue
Original Issue
South Park
City Hall
Interurban
Urban
New Debt
Net Total =
Facilities
Streets /
Facilities
Facilities
Br, Art. St.,
TCC, Fire
Station #53
Annex,
Tukwila
SCORE
SC Parkway
Extension/HHD
Valley Corn
Arterial Street,
KC Bridge
MPD Loan
Urban
Renewal
Urban
Renewal
Avenue South
42nd and 53rd
Sidewalks
Renewal -
Refund Line -of-
Subtotal =
Columns 1-17
Subsidy
Reimbursed
by MPD
Paid by
SCORE
Fund 209
Motel Sites
Issue to Pay
Subtotal =
Columns 19-24
Column 18
less Column
Golf Course
Village
& BAR Bridge
Credit
LOC
25
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
Prior -Year Debt
512,385
26,875
834,343
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,373,603
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,373,603
516,100
-
833,623
245,882
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,595,604
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,595,604
513,973
-
834,223
250,595
1,598,790
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,598,790
516,173
-
834,148
250,963
49,871
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,651,155
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,651,155
-
-
832,873
250,067
272,026
489,676
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,844,642
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,844,642
830,535
250,812
272,026
489,900
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,273
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,273
832,105
250,877
272,026
486,900
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,841,908
-
-
-
-
--
-
1,841,908
832,305
250,839
272,026
488,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,670
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,670
-
-
831,305
250,479
272,026
489,500
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,310
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,843,310
488,948
190,104
533,323
489,900
324,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,027,075
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,027,075
-
193,200
585,949
489,700
816,000
-
199,222
230,186
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,514,257
(22,589)
-
-
-
-
-
(22,589)
2,491,668
-
584,881
488,900
815,400
-
586,225
171,790
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,647,196
(66,657)
-
-
-
-
-
(66,657)
2,580,539
-
-
-
-
718,375
487,500
809,000
91,791
584,425
232,910
166,964
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,090,965
(66,657)
-
-
-
-
-
(66,657)
3,024,308
3,379,788
490,500
737,000
430,157
584,075
204,880
167,975
113,130
-
-
-
-
-
6,107,504
(66,657)
(113,130)
-
(3,100,000)
-
-
(3,279,787)
2,827,717
-
-
-
-
-
488,250
812,000
429,815
583,425
229,280
547,675
113,130
-
-
-
-
-
3,203,574
(66,657)
(113,130)
-
-
-
-
(179,787)
3,023,787
-
-
-
811,300
432,885
585,650
228,800
545,825
113,130
249,404
18,118
102,107
-
-
3,087,218
(66,657)
(113,130)
(141,000)
-
-
-
(320,787)
2,766,431
-
-
-
-
-
-
811,100
427,960
585,450
-
548,675
113,130
260,918
33,473
392,575
-
-
3,173,281
(66,657)
(113,130) (149,000) -
-
-
(328,787)
2,844,493
$ 2,058,631
$ 26,875
$ 7,984,406
$ 2,383,818
$ 7,212,318
$ 5,379,226
$ 5,936,600
$ 1,812,608
$ 3,708,469
$ 1,297,846
$ 1,977,114
$ 452,520
$ 510,322
$ 51,590
$ 494,682
$ -
$ -
$ 41,287,026
(422,533)
(452,520)
(290,000)
(3,100,000)
-
-
(4,265,053)
37,021,972
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
Outstanding Debt
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 809,900
$ 427,461
$ 581,190
$ -
$ 552,300
$ 113,130
$ 260,175
$ 2,294,644
$ 390,975
$ 87,448
$ -
$ 5,517,222
(61,667)
(113,130)
(427,461)
-
-
(2,276,000)
(2,878,257)
2,638,965
809,100
428,288
575,152
-
549,250
113,130
260,775
-
389,225
556,850
61,970
3,743,740
(56,053)
(113,130)
(428,288)
-
-
-
(597,471)
3,146,269
810,900
427,973
567,307
-
548,700
113,130
260,455
-
392,325
557,700
59,176
3,737,666
(49,807)
(113,130)
(427,973)
-
-
-
(590,910)
3,146,756
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
427,869
558,182
-
545,300
113,130
260,290
-
390,125
558,250
59,176
2,912,322
(43,114)
(113,130)
(427,869)
-
-
-
(584,113)
2,328,209
426,239
552,520
-
546,300
113,130
260,074
-
387,775
553,500
63,728
2,903,265
(35,882)
(113,130)
(426,239)
-
-
-
(575,251)
2,328,014
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
427,532
543,175
-
551,500
113,115
260,589
-
390,275
553,600
2,344,280
5,184,066
(27,361)
(113,115)
(427,532)
-
(2,250,000)
-
(2,818,008)
2,366,058
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
427,379
533,018
-
545,900
-
260,159
-
392,475
558,400
-
2,717,331
(18,556)
-
(427,379)
-
-
-
(445,935)
2,271,396
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,885
527,050
-
-
-
259,871
-
389,375
557,750
-
2,160,931
(9,468)
-
(426,885)
-
-
-
(436,353)
1,724,579
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,356
