The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFIN 2018-05-22 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Finance Committee De'Sean Quinn, Chair O Dennis Robertson O Kate Kruller AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 — 5:30 PM HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM (At east entrance of City Hall) Distribution: D. Quinn D. Robertson K. Kruller V. Seal K. Hougardy T. McLeod Z. Idan Mayor Ekberg D. Cline C. O'Flaherty L. Humphrey Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. Update on the compensation policy and proposed timeline for discussion. a. Discussion only. Pg.1 Stephanie Brown, Human Resources Director b. Financing the Public Safety Plan. b. Discussion only. Pg.5 Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 Item 2C - Preliminary 6 -Year Forecast - Whitebirch (Item added after agenda production.) to. 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: Stephanie Brown, Human Resources Director CC: Mayor Allan Ekberg DATE: May 16, 2018 SUBJECT: Review of Compensation Policy Resolution No. 1796 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 The City Council and Administration have committed to review and discuss Resolution No. 1796, which sets policy for compensation and benefits for City employees. BACKGROUND Beginning in the 1980's, the City Council adopted various resolutions regarding compensation policy. These resolutions focused on several common themes including: 1) An overarching goal to maintain a competitive position in the market place; 2) The desire to select and to retain a competent and productive work force; 3) The compensation system should reflect average compensation among the various employment markets in which the City competes for qualified labor; 4) Provides that classifications shall be based upon the Decision Band Method (DBM), for the represented and non -represented employees; 5) A comparative analysis for all positions shall be determined based upon internal and external factors; 6) A mix of wages and benefits shall be provided based on the average or above average of the defined market. These resolutions have since been updated and replaced over time, with many of these provisions carrying forward over the years. In 2013, Resolution No, 1796, was adopted which sets core value statements, specifically that the City desires to utilize standardized policies, procedures and processes whenever possible for compensating all employee groups, both non -represented and represented. From the Human Resources perspective, since the adoption of this policy in 2013, it has been effectively used as a guide and serves to establish criteria for use when conducting analysis for salary and benefits. In the Collective Bargaining process, it has been objective; manageable, fair, representative of the market to which you chose to compare; used in good faith under our bargaining statue RCW 41.56; reduces the comparisons to those groups that are represented; sets parameters for pay and benefit considerations; it guides the pre -collective bargaining process as to what the City expects to receive for consideration in preparation for labor negotiations. 1 2 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 As it relates to the classification of new positions and the reclassification of existing positions, it provides the external market criteria based upon assessed valuation +/- 50% that we have been able to benchmark our positions to fairly consistently; provides consideration for internal comparability; identifies the data collection resources to use when conducting external market analysis; sets parameters for when a market study will be conducted and when a cost of living adjustment will be considered. The challenges we have experienced have generally been when we have positions that we are not able to find benchmark comparators for based upon the duties of the position (standard for a valid match is 5 positions). In addition, recently when the market for a certain position was highly competitive, we were not able to attract qualified applicants. During these times we look for creative, innovative and strategic ways to attract qualified applicants such as offering hiring bonuses. This has also been an effective recruitment strategy with our Civil Service positions. Given that some areas of Resolution No. 1796 are silent, addressing those silent areas would provide more clarity and an objective methodology to use for anomalies that may occur. Administration proposes consideration of the following for discussion with the Council. This list is not all inclusive as there could be other items the Council wants to consider. 1. Above and Below Market adjustments - specifically define what compensation standard would be used to set parameters for adjustment of wages when positions are above or below market. 2. Compression — establish a definition within the resolution that defines what it means, and what methodology will be used to address compression when it occurs. 3. Comparability — review the current methodology specifically as it applies to the external market for non -represented positions. 