HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 2018-03-06 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila
Finance Committee
O De'Sean Quinn, Chair
O Dennis Robertson
O Kate Kruller
AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2018 — 5:30 PM
HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM
(At east entrance of City Hall)
Distribution:
D. Quinn
D. Robertson
K. Kruller
V. Seal
Mayor Ekberg
D. Cline
C. O'Flaherty
L. Humphrey
Item
Recommended Action
Page
1. PRESENTATION(S)
2. BUSINESS AGENDA
Financing the Public Safety Plan.
Information only.
Pg.1
Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations
Manager
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, March 20, 2018
t). The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206-433-1800 (TukwilaCityClerk@TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance.
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 20, 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
1
2
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 54
$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)
$77,278
Total Unfunded Gap
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.
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications13-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.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.
Z:\Council Agenda (terns\CommunIcations\3-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.doc
3
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
financial framework 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 January 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.
4 Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications13-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.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.
Follow Up from the February 21 Finance Committee Meeting
Staff was asked to return with the following additional information and/or address these issue in
subsequent meetings as the Committee deliberates on recommendations as to how to address
the Public Safety Plan financial pap:
• Assurance that there will be a discussion on how the Public Safety Plan financial
framework (20- and 30 -year potential options reviewed on February 21) intersects with
the City's overall six-year financial plan. Staff will bring that information for the
Committee ata subsequent meetina.
• Add Tukwila's various fees to the new revenue matrix. This is done and included on the
updated version attached.
• List the utility taxes the City levies and all of the utilities that the City has franchise
agreements with. This is done and included on the updated version attached.
• Research additional information on the following new revenue options: staff will address at
a subsequent meetina:
o Possibility of structurina a B&O tax because businesses are a large consumer of
public -safety related services and such a tax could provide more parity with the
residential population: any such tax would be levied only on laraer businesses
o Local Improvement District
• Identify what Parks has planned for REET 1 distribution in 2018 and explain whether the
projects would come before Council for approval. The Council adopted the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) as a part of the 2017/2018 budget. which identified $581,000 in
projects from the 301 fund, of which $567.000 is from REET 1 funds. Any contract
associated with these projects above $40.000 would come before Council for approval.
While Parks is currently reassessing their overall capital projects Given the potential for
REET 1 funds beina redirected to the Public Safety Plan. below are the projects
identified in the CIP and slated for funding this year:
o Trail improvements: $ 62,000
o Parks improvements: $330,000
o Ft. Dent: $125,000
o Duwamish Hill Preserve: $ 24.000 ($10.000 from REET 1)
o Second Doa Park $ 40,000
o Total 301 Fund Adopted CIP: $581,000
Z;1Council Agenda Items\Communications13-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.doc
5
6
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 6
• Provide a list of all City -owned properties. See attachment.
• Staff further acknowledges the concerns raised at the meeting of the ramifications of
potentially limiting future councils due to long-term debt.
Potential Additional New Revenue Source
One new revenue option not addressed at the February 21. 2018 Finance Committee meeting is
a potential increase in the City's gambling tax. The new revenue matrix has been undated to
reflect this potential tool. The City currently levies a 10% tax on cardrooms and in 2017
collected $3.8 million. Basing this analysis on 2017 collections, if the rate was increased to
15%. the City could collect an additional $1.9 million annually. If the rate was increased to 12%
there's the potential for an additional $720.000 per year.
General Fund Operations
Another tool available to fill the aap is to reduce general fund expenditures. The Committee is
not being asked to make a recommendation at this time on specific reductions. rather whether it
wants to consider such a tool as a part of the effort to fill the fundina gao for the Public Safety
Plan. If it is a tool to be considered. staff recommends that any reductions would be identified
and approved through the 2019/2020 budaet process.
Staff has identified three options to reduce general fund operational expenditures, including (1)
across the board cuts, (2) program reductions usina the current budaet model. and (3) program
reductions usina the Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) model. These three options are outlined
below. It should be noted that all recommended reductions would come from operating costs,
while all mandated expenses (including debt service) would remain intact.