-
-
-
-
260,783
-
391,125
556,800
-
1,635,064
-
-
(426,356)
-
-
-
(426,356)
1,208,708
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
426,130
-
-
-
-
260,169
-
387,575
555,550
-
1,629,424
-
-
(426,130)
-
-
-
(426,130)
1,203,294
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,896
-
-
-
-
260,412
-
391,050
554,000
-
1,631,357
-
-
(425,896)
-
-
-
(425,896)
1,205,462
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,636
-
-
-
-
260,484
-
392,050
557,150
-
1,635,320
-
-
(425,636)
-
-
-
(425,636)
1,209,684
-
-
-
-
-
-
425,335
-
-
-
-
260,385
-
387,750
554,850
-
1,628,319
-
-
(425,335)
-
-
-
(425,335)
1,202,985
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
424,791
-
-
-
-
260,115
-
388,300
557,250
-
1,630,455
-
-
(424,791)
-
-
-
(424,791)
1,205,665
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
424,762
-
-
-
-
260,674
-
388,550
554,200
-
1,628,186
-
-
(424,762)
-
-
-
(424,762)
1,203,424
-
-
-
-
-
-
424,201
-
-
-
-
260,033
-
388,500
555,850
-
1,628,584
-
-
(424,201)
-
-
-
(424,201)
1,204,383
-
-
-
-
-
-
423,889
-
-
-
-
260,222
-
388,150
557,050
-
1,629,311
-
-
(423,889)
-
-
-
(423,889)
1,205,422
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
423,792
-
-
-
-
260,211
-
392,500
557,800
-
1,634,303
-
-
(423,792)
-
-
-
(423,792)
1,210,511
-
-
-
-
-
-
423,485
-
-
-
-
-
-
391,400
551,875
-
1,366,760
-
-
(423,485)
-
-
-
(423,485)
943,275
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,950
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
555,625
-
978,575
-
-
(422,950)
-
-
-
(422,950)
555,625
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,561
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
553,725
-
976,286
-
-
(422,561)
-
-
-
(422,561)
553,725
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,284
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,284
-
-
(422,284)
-
-
-
(422,284)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,085
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
422,085
-
-
(422,085)
-
-
-
(422,085)
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2,429,900
$ 9,783,779
$ 4,437,593
$ -
$ 3,839,250
$ 678,765
$ 4,685,872
$ 2,294,644
$ 7,409,500
$ 11,205,223
$ 2,588,330
$ 49,352,856
$ (301,908)
$ (678,765)
$ (9,783,779)
$ -
$ (2,250,000)
$ (2,276,000)
$ (15,290,452)
$ 34,062,405
https://tukwilawa-my.sharepoint.com/personal/vicky_carlsen_tukwilawa_gov/Documents/Public Safety Plan Gap vc 1.14.18Debt Sched-Existing Debt
2/15/20189:59 AM
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
co
$3,500
0
c
ro
0
t
- $3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Net General Fund Debt Service Obligation
1yb ° do Lv Ll L3 LD 5 o LA
�o do yo do voyyo do do vo do yoLvo do
• City Hall Annex, Tukwila Village • SCORE
• Urban Renewal Urban Renewal LOC
o
L°lb °,LOi °So°5y°5L°5'
• SC Parkway Extension/HHD • Valley Corn
• Interurban Ave S/BAR Bridge 42nd & 53rd
■ Arterial Street, KC Bridge
• Refund LOC
CD
https://tukwilawa-my.sharepoint.com/personal/vicky_carlsen_tukwilawa_gov/Documents/Public Safety Plan Gap vc 1.14.18 Graphs - Existing Debt 2/15/2018 9:57 AM
Updated February 13, 2017
CITY OF TUKWILA
Fire Impact Fees Inception through 2017
Sum of NET
ACCT_TITLE FD ACCT_NO 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grand Total
FIRE IMPACT FEES 304 304.345.852.00.00 $ 13,342 $ 142,383 $ 157,654 $ 33,686 $ 139,714 $ 66,862 $ 46,406 $ 183,867 $ 285,075 $ 1,068,990
52
City of Tukwila
Allan Ekberg, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: February 14, 2018
SUBJECT: Potential Sale of City Properties
ISSUE
City staff is seeking Council approval of a process to sell three parcels of land the City owns
which are located at 3747 South 146th Street (former Traveler's Choice motel), 12026 42nd
Avenue South (former Allentown fire station), and the Longacres Parcel (north of Longacres
Way).
BACKGROUND
This item is coming to Council at this time for three reasons. First, as part of the City's plan to
fund the new public safety facilities, the City may want to sell other City properties. Second,
some of the businesses who are located on the future Justice Center site have asked to
purchase City property in that neighborhood. Third, the owner of the parcel of land adjacent to
the City's Longacres parcel is interested in selling and has asked the City to sell at this time
since buyers may prefer to develop both parcels at the same time.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this agenda item is to seek Council approval of the process to sell the three
parcels of land described in this memo. Once the Council approves the process, staff would
solicit proposals and negotiate deal terms. If staff and the buyers agree to deal terms, staff
would return to Council for approval to execute purchase and sale agreements.