4. Recruitment — review what barriers exist when it is a highly competitive external market, and ways to attract and retain future employees. Follow Un from the March 20, Finance Committee Meeting At the March 20, Finance Committee meeting, Committee members requested the following components be included in the analysis and review • An updated market study; • hlput and recommendations from the non -represented employee groups; • Background and evaluation of decision band methodology: • Analysis on gender neutrality, desk audits, and appeal process, performance reviews and Merit pay; • Understanding of compression and when it has been an issue. In addition, the Council committee requested that Administration provide a revised timeline for review and adoption of changes to Resolution No. 1796 by the full City Council: The schedule below meets the Council requests for a compensation workshop for the Council and for a deadline of September. CALIserslchrlstyUAppDalatocalMerosofllWindowsllNetCachelContent.Outlook29E7D8KU1FinanceCommitteecompreviewmemo 3-14-18 -Update 5-16-18 (David Cline).docx INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 May 22 - Review the revised timeline with the Committee and address any additional considerations to Resolution 1796; June (TBD') Conduct a compensation workshop for the City Council July 3 Committee discussion: - review Compensation workshop and next steps review non -represented employee input - Review and discuss 2017 data of the external market study July 17 - Finalize scope of policy review of Resolution1796 August 7- Review and discuss updated 2018 data for the external market study (Note AWC 2018 Data results are published end of July) Review and discuss committee considerations August 21 - Review and discuss committee considerations (if necessary) September 4- Finalize recommendations for City Council consideration September 10- Bring recommendations to the City Council for review and discussion; September 17- Adoption of channes to Resolution No. 1796 for implementation CAUserslchrlstylApel]atalLocallMicrosoftlWindowsllNetCachelContent.Outlook29E7D8KWinanceCommitteecomprevlewrnern0 3-14-18 -Update 5-16-18 (David Cline).docx 3 4 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Finance Committee FROM: Rachel Bianchi CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: May 16, 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 5 6 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) 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. 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\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.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 Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc 7 8 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. Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.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 gap: • 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 at a subsequent meeting. • 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 meeting: o Possibility of structuring 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 larger 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 being 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 Dog Park $ 40,000 o Total 301 Fund Adopted CIP: $581,000 Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc 9 10 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 updated 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 gap 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 funding gap 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 budget process. Staff has identified three options to reduce general fund operational expenditures, including (1) across the board cuts, (2) program reductions using the current budget model, and (3) program reductions using 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 • Ignores the differential effectiveness and priority of programs • Ignores which expenditures/programs generate revenue • Ignores 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: • Objective analysis of program efficiency not part of decision Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.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 Programs Using Priority -Based Budgeting (PBB) Model Pros: • Lower priority programs (as identified through an objective scoring process) are reduced/eliminated • Requires serious discussion of community values, relative benefits of different services, and long-term implications of reducing/eliminating programs • Demonstrates strategic approach to managing significant financial issues • Aligns with current best practice • True cost of program is known Cons: • PBB model not yet fully implemented Based on the pros and cons of each method identified above, Option 3 would provide the most efficient and objective 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 reprioritizing 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 budgeted an average of $3 million per year of General Fund dollars to transfer to the CIP. General Fund dollars go 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 bridges 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 reprioritizing 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 grant funds for capital projects, though at a reduced rate. Follow Up from the March 6, 2018 Finance Committee Meeting Staff was asked to follow up on the following from the March 6, 2018 Finance Committee Meeting: Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc 11 