With all options. an analysis would be completed to determine the level of reduction required
each year.
Option 1 — Across the Board Reductions in all Departments
Once the annual expenditure reduction amount is determined (most likely a percentage of the
total budget: examples provided in attachment). each department would be required to reduce
their budget by that percentage.
Pros:
• Process is easy to communicate
• Appearance of fairness — every department takes the same reduction
• Can be a way to avoid tough decisions
Cons:
• Missed opportunity to cut ineffective and/or low priority programs
• lanores the differential effectiveness and priority of programs
• lanores which expenditures/programs aenerate revenue
• lanores consumption vs investment
• Reductions are not strategic
• Not considered best practice
Option 2— Reduce/Eliminate Programs Using Current Budget Structure
Pros:
• Lower priority programs (recommended by staff but informed by and ultimately approved
by the Council) are reduced/eliminated
Cons:
• Obiective analysis of program efficiency not part of decision
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications13-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.doc
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 7
• Objective analysis of program priority not part of decision
• Doesn't consider true cost of program
• Not considered best practice
Option 3— Reduce/Eliminate Proarams Using Priority -Based Budgeting (PBB) Model
Pros:
• Lower priority programs (as identified through an objective scorina process) are
reduced/eliminated
• Reauires serious discussion of community values, relative benefits of different services,
and lona-term implications of reducina/eliminating programs
• Demonstrates strategic approach to managing sianificant financial issues
• Aligns with current best practice
• True cost of program is known
Cons:
• PBB model not vet fully implemented
Based on the pros and cons of each method identified above. Option 3 would provide the most
efficient and obiective method of determining reductions to General Fund expenditures. The
Council has expressed support for PBB. and one of the primary benefits of the PBB model is
that lower level priorities are easily identified, and actual program costs are known.
Capital Improvement Plan Prioritization
One option for the Committee to consider is reprioritizina the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to
dedicate General Fund dollars that transfer to the CIP to the Public Safety Plan. Over the past
four years the City has budaeted an average of $3 million per year of General Fund dollars to
transfer to the CIP. General Fund dollars ao to leverage grant funds and other matching funds
for a variety of capital projects. largely for street work. Below are the budgeted and actual
transfers to the CIP for the past four years.
Year
Bud•eted Transfer to CIP
Actual Transfer to CIP
2014
$2,662,000
$3,150,000
2015
$2,674,000
$2,374,000
2016
$3,551,000$1,151,000
2017
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
In addition. REET 2 funds are currently dedicated to the 104 fund, which covers bridaes and
arterial streets. REET 2 funds. like REET 1 discussed on February 6, could be dedicated to
financing the Public Safety Plan as well. If reprioritizina REET 2 for the Public Safety Plan was
of interest to the Council. staff estimates the annual amounts would be the same as the REET 1
estimate of $500.000 per year.
The Council could decide to reduce but not eliminate the General Fund contributions to the CIP
to cover the Public Safety Plan financial gap and identify an amount that would allow the City to
continue to leverage arant funds for capital projects. though at a reduced rate.
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
Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications13-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.doc
7
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 8
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
Updated New Revenue Matrix
Map of City -owned properties
General Fund operations Option 1 scenario
8 Z:1Council Agenda Items\Communications13-5-18 PSCom\Final FIN Memo 030618.doc
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
CD
Updated February 6, 2018
O
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 20 Year LTGO Amortization
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
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
1
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
16
Interfund loan - utility funds
-
17
Investment earnings
727,560
9,562
277,998
200,000
100,000
100,000
40,000
I
I
I
18
Annual contribution to balance
46,000,000
-
-
1,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
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
1,910,000
1,910,000 `
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
1,910,000
23
Revenue Total
324,587,560
36,719,516
1,794,998
70,013,046
2,200,000
72,010,000
5,950,000
8,910,000 l
3,910,000
4,460,000 I
5,010,000
5,010,000 I
6,510,000
6,510,000 I
6,510,000
6,510,000 I
6,560,000
6,210,000
24
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
-
I
-
- I
I
I
I
27
FS 51
12,509,000
59,853 I
222,146
1,982,035
8,429,736
1,815,230
-
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
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 ;
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
384,755
271,667 i
806,277
2,709,784
3,512,566
518,538
1,597,411
2,865,957
37
Debt Service
interest only
interest only
interest only
interest only
full DS
I
I
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
6,929,960
6,929,960
I
I
i
I
I
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(48,500,000)
I
(400,000)
(400,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,300,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000):
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000):
(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 I
4,329,960
4,329,960 i'
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
I
42
I
I
I
I
!