3747 South 146th Street:
This parcel was formerly the Traveler's Choice motel (assessor parcel number 004000-0911).
The City purchased the site in 2014 to reduce crime and completed demolition of the motel in
2016. In 2017 the City began using the site as a laydown yard for the South 144th Street project
which will be completed soon. The City does not currently have a long-term vision for the site.
At some point in the future, the City could use it as an incentive to encourage the privately
owned adjacent parcels to redevelop in coordination with the City's values and vision for
Tukwila International Boulevard. Some of the business owners located on the future Justice
Center site have expressed interest in purchasing the property.
The site is currently zoned Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) and is over 26,000
square feet, cleared, level, and served by utilities at the street. Staff estimates the property
would sell for between $500,000 and $700,000.
53
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Staff recommends the selection criteria be based on price. The City could include additional
criteria such as how well the buyer's intended use fits the City's vision for Tukwila International
Boulevard, whether the property would be developed in conjunction with the adjacent parcel on
Tukwila International Boulevard, whether the buyer's intended use would support small
businesses or dislocated businesses, or buyer/developer experience.
12026 42nd Avenue South:
This parcel was formerly used as a fire station in Allentown (assessor parcel number 334740-
0300). The City acquired the site in 1989 from the King County Fire Protection District #1
through annexation and has used it for storage for most of the time since acquisition. The City
does not currently have a long-term vision for the site. Occasionally over the past few years,
the City has been approached by persons interested in converting the property to residential
use.
The site is currently zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and is over 21,000 square feet, level,
and served by utilities. The buildings are in need of considerable maintenance. Staff estimates
the property would sell for between $200,000 and $300,000.
Staff recommends the selection criteria be based on price.
Longacres Parcel:
This parcel is a 100 feet wide strip of vacant land (assessor parcel number 242304-9034). The
City acquired a portion of the site in 1998 to construct a convention center. The City acquired
the reminder of the site through land exchanges to support the relocation of the Union Pacific
railroad tracks in order to facilitate quality development around the commuter rail station. The
City is currently using the site to store public works materials and does not currently have a
long-term vision for the site.
A key reason to sell the property at this time is the owners of the adjacent parcel (assessor
parcel number 242304-9137) have received strong interest from potential buyers and would like
to sell their parcel. Given the size, shapes, and locations of the two parcels, Staff believes it is
in the City's interest if both parcels are developed together.
The site is currently zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) and is over 138,000 square feet (3.18
acres), vacant, level, and served by utilities at the street. Given its location adjacent to 1-405, the
commuter rail station, and the Southcenter District, the site is in a desirable location. However,
the desirability is limited by the adjacent railroad tracks due to noise and vibration. Over the
past few years, Staff has been approached by potential buyers and believes that market
demand is strong at this time. Staff estimates the property would sell for between $2,000,000
and $3,000,000.
Staff recommends the primary selection criteria be based on price with additional consideration
for how well the buyer's intended use fits the City's vision for the Southcenter District and its
ability to generate additional tax revenue for the City relative to the cost of providing service. A
key condition of the sale would be the buyer's ability to execute a purchase and sale agreement
with the adjacent property owner. Another key condition would be that any multi -family
residential development would require at least 50% of the units be sold or rented at market
rates.
54
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
In terms of the selection process, staff would market the properties by publishing a Request for
Proposals in key regional publications, notifying local brokers, and other interested parties. Staff
would evaluate proposals and return to Council seeking authorization to execute purchase and
sale agreements.
The marketing and selection process could be completed within a few months and purchase
and sale agreements executed this summer. Depending on the buyer's need for due diligence
and financing, escrow could close later this year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This item would have no financial or budget impact at this time. If the City sells the property, it
would receive revenue.
RECOMMENDATION
The Council is being asked to pass a motion approving the developer selection process as
outlined in this memo and consider this item at the February 26, 2018 Committee of the Whole
meeting and subsequent March 5, 2018 Regular Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Map of 3747 South 146th Street
Map of 12026 42nd Avenue South
Map of the Longacres Parcel
55
56
Attachment 1
3747 South 145th Street
r-�.r
11 .
1 44.3 144.3
+ u k X144543 1443'`
0-• X111
1¢ 144§'
14452
•
City owned parcel
2/14/2018, 10:53:13 AM
Addresses (Tukwila)
El Parcels
1:2,257
0 0.0475 0.035 0.07 mi
i , i
0 0.02 0.04 0.08 kin
57
58
Attachment 2
12026 42nd Avenue South
City owned parcel
4r
st
it"
4111161• 11
3 1
1
011\
h 1b-XN1
,4
. i
1111
,,rilr1. i�'c 4214 «':4.
2/14/2018, 10:49:02 AM
• Addresses (Tukwila)
▪ Parcels
1:2,257
0 0.0175 0.035
I I
0.07 mi
0 0.02 0.04 0.08 km
59
60
Attachment 3
Longacres Parcel
2113/2018, 3:19:57 PM
Parcels
1:9,028
0 0.075 0.15
0 0.675 0.15 0.3 km
61
62