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 8 • Provide the 2017 budget statistics, including trends and forecast for the future. This information will be provided at the April 3, 2018 Finance Committee Meeting. • Include a map of Park properties. Attached to the memo. • Identify proposed Administration recommendations for immediate operational reductions. These will be provided by the April 17, 2018 Finance Committee meeting. • Provide a CIP prioritization analysis of the effects of reducing the CIP. An analysis of a $500,000 annual ongoing reduction in the CIP will be provided at the April 3, 2018 Finance Committee meeting. • Provide information on market conditions moving forward from the City's current contractors and the Council's Program Management Quality Assurance (PMQA) consultant. Steve Goldblatt, the Council's PMQA consultant will be in attendance at the March 20, 2018 Finance Committee meeting and additional information is provided below regarding forecasted market conditions. Project Schedule As prescribed by the agreed-upon schedule outlined in the beginning of this memo, the discussion slated for the March 20, 2018 meeting centers on the ramifications of pushing back the schedules of some of the Public Safety Plan projects in order to spread out funds needed for construction. Below is a discussion of this option, with some specific assumptions built in. Assumptions • Due to the increasing cost of land year over year, as well as the fact that the City has initiated the acquisition process for all of the necessary properties, staff has assumed that acquisition of all of the properties would continue on the timeline set forward by the Public Safety Plan and does not recommend, nor did staff analyze, the ramifications of waiting on acquisition. • Because Fire Station 51 is contractually obligated by the Tukwila Valley South Development Agreement, staff does not recommend, nor did staff analyze, pushing out the Fire Station 51 project. This project is also the furthest along in the process. • With Fire Station 51 moving to the new site at Southcenter Parkway and South 180th, the need to move Fire Station 52 to the preferred site on the City Hall Campus becomes critical. As the FACETS study showed, once Fire Station 51 moves it is imperative that Fire Station 52 also move to the proposed location to ensure equitable response times across the city. Because the existing Fire Station 54 is within the FACETS identified location area, it is not subject to the same urgency. Staff does not recommend, nor did staff analyze, delaying the Fire Station 52 project. Analysis For discussion purposes, staff worked with Shiels Obletz Johnsen and Lydig Construction, the GCCM for the fire stations, to identify the forecasted cost escalation associated with waiting to construct the Justice Center, Fire Station 54 and the Public Works Shops. For planning purposes, the team looked at what the ramifications would be if these three projects were delayed by five years. While there have been questions as to whether the overall construction market is slowing down, Lydig's forecast indicate continued increased costs over time. Their forecast analysis shows the following percentage annual increases from 2018 through 2023, which compound over time, raising the cost of the projects by nearly 25% over that time period: Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Annual % 5% 5.25% 2.2% 5.1% 4% Increase 12 Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 9 On the attached conceptual cash flow document, you can see that the projects escalate in the following ways: • Justice Center: o Total cost under current schedule: $68.5 million o Total cost delaying project five years: $82.5 million • Fire Station 54: o Total cost under current schedule: $14.7 million o Total cost delaying project five years: $18.6 million • Public Works Shops (most conservative estimate): o Total cost under current schedule: $63.4 million o Total cost delaying project five years: $76.8 million • Public Works Shops (best case estimate): o Total cost under current schedule: $44.8 million o Total cost delaying project five years: $52.8 million As we have done with the previous topics covered in this process, staff is seeking a discussion with the Committee about this analysis in order to inform the Administration recommendations. These will be presented at the April 3, 2018 Finance Committee meeting for discussion and will include the financial framework for review. Staff anticipates there will be discussion and Committee refinement at the April 3 and April 17 Finance Committee meetings, with a goal of a Finance Committee recommendation to full Council by the end of April, should Committee members concur. Follow Up Staff was asked to follow up on what savings could be found in the existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP): • One-time funding from 2018: o Cascade View Safe Routes to School savings: $100K o Small Roadway projects savings: $175K o S. 144th St. Bridge Sidewalks (grant not received): $190K o S. 140th St. Intersections (grant not received): $ 75K o TOTAL: $540K • Ongoing reduction potential o The General Fund makes an annual contribution to the Residential Street Improvement Fund of $750K per year. Potential Scenarios to Fill the Public Safety Plan Gap The Committee has requested that