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
37,208,427
36,513,127 ;
196,407
22,082,334 ;
(52,854,343)
634,575 ;
(6,035,787)
2,907,850
(927,440)
(2,466,982)
295,285
408,373 :
1,373,763
(529,744):
(1,332,525)
1,661,503
632,629
(985,916)
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
-
- I
36,513,127
36,709,534 I
58,791,868
5,937,525 I
6,572,099
536,313
3,444,162
2,516,722
49,740
345,025 I
753,398
2,127,161 I
1,597,417
264,892
1,926,395
2,559,024
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
37,208,427
36,513,127
36,709,534
58,791,868
5,937,525
6,572,099 I
536,313
3,444,162
2,516,722
49,740
345,025
753,398 1
2,127,161
1,597,417 I
264,892
1,926,395
2,559,024
1,573,108
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
1 of 2
N
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 20 Year LTGO Amortization
W
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_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
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 j
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 j
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000 j
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 j
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000 j
500,000
500,000
500,000
500,000 j
500,000
500,000 j
500,000
500,000
16
Interfund loan - utility funds
17
Investment earnings
I
I
I
I
I
I
18
Annual contribution to balance
3,500,000
3,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
- I
-
-
I
-
- I
-
-
-
- I
-
- 1
-
-
19
Additional capacity from maturing,
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
6,210,000
6,210,000 j
4,470,000
4,860,000
4,360,000
3,360,000 j
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000 j
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000 j
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
3,360,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24
25
Project Expenditures
I
I
I
I
26
Justice Center
I
I
I
I
27
FS 51
28
FS 52
I
I
I
I
29
FS 54
I
I
I
I
30
Apparatus & equip
888,681
3,667,573
243,009
609,751
168,749
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31
Shops
35
Project Expenditures Total
888,681
3,667,573 j
243,009
609,751
168,749
- I
-
--
- I
-
-
-
- I
-
-
-
-
37
Debt Service
38
Debt service LTGO
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
6,929,960
5,213,560
5,213,560
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000);
(2,600,000)
(2,600,000);
(2,600,000)
(1,750,000)
(1,750,000)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
GF Debt Service Total
4,329,960
4,329,960
4,329,960
4,329,960 I
4,329,960
3,463,560
3,463,560
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
-
I
i
I
I
42
I
I
I
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall) 991,360
(1,787,533);
(102,969)
(79,711);
(138,709)
(103,560);
(103,560)
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
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
1,573,108
2,564,467 I
776,934
673,966 I
594,255
455,546 I
351,987
248,427
3,608,427
6,968,427
10,328,427
13,688,427
17,048,427
20,408,427 I
23,768,427
27,128,427
30,488,427
33,848,427
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
2,564,467
776,934
673,966
594,255
455,546
351,987 I
248,427
3,608,427
6,968,427
10,328,427
13,688,427
17,048,427
20,408,427
23,768,427 i
27,128,427
30,488,427
33,848,427
37,208,427
W
2/15/2018
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B 2 of 2
14
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TO CLOSE THE GAP
Line Item Descriptions and Comments
20yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B - Copy
15
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
15
2/15/2018 12:32 PM
16
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization
2/15/2018
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
1 of 2
B
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
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 I
40,675,046
I
I
1
I
I
10
LTGO bond proceeds, Councilmanic
86,000,000
1
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 j
300,000
300,000 j
300,000
300,000 j
300,000
300,000 j
300,000
300,000 j
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
j
3,000,000 !