staff provide recommendations on potential options for filling the Public Safety Plan gap. Below is a summary of five options for discussion at the April 3, 2018 Committee meeting. Attached to this memo is the detailed financial framework for each option, including year -by -year impacts. Staff expects to refine these based on Committee discussion and return for focused discussion on a smaller number of options for the Committee to consider as it deliberates on its recommendation to the full council. The following key assumptions went in to the development of these options: • One-time funds previously discussed (such as land sales, existing REET, etc.) are included in all options. • Dedicated REET1 to PSP projects is included in all options. • Fire impact fees are included at the projected higher rate and Tukwila South agreement fire impact fees are also included in all options. Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc 13 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 10 • LTGO bonds are assumed at a 30 -year amortization rate. • Reducing the PW facilities to $30M would allow for land acquisition, improvements to one of the existing buildings and a full design program for the PW shops. Future decisions would need to be made about the Shops, with the ability to use Enterprise funds for additional financing. • Two scenarios contemplate reducing eliminating funding for Fire Apparatus and Equipment after year 10. The City would have five bienniums to identify how to pay for this needed equipment. • Two scenarios contemplate reducing or eliminating the construction of FS 54. There would likely be some costs associated with upgrading the facility. • Where there is no General Fund obligation, but identified capacity from maturing debt, the repayment method could be a combination of General Fund contribution and maturing debt capacity to repay the LTGO bonds. • Unless eliminated, each scenario contemplates the projects being built on the existing schedule. Staff recommends Option Cl for the following reasons: • The costs associated with building construction will likely rise faster than the costs associated with procuring apparatus and equipment for Fire, so it makes sense to prioritize the building over equipment. • The City would have ample time to identify how to fund apparatus and equipment in the out -years. • The City previously did not have an apparatus and equipment fund and has historically paid for items out of the General Fund. • Dedicating $30M to shops allows for the City to acquire all of the property, perform necessary upgrades to one existing facility and fully develop a program and design for the rest of the facility, allowing the City a better idea of the total budget. This also allows the City to better identify how it can leverage Enterprise Funds' contribution. • There is very little obligation to the General Fund in this option and would not use all of the capacity from maturing debt on an annual basis, allowing for other capital priorities should the Council wish. 14 Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc LTGO Repayment Method Option FS 51 FS 52 S A&E JC PW 2020 General Capacity LTGO Fund from Bonds contribution maturing debt A A $17M $14M $29M $68M $63M] $66M $1M - $2.5 M per yr $830K - $3M per yr B $12M $17M $14M $29M $68M $68M $30M $30M $32M $35M $1M - $2M per yr $1M in 2028 & $500K in 2029 $830K - $2.6M per yr $830K - $1.6M per yr Cl 12M $17M $14M $15M C2 p12M $17M $0 $29M $68M $30M $20M $0 $830K - $2M per yr D $12M $17M A $0 $15M $68M $30M $20M $0 $500K - $1.2M per yr Staff recommends Option Cl for the following reasons: • The costs associated with building construction will likely rise faster than the costs associated with procuring apparatus and equipment for Fire, so it makes sense to prioritize the building over equipment. • The City would have ample time to identify how to fund apparatus and equipment in the out -years. • The City previously did not have an apparatus and equipment fund and has historically paid for items out of the General Fund. • Dedicating $30M to shops allows for the City to acquire all of the property, perform necessary upgrades to one existing facility and fully develop a program and design for the rest of the facility, allowing the City a better idea of the total budget. This also allows the City to better identify how it can leverage Enterprise Funds' contribution. • There is very little obligation to the General Fund in this option and would not use all of the capacity from maturing debt on an annual basis, allowing for other capital priorities should the Council wish. 14 Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 11 Follow Up and Next Steps As the Committee continues to deliberate on how to fill the Public Safety Plan financial gap, it has asked for specific issues to be addressed and information to be provided. Now that the Schematic Design estimate is in for the Justice Center, there is more certainty in the costs associated with the Public Safety Plan. However, the Committee has made it clear that more information is needed on the overall budget forecast for the City and the six-year financial plan. The City also has the White Birch tool, which will be previewed at the May 8, 2018 Finance Committee meeting, to assist in the modeling of filling the financial gap. The City is committed to being transparent with the community on the Public Safety Plan and has previously indicated it would hold two open houses in 2018. Staff has tentatively scheduled (though not yet advertised) a community open house for Saturday, June 23. Should the Committee members desire to keep the open house as currently scheduled, staff propose the following next steps: • May 22 Finance Committee: Overview of six-year financial plan "Attachment A" and discussion of options to model in White Birch • June 5 Finance Committee: Review models in White Birch, discuss preferred option • If ready— June 11 COW discussion on the various options • If ready— June 18 Council action The City also has the option to move the open house back to ensure that the Committee and Council have sufficient time to review and decide on a path to fill the Public Safety Plan financial gap. Staff is seeking direction on the proposed next steps and timeline, as well as any additional information the Committee deems necessary to make a recommendation to the full Council. Committee Options to Model in Whitebirch Per the agreement on the above described timeline, the May 22 Finance Committee will be an opportunity for Committee members to propose potential strategies for financing the Public Safety Plan qap that were not included in the five scenarios provided by staff. Staff will then return to the June 5 Finance Committee with Committee members' scenarios in Whitebirch for review and discussion, with the goal of identifying a preferred option to present to the full Council at the June 11 workshop. No other items will be scheduled for the June 5 Committee meeting. Staff continues to recommend scenario Cl, which would: • Build all three fire stations on the current timeline • Build the Justice Center on the current timeline • Invest $30 million in Public Works facilities, allowing for the land purchase, improvements to two of the existing buildings and the architectural and engineering work needed to program and design the remaining facility • Pay for fire apparatus and equipment for ten years, allowing the City to identify how it would pay for these needed items during this time All five scenarios are contained in the financial framework documents attached, including Cl. The Administration believes that Cl is the best option because it does not rely on General Fund contributions (except for years 2028 and 2029, which can be smoothed out by shifting apparatus purchases), does not utilize all of the capacity from maturing debt, and allows for the most significant portion of the Public Safety Plan to be achieved in the current timeline. Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc 15 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 12 Staff specifically does not recommend using new revenue to fund the Public Safety Plan because it is believed that this tool should be saved for the 2019/2020 budget process to address the flattening of sales tax and the elimination of Streamline Sales Tax mitigation payments. However, the new revenue matrix is attached for discussion of Committee members' desired scenarios. 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 Financial Frameworks Option A Option B Option Cl Option C2 Option D New Revenue Matrix 16 Z:\Council Agenda Items\Communications\Final FIN Memo 051618.doc PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization Z _ 2 LL m m O N N o N N o N 0 m O N Ol O N CO iNiO N n N l0 N O N N N 0 N Tr 0 N en N O N N O N N N O N 0 N O N O1 '-1 O N co o N n o N I I I I I I I I 40,675,046 I I I I I I 20,000,000 66,000,000 I I I I I I 500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 ! 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 ! 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 350,000 1,017,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 3,000,000 I I I I I I 5,038,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 I 500,000 500,000 j 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 I 500,000 500,000 I 500,000 500,000 I 500,000 500,000 I 500,000 258,283 200,000 100,000 100,000 40,000 I I I I I I 283,709 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 ; 2,500,000 I I I I 831,000 831,000 831,000 831,000 1,468,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 2,058,992 30,338,000 42,875,046 72,031,000 4,971,000 7,931,000 = 2,931,000 3,568,000 " 4,594,000 4,594,000 5,094,000 5,094,000 5,094,000 5,094,000 5,144,000 5,294,000 5,294,000 I I I I I I I 431,266 17,890,500 26,694,000 23,430,406 ; 254,484 1,385,000 8,725,500 2,115,501 I 161,299 890,000 2,512,000 13,046,000 ' 1,033,751 I I I I I I 142,791 1,554,000 1,978,000 10,274,000 , 814,587 573,651 4,455,859 540,082 362,3851 276,621 583,525 507,480 2,597,023 384,755 414,980 806,277 2,709,784 3,512,566 1,607,204 1,597,411 2,865,957 888,681 283,709 19,361,000 4,989,000 28,317,000 10,460,142 - j p 1,847,199 45,536,359 45,438,582 77,545,292 12,585,101 583,525 507,480 2,597,023 ; 384,755 414,980 ; 806,277 2,709,784 ; 3,512,566 1,607,204 1,597,411 2,865,957 888,681 interest only ! interest only interest only ! interest only full DS I I I 800,000 800,000 3,440,000 j 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 I 5,212,204 5,212,204 I 5,212,204 (400,000) (400,000) (1,270,000)! (1,270,000) (1,930,956)! (1,930,956) (1,930,956)! (1,930,956) (1,930,956)! (1,930,956) (1,930,956)! (1,930,956) (1,930,956)! (1,930,956) (1,930,956)! (1,930,956) 