I
I
I
I
I
14
Property/land sales
15,038,000
j
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
16
Interfund loan - utility funds
17
Investment earnings
727,560
9,562
277,998
200,000
100,000
100,000
40,000
I
I
I
I
18
Annual contribution to balance
28,500,000
-
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000 ;
1,000,000
1,000,000 ;
1,500,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
19
Additional capacity from maturing,
existing debt
64,270,000
1
810,000
810,000
810,000 j
810,000
1,360,000 j
1,910,000
1,910,000 1
1,910,000
1,910,000 i
1,910,000
1,910,000 I
1,910,000
1,910,000
23
Revenue Total
307,087,560
36,719,516 I
1,794,998
71,013,046
2,200,000
72,010,000
4,950,000
7,910,000
2,910,000
3,460,000 :
4,510,000
4,510,000
5,010,000
5,010,000
5,010,000
5,010,000 ;
5,060,000
5,210,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
24
u
I
I
25
Project Expenditures
26
Justice Center
68,536,343
123,833 I
398,261
21,581,872
30,155,657
16,276,721
-
-
-
27
FS 51
12,509,000
59,853
222,146
1,982,035
8,429,736
1,815,230
-
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
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 !
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
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 1
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
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 1
5,212,204
5,212,204 1
5,212,204
5,212,204 j
5,212,204
5,212,204 j
5,212,204
5,212,204 p
5,212,204
5,212,204
39
Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc
(56,700,000)
(400,000)
(400,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,300,000)
(1,950,000):
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)!
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000):
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)!
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)!
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
40
GF Debt Service Total
95,219,016-
-
400,000 j
400,000
2,140,000
2,140,000
3,262,204 1
3,262,204
3,262,204 1
3,262,204
3,262,204 1
3,262,204
3,262,204 1
3,262,204
3,262,204 1
3,262,204
3,262,204
41
Expense Total
301,311,675
206,389
1,598,591
47,930,712 j
55,054,343
71,375,425
11,985,787
4,934,395
3,769,684
5,859,227
3,646,959
3,533,871 j
4,068,481
5,971,988
6,774,769
3,780,742 1
4,859,615
6,128,161
i
I
i
42
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
5,775,885
36,513,127 !
196,407
23,082,334
(52,854,343)
634,575 I
(7,035,787)
2,975,605:
(859,684)
(2,399,227)!
863,041
976,129
941,519
(961,988)
(1,764,769)
1,229,258
200,385
(918,161)
49
Beginning Carryover (Shortfall)
-
- I
36,513,127
36,709,534
59,791,868
6,937,525 I
7,572,099
536,313 1
3,511,918
2,652,234 I
253,007
1,116,048 I
2,092,177
3,033,695 1
2,071,707
306,937 I
1,536,196
1,736,581
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
5,775,885
36,513,127 I
36,709,534
59,791,868
6,937,525
7,572,099 '1
536,313
3,511,918 j
2,652,234
253,007 j
1,116,048
2,092,177 j
3,033,695
2,071,707 j
306,937
1,536,196 j
1,736,581
818,420
51
52
Annual contribution to balance
28,500,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
53
2/15/2018
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
1 of 2
Co
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization
CO
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
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
16
Interfund loan - utility funds
i
I
I
i
17
Investment earnings
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18
Annual contribution to balance
2,500,000
2,500,000
1,000,000
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Additional capacity from maturing,
I
I
I
I
19
existing debt
1,910,000
1,910,000 i
2,170,000
2,560,000 j
2,560,000
2,560,000 I
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000 I
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000 j
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
2,560,000
23
Revenue Total
5,210,000
5,210,000 ;
3,970,000
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
1
I
(
I
I
1
24
I
I
I
I
25
Project Expenditures
26
Justice Center
27
FS 51
I
I
I
I
28
FS 52
I
I
I
I
29
FS 54
30
Apparatus & equip
888,681
3,667,573
243,009
609,751
168,749
-!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31
Shops
35
Project Expenditures Total
888,681
3,667,573
243,009
609,751
168,749
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37
Debt Service
9
I
I
I
I
38
Debt service LTGO
5,212,204
5,212,204 g
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 I
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 I
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204
5,212,204 j
5,212,204
3,960,856
3,960,856
-
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),
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)
(1,950,000)!