400,000 400,000 2,170,000 2,170,000 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 .i 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 1,847,199 45,936,359 45,838,582 79,715,292 , 14,755,101 3,864,773 y 3,788,728 5,878,271 3,666,003 3,696,228 j 4,087,525 5,991,032 I 6,793,813 4,888,452 ; 4,878,659 6,147,205 j 4,169,929 211,793 (15,598,359)1 (2,963,536) (7,684,292)1 (9,784,101) 4,066,227 (857,728) (2,310,271)1 927,997 897,7721 1,006,475 (897,032)1 (1,699,813) 205,5481 265,341 (853,205)1 1,124,071 36,513,127 36,724,920 21,126,561 18,163,025 10,478,732 694,631 4,760,859 3,903,131 1,592,860 2,520,856 3,418,628 4,425,103 3,528,071 1,828,257 2,033,805 2,299,146 : 1,445,942 36,724,920 21,126,561 18,163,025 10,478,732 694,631 4,760,859 ; 3,903,131 1,592,860 2,520,856 3,418,628 ; 4,425,103 3,528,071 1,828,257 2,033,805 2,299,146 1,445,942 2,570,013 0 Q O 0 0 0 O to co en n n O 0 O O 0 0 l0 CO O 0 O 0 to n a O 0 0 n ,I 01 O .-I O O O 0 0 0 0 O O O o0 O 0 en o O O u1 l M to' .-I a -I l!1 oo n 0 n 01 O o 0 Nco m l!1 co 00 N In Coui ui N l0 308,667,354 l!1 o O 0 n In W l0 oo l0 oo O rl m o No IAN m m m O oo O N M N O a m l0 m .-I 0 n In lOl a N n Ti.cr cr .-I a-1 a-1 N 1.0 N co N 0 co l0 0 N 151,919,016 (56,155,421) U, m in m l0 n un 01 302,631,472 c -i Co co u1 m O l0 ' N co co Lri m 0 l0 m I -O N 13:1- VO cu 0 7 N0 O H Ce D U E @ U C O lJ ,,,- -0 v � V O O J c�0 QJ el Y O Q N � ut 01 !? v LL v L o ut 01 !Z v LL c O 0 V us v Q i C-43 C O O W m W u_ LL Co c i co N > C ti4 c N ' f0CO CC C 21E •+ O 4- o> y, ,J 3 '13.! _ i1 V U V C 0.c C 10 C -D• x << v Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Annual Surplus (Shortfall) Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) Ending Carryover (Shortfall) s- c0 O .- .- .- N .- M d' Lc) .- .- .- I- c- 00 al ,- .- M N V N ul N l0 N r 03 01 O .- N N N M rn in rn 1- M CO M 61 m O V N V 00 V Ol t O ul Scenario A - All In 18 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization g Q JO Q Q Q - I Q l7 LL Q Q D U Q m Q Q Q N >-m X m o� O N N CO O c•J N. O N p N in N O N m O N N N a N o O N m N m o N up O N M N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I i I I I I I 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 1 500,000 500,000 I I i I I I I I 2,500,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I I I 1,994,000 2,259,000 2,647,000 2,647,000 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 2,561,600 5,294,000 4,059,000 3,447,000 3,447,000 3,361,600 1 3,361,600 3,361,600 " 3,361,600 3,361,600 3,361,600 3,361,600 ' 3,361,600 3,361,600 3,361,600 3,361,600 3,361,600 3,361,600 o 0 CO o O 00 o O CO o O W o O W o O 00 O 00 c 0 W o o co o o 00 o O co O 00 o o O .4 6.9. O N I I I 1 I I I 1 I 3,667,573 243,009 609,751 712,979 i 9 I 3,667,573 243,009 609,751 712,979 5,212,204 5,212,204 5,212,204 i 5,212,204 5,212,204 I 5,212,204 5,212,204 I 5,212,204 5,212,204 I 5,212,204 5,212,204 5,212,204 5,212,204 I 5,212,204 3,960,856 I 3,960,856 (1,930,956)' (1,930,956) (1,930,956)I (1,930,956) (1,930,956) (1,930,956) (1,930,956)I (1,930,956) (1,930,956)1 (1,930,956) (1,930,956) (1,930,956) (1,930,956)' (1,930,956) (1,305,282) (1,305,282) 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 2,655,574 2,655,574 6,948,821 3,524,257 3,890,999 3,994,227 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 3,281,248 2,655,574 2,655,574 - Annual Surplus (Shortfall) (1,654,821)1 534,743 (443,999)1 (547,227) 80,352 I 80,352 80,352 I 80,352 80,352 1 80,352 80,352 I 80,352 80,352 I 80,352 706,026 I 706,026 3,361,600 Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) I 2,570,013 915,192 1,449,935 1,005,936 458,709 539,061 619,413 699,765 780,117 860,469 940,821 • 1,021,174 1,101,526 1,181,878 1,262,230 1,968,256 2,674,281 915,192 1,449,935 1,005,936 458,709 539,061 619,413 699,765 780,117 860,469 940,821 1,021,174 1,101,526 1,181,878 1,262,230 1,968,256 2,674,281 6,035,881 O CU ai v cd 2O Q ^ 7 CU 0 0109 N H CZ D V E co V C O U -0 a, N Vto Q c O 'Q O� H J N Y O 0_ a) D Y O CRJ 0 0.1CU vim- w m m 0_ O_ 0) cu LL LL C 0 Y S17 C O 0 V0 Q Y C o C i J �--I m W LL d d' OD cOA N ' Uj f0 CO CC C E r O .4 c OA o a C } 4-, 3 "-C2 (C3 Q. +' v c CU V C on E f0 .0 C c -o_ > C "o .x C Q Q al Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Ending Carryover (Shortfall) s- co Ol O ‘- .- N ‘.- ‘.- m d' Lc) ,- ‘- ,- I- CO 0l c- ,- ,- m N V N ul N lO N 1.- N CO N Ol N O m a- m ul m N. m CO m Ol m O -1- N V CO Ol V-1- O .-n Scenario A - All In 20 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization D ~ N cc a d O Z 2 J _ I V LL N O N eI O N O M O N 01 O N co O N N N O N ID N O N Lel N O N a o N M N O N N SiO N '-I N 0 N 0 N O N 01 e-1 O N co O N n G' N I I I I I I 40,675,046 20,000,000 32,000,000 I i I I I I I 500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 ; 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 350,000 I I I I I I 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 I i I I i I 3,000,000 5,038,000 3,000,000 i 2,000,000 5,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 ; 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 258,283 200,000 100,000 100,000 40,000 283,709 - 1 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - - - - 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 I I I I I I I 831,000 831,000 831,000 831,000 