(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 l
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 I
3,262,204
3,262,204 I
3,262,204
3,262,204 i
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204
3,262,204 l
3,262,204
2,660,856
2,660,856
-
41
Expense Total
4,150,885
6,929,777 f
3,505,213
3,871,955
3,430,953
3,262,204 j
3,262,204
3,262,204 j
3,262,204
3,262,204 j
3,262,204
3,262,204 j
3,262,204
3,262,204 j
3,262,204
2,660,856
2,660,856
-
I
i
42
48
Annual Surplus (Shortfall) 1,059,115
(1,719,777);
464,787
(511,955),
(70,953)
97,796 i
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)
818,420
1,877,535 1
157,758
622,545 I
110,590
39,637 I
137,433
235,229 I
333,025
430,821 I
528,617
626,414
724,210
822,006 l
919,802
1,017,598
1,716,741
2,415,885
50
Ending Carryover (Shortfall)
1,877,535
157,758 j
622,545
110,590 '1
39,637
137,433 j
235,229
333,025 '1
430,821
528,617 j
626,414
724,210 j
822,006
919,802 j
1,017,598
1,716,741 j
2,415,885
5,775,885
51
52
Annual contribution to balance 2,500,000
2,500,000
1,000,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53
CO
2/15/2018
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B 2 of 2
20
PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TO CLOSE THE GAP
Line Item Descriptions and Comments
30yrAmortz_PSPfinPlan B
21
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
21
2/15/2018 12:36 PM
22
February 27, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 1
Revenue Amount
Vehicle Available
echanism Type and payee Estimated
Average Cost
REVENUE OPTIONS ABOVE $500,000
Other Cities' and Rates
Restrictions
Notes
Levy Lid $6,100,000
Lift
Voter
Approve
d Bond
Voter
approved @
50%
$25 million Voter
(after approved @
remaining 60% plus
voted debt validation
issued, if
issued in
2018)
3 B&O Tax $4,000,000 Councilmani
annually c
Property tax —
property owners
Property tax —
property owners
Tax on gross
receipts —
businesses
Levy lid lift to
the cap
would add
$299 in
annual
property
taxes for a
$300,000
home.
Bonding to
the cap
would add
$409 in
annual
property
taxes for a
$300,000
home.
Unable to
calculate
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
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011 - present.
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.
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.
.2% available to B&O tax can be
cities. Could sized to exempt
exceed .2% if small
voter approved businesses via
an employee or
gross receipts
threshold. Can
also be
targeted for
specific
industries and
vary by
industry type.
listed, then the issue does not apply.
If a city is not
N
February 27, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 2
Revenue Amount Mechanism
Vehicle Available
Type and payee
Estimated
Average Cost
REVENUE OPTIONS ABOVE $500,000
Other Cities' and Rates Restrictions
Notes
Transpor
tation
Benefit
District
$3,900,000
annually
5 Transpor $ 500,000
tation
Benefit
District
Car Tab
Voter
approved @
50%
Sales tax —
largely out of
town visitors
Councilmani Car tab — car
c owners and
fleets
Dependent
on
purchases.
$20 per
vehicle if
councilmanic;
up to $100
per vehicle if
full capacity
allowed by
voters
• Seattle 0.001 sales tax approved by voters 11/14 dedicated to increased Metro
service in the city.