1,468,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 2,058,992 29,338,000 ; 42,875,046 38,031,000 4,971,000 6,931,000 1,931,000 2,568,000 3,094,000 3,094,000 ; 3,094,000 4,094,000 5,094,000 4,094,000 4,144,000 3,794,000 I i i i I 431,266 17,890,500 26,694,000 23,430,406I - - - 254,484 1,385,000 8,725,500 2,115,501 ; - 161,299 890,000 2,512,000 13,046,000 1,033,751 - - 142,791 1,554,000 1,978,000 10,274,000 814,587 573,651 4,455,859 540,082 362,385 276,621 583,525 507,480 2,597,023 384,755 414,980 806,277 2,709,784 3,512,566 1,607,204 1,597,411 2,865,957 283,709 19,361,000 3,542,000 5,719,000 i 1,094,291 1,847,199 45,536,359 43,991,582 54,947,292 I 3,219,250 583,525 507,480 2,597,023 384,755 414,980 806,277 2,709,784 3,512,566 1,607,204 1,597,411 2,865,957 interest only interest only interest only interest only full DS 800,000 800,000 2,080,000 ; 2,080,000 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 I I I I I I (400,000); (400,000) (600,000); (600,000) (925,739) i (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739) 400,000 ; 400,000 1,480,000 1,480,000 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 ; 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 1 1 1 1,847,199 45,936,359 44,391,582 56,427,292. 4,699,250 2,829,549 2,753,504 4,843,047 2,630,779 2,661,004 3,052,302 4,955,809. 5,758,590 3,853,228 3,843,435 5,111,981 211,793 (16,598,359) (1,516,536) (18,396,292) 271,750 4,101,451 1 (822,504) (2,275,047)1 463,221 432,996 41,698 (861,809) (664,590) 240,772 1 300,565 (1,317,981) 36,513,127 36,724,920 20,126,561 18,610,025 ; 213,732 485,482 4,586,933 3,764,429 1,489,382 1,952,603 ' 2,385,598 2,427,297 1,565,488 900,899 1,141,671 1,442,236 i I I I I 36,724,920 20,126,561 18,610,025 213,732 ' 485,482 4,586,933 3,764,429 1,489,382 1,952,603 2,385,598 2,427,297 1,565,488 ' 900,899 1,141,671 1,442,236 124,255 0 Q O 0 O O 0 to co CO N N O O 0 O O 0 N to O O 0 O in N a O O co N ei 01 O eti O O O O O 0 e O O O O O O 00 O M 0 0 u1 Lei l0 a-I ri 1.11 a co N 0 N 01 0 N m 00 N e19 e- 0 O a u1 Al 01 0000 a 242,516,954 u1 CO t0 00 O en O N O M M M O O eti M N a to t0 u11/1 taM 1 0 N N n a t0 rl rl e-I O O O N Al 01 01 N O O O O 0 0 O M N O N N e19 N N Cr tD t0 t0 t0 0 N 01 1:1 en m 01 t0 LD tD N 0o N M N 01 vi t0 238,854,354 Cl Cl t!1 N t0 (.0 M ' 01 01 u1 N t0 t0 M CO O N v 0 v 0• fi O) I— CC D U E ra C C U C 0 U v O SZ U J 73 U n _ 71 O 0 N N w U EE> al LL v L rJ w U e v U C O 0 C N C 0 U U' 0O Cl LL v C C 0 w LU 0 d' 120 s- N 1= N > C h0 C U C 7 e0 f0 e0 E E 0 0 0> .a rOQ i (6 C U0 7, C 'O C '6 Q Q ++ v N X N Revenue Total Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Annual Surplus (Shortfall) Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) Ending Carryover (Shortfall) co Ol O e- .- N s- Cl s- V to e- s- r e- W e- Cl e- M N d' N t!1 N L0 N- W as N N N N O M e- Cl ul Cl I� rn CO (n Cl rn O V V N a CO a O1 a O V1 Scenario B - Shps3OM 22 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization 2 Q J Q Y Q -,1 < <- I Q Q LL < w < o Q V < CO Q Q N } X > in O N Q1 o N CO O N nt\ O N LO O N VI Cr N d - O NIM 44. O N N O N Il V N O <t O N 01 M O N CO O N n M O N 0 M N in rel N a COO N M M N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 500,000 500,000 ; 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 ; 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 ; 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 ; 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 I I I I I I I 1,500,000 2,000,0001 500,000 I I I I I I I I I I 1,994,000 1,994,000 2,259,000 2,647,000 2,647,000 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 1,280,800 4,294,000 4,794,000 3,559,000 3,447,000 3,447,000 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 = 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 2,080,800 100% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 888,681 3,667,573 243,009 609,751 712,979 I I I i I I I i 888,681 3,667,5731 243,009 609,7511 712,979 I I I 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 3,171,763 1,920,415 1,920,415 I I I I I I (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (925,739); (925,739) (300,065); (300,065) 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 ; 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 1,620,350 1,620,350 - I i I I 3,134,705 5,913,597 ; 2,489,033 2,855,775 2,959,003 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 ; 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 2,246,024 1,620,350 1,620,350 Annual Surplus (Shortfall) 1,159,295 (1,119,597)i 1,069,967 591,225 487,997 (165,224) (165,224) (165,224)1 (165,224) (165,224) (165,224) (165,224) (165,224) (165,224) (165,224) 460,450 460,450 2,080,800 Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) I 124,255 1,283,550 I 163,953 1,233,920 1,825,144 2,313,141 ; 2,147,917 1,982,693 1,817,469 1,652,245 1,487,021 1,321,797 1,156,572 991,348 826,124 660,900 1,121,350 1,581,799 I I I 1,283,550 163,953 1,233,920 1,825,144 ; 2,313,141 2,147,917 ; 1,982,693 1,817,469 1,652,245 1,487,021 1,321,797 1,156,572 991,348 826,124 660,900 1,121,350 1,581,799 3,662,599 cO V1 CU 7 C N aa> CC -O CU Q .7:1-, aJ a1 � O. 0 F D Iiq0C u � C +, O O U O_ CZ u �n O a/ a w U C (a O O_ S E cu J LL alCU Y O v� a w U (a O_ E a1 LL O O .n N C O u Y o 06 -O C J CO M LL v _mai c ra \ . al O0 LL c -I w w Co N to C i ra v +-. v E a1 > u 16 is � w i O 3 +` C V N C C < C CO E E O > � SZ u n — a/ f6 -6 O M o C 'O N "o .X < al Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Ending Carryover (Shortfall) co Ol O .