• 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
•
* Analysis of other cities' revenues and rates was restricted to Auburn, Bellevue, Burien, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Seattle from 2011 - present.
Must be
dedicated for
transportation -
related projects.
Must be
dedicated for
transportation -
related projects.
.2% sales tax
available to
cities.
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
If a city is not listed, then the issue does not apply.
N
0)
February 27, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 3
Revenue Amount Mechanism Type and payee
Vehicle Available
Estimated
Average Cos
REVENUE OPTIONS ABOVE $500,000
Other Cities' and Rates
Restrictions
Notes
Local Depends on
Improve project
ment
District
Councilmani
c and
petition
Assessment —
properties
around the
specific project
Cost
completely
dependent
on project
and number
of property
owners
Many cities utilize LIDs for a wide variety of projects. Would not be feasible to list.
Dedicated to the
specific LID
project.
remains
constrained to
the $20.
Could be used
for a variety of
capital
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.
N
CO
February 27, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 4
Revenue Amount Mechanism Type and payee Estimated
Vehicle Available Average Cost
REVENUE OPTIONS ABOVE $500,000<
Other Cities' and Rates
Restrictions
Notes
8 Reexami
ping
existing
taxes
and fees
Unknown
Councilmani Varies
c
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
Tukwila Rates:
Admissions tax: 5%
Parking tax: 5%
Business License fee: $70 per full-time employee, $35 per part-time employee.
Part-time employee is defined as less than 30 hours a week
No restrictions
with the
exception of
Impact Fees
which must be
dedicated to
what they are for
— i.e. fire, traffic,
parks.
Includes:
• Admissi
ons 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.
W
O
Revenue Amount Mechanis
Vehicle Available
Utility
Tax -
external
enterpris
es
$600,000
per 1%
increase
10 Utility $200,000
Tax - per 1%,
internal
enterpris
es
Councilmani
c up to 6%;
Voter
approval
required to
exceed 6%
Councilmani
c
11 Utility $60,000 per Councilmani
Tax - 1% of tax c
Water &
sewer
districts
12 Utility
franchise
fee
Negotiated
Type and payee
Utility tax - gas,
electric,
telephone,
cable, solid
waste
Utility tax -
Water/sewer
60% of Tukwila
property
owners; surface
water 100% of
Tukwila parcels
Utility tax -
everyone on
Tukwila utilities
Seattle City
Light, Comcast,
Waste
Management
February 27, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment - Page 5
Estimated
Average Cost
Additional 1%
= approx.
$30-$50 per
household
depending on
usage and
consumption.
Additional 1%
= Approx $20
per
household
depending on
consumption;
commercial
based on
consumption
Cost
dependent operating within their jurisdictional boundaries.
on whether
REVENUE OPTIONS ABOVE $500,000
Other Cities' and Rates
Utility
Abn
Bvue
Burn
Kent
Rent
STac
Sea
Tukwila
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%
Many cities charge utility taxes and/or have negotiated a franchise fee for utilities
extending tax
to non -City
utilities or
negotiating a
franchise fee.
Franchise fee agreements could be negotiated with Highline Water District, Valley
View Sewer District, and Water District #125. PSE customers are charged the Utilty
Tax discussed above in #9.
Restrictions
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.
The City is
currently at 6%.
Must be voter
approved to go
higher.
Note!
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.
Opportunity to
extend current
utility tax to
other agencies
serving Tukwila
residents.
* 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.
W
N
February 27, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 6
Revenue Amount
Vehicle Available
chanisrr
pe and payee Estimated,
Average Cost
13
Gamblin
g Tax
$3.8M
collected for
2017. If rate
is increased
to 15%, a
50%
increase,
presumably
an
additional
$1.9M could
be collected;
if rate is
increased to
12%, 20%
increase,
presumably
an
additional
$760K could
be collected.
Councilmani
c
Casinos located
within City limits
Based on
gross or net
receipts of
gambling
revenue
REVENUE OPTIONS ABOVE $500,000
Other Cities' and Rates
Abn
Bvue
Bur
n
Kent
Rent
STa
c
Sea
Tuk-
wila
Bingo/Raffles
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Amusement
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Games
Punch Boards/Pull
10%
5%
5%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Tabs
Card Rooms
4%
NA
8%
11%
10%
10
NA
10%
%
Restrictions
RCW 9.46.113
states tax
collected from
gambling
activities must
be used primarily
for public safety.
Cities can levy up
to 20% on card
rooms.
Notes
Per the TMC,
the rate
automatically
increases when
a 6th cardroom
is established in
the City.
* 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.
34
Fire Station 53
PIN: 3351400525
Size: 2.55 Acre
Fire Station 54
PIN: 0040000365
Size: .89 Acre
Great Bear Motel
PIN: 0040000175
Size: 0.53 Arae
Batley=Motel
TIEPIN: 0040000190
Size: 1.12 Acre
Spruce Motel
PIN: 0040000252
Size: 0.49 Acre
City of Tukwila
City Owned Property
Old Fire S13110n 53
PIN: 3347400300
Size: 0.45 Acte
George Long Shops
PIN: 0223400060
Size: 3.52 Acre
Fire Sxa#on 52
PIN: 3365901275
Size: 1.15 Acre
• Smote skip _
N: 0040000253
Size: 0.23 Acre
Traveler's Choice
PIN: 0040000911
Size: 0.61 Acre
O ki Neirporler
PIN: 0041000130
Size: 0.51 Acre
4..
S
P161lo Ste
Acreage Size
i 7 1 Acre
f- 2 Acres
5 Acres
1E. Acres
nay
1
4
66 um anaml J
Upper 6300 Lot
PIN: 35971000320
Size: 2.5 Acre
City H211
JI PIN: 35970+00252
Size: 2.7 Acre
� L 5300 Bldg
PIN: 0003200005
Size: 1.58 Acre
Future Fire Station
PILI: T50
Size: 3.04 Acre
Longacres Site
PIN: 2423049034
Size: 3.2 Acre
Fire Station 51
PIN: 0223400080
_ Size: 1.as Acre
7 h tAlnlder Shops
T I I PIN: 2523049070
Size: 2.52 Acre
L
Disclaimer
This map does not incorporate all City
properties, including parks, Foster Golf
Links, Starfire Sports and right of way.
35
36
General Fund Operations Option 1 Scenario
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/finance/PublicSafetyPlan/FinancingPlan/Accross the Board Budget Reduction Options 2/28/2018 10:01 ASM
BUDGET
2.5%
Reduction
5.0%
Reduction
10.0%
Reduction
2018 ANNUAL
BUDGET
01
City Council
$ 430,319
$
10,758
$
21,516
$ 43,032
03
Mayor
4,143,651
103,591
207,183
414,365
04
Human Resources
728,083
18,202
36,404
72,808
05
Finance
2,733,016
68,325
136,651
273,302
06
Attorney
733,185
18,330
36,659
73,319
07
Recreation
3,332,680
83,317
166,634
333,268
08
Community Development
3,671,160
91,779
183,558
367,116
09
Municipal Court
1,295,812
32,395
64,791
129,581
10
Police
18,999,049
474,976
949,952
1,899,905
11
Fire
12,432,599
310,815
621,630
1,243,260
12
Technology & Innovation Svcs
2,040,671
51,017
102,034
204,067
13
Public Works
3,876,047
96,901
193,802
387,605
15
Park Maintenance
1,459,098
36,477
72,955
145,910
16
Street Maintenance & Operations
3,149,643
78,741
157,482
314,964
Total Departmental Budget
$ 59,025,013
$ 1,475,625
$ 2,951,251
$ 5,902,501
https://tukwilawa.sharepoint.com/sites/finance/PublicSafetyPlan/FinancingPlan/Accross the Board Budget Reduction Options 2/28/2018 10:01 ASM
38