- N ,- M ,- V ,- Ln ,- N- ,- CO ,- CI M N d' N Ln N LO N I- (N CO N Ol N O M - M n M N- en CO en Ol M O V V N CO Ol O Ln N 0 N Scenario B - Shps3OM CO O N 23 M 24 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization > M M O N I I I I I I I I 40,675,046 I I I I I I 20,000,000 I 35,000,000 I I I I I I 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 ! 300,000 300,000 350,000 1,017,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 3,000,000 ' 5,038,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 I I I I I I 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 258,283 200,000 : 100,000 100,000 40,000 I I I I I I I I 283,709 - - - - - - - - - - 1,000,000 ; 500,000 - - - - I I I I I I I I 831,000 831,000 831,000 ' 831,000 1,468,000 ' 1,994,000 1,994,000 ' 1,994,000 1,994,000 ' 1,994,000 1,994,000 ' 1,994,000 1,994,000 ' 1,994,000 2,058,992 29,338,000 41,875,046 40,031,000 3,971,000 6,931,000 1,931,000 2,568,000 3,094,000 3,094,000 " 3,094,000 4,094,000 3,594,000 3,094,000 , 3,144,000 2,794,000 2,794,000 I I I 1 I I I I 431,266 17,890,500 ; 26,694,000 23,430,406 - - - 254,484 1,385,000 8,725,500 2,115,501 161,299 890,000 2,512,000 13,046,000 1,033,751 I I I I I I 142,791 1,554,000 ; 1,978,000 10,274,000 814,587 ; 573,651 4,455,859 540,082 362,385 276,621 583,525 I 507,480 597,023 1,384,755 1,414,980 806,277 2,709,784 773,130 I I 283,709 19,361,000 ; 3,542,000 5,719,000 1,094,291 1,847,199 45,536,359 43,991,582 54,947,292 3,219,250 583,525 507,480 597,023 1,384,755 1,414,980 ° 806,277 2,709,784 ; 773,130 - - - - interest only ! interest only interest only interest only full DS 800,000 800,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 3,351,802 (400,000)! (400,000) (600,000)! (600,000) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) 400,000 1 400,000 1,600,000 1 1,600,000 2,426,063 1 2,426,063 2,426,063 1 2,426,063 2,426,063 1 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 q 2,426,063 1,847,199 45,936,359 44,391,582 56,547,292 j 4,819,250 3,009,588 2,933,543 3,023,086 3,810,818 3,841,043 j 3,232,340 5,135,848 3,199,193 2,426,063 g 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 211,793 (16,598,359)1 (2,516,536) (16,516,292)1 (848,250) 3,921,4121 (1,002,543) (455,086), (716,818) (747,043)1 (138,340) (1,041,848)1 394,807 667,937 717,937 367,9371 367,937 36,513,127 36,724,920 20,126,561 17,610,025 1,093,732 245,482 ; 4,166,894 3,164,351 ; 2,709,265 1,992,447 ; 1,245,404 1,107,063 65,216 460,023 ; 1,127,960 1,845,897 ; 2,213,834 I I o 36,724,920 20,126,561 17,610,025 1,093,732 245,482 4,166,894 ; 3,164,351 2,709,265 ; 1,992,447 1,245,404 ; 1,107,063 65,216 460,023 1,127,960 ; 1,845,897 2,213,834 2,581,771 N 01O N N O N 0 CO O N 011 NIO N CO NIO N N c N tD N O N 1!l o Z 0 N Cr oo O 0 N Oe --i M J N O N N NI O N N N O N 0 N _ 0 N 011 = O N CO O N N LL ."1 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1fl CO 0 234,403,054 ill 00 ID 00 0 0 158,525,026 97,347,754 (26,669,335) 70,678,418 229,203,445 01 T 0 0 0 O O O O O Cr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N in O M O N O O o m m M O O 0 up ' 0 lD 0 —i Q O 1A' co M O O 1. O 00 O P M e1 O to N O m O O co N 0 N 011 0 0 u1 N N MN O O ,-1 M O O 1s. a N O O O III III lD N 0 0 Ol rn c -i T Ql I- N 1N if; a O M ui lD .-1 01 1f1 N ei N a 0o Nr-:' a ui O Lei .-1 .-1 .-1 .-1 M Vl N L./ Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Annual Surplus (Shortfall) Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) Ending Carryover (Shortfall) v C nn @ c c 000 O Ol ' co -O N c^ v v OVNN C O LI U U UCO ,,,-- -0 01 L V ,� o s v o> v � Q c }, ;):7 7O0 O ro )CU O-Qww N ++ C ate+ V L In C 0 U 73 iIJm C 0.1 O c..,!Z ~ N C '6 N O O) CC I— D - v v O W > C "O x J LL LL LL d d' C Q Q al .— CO 01 O a— N m 'Cr ul 1- CO Ol s— .-- .-- .— .-- ,-- c- .— ,— m N V ul l0 1— co al O — mm ul I— m 00 m Ol m O - N -1- CO -71- 6l V O ul N 0 O N Scenario C - Shps30M_APP15M CO 0 rslrJ 25 26 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization ao Q x l7 Q Q CO Q } X m o o v o N QO O N N LID O N in a N dr dt O M er 0 N O N a N O a O N M O N co O n 0 N 0 N N 0 N d rn0 N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I I I I 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1,994,000 1,129,500 1,323,500 1,323,500 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 1,601,000 2,794,000 1,929,500 2,123,500 2,123,500 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 2,401,000 0 0 I 0 0 ul o O u1 o 0 ul oo\' O I4 O u1 o O u1 o O u1 o 0 LnN O u1 o O u1 o\'\' O L) o O u7 O ul 0 O O LI) O 0 O O O O 0 0 O O O I I I I I I I I 3,351,802 j 3,351,802 3,351,802 j 3,351,802 3,351,802 j 3,351,802 3,351,802 j 3,351,802 3,351,802 1 3,351,802 3,351,802 j 3,351,802 3,351,802 j 3,351,802 2,100,454 j 2,100,454 - (925,739) (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739) ! (925,739) (925,739) ! (925,739) (925,739) ! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (925,739)! (925,739) (300,065)! (300,065) - 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 2,426,063 ; 2,426,063 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 1,800,389 j 1,800,389 - 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 j 2,426,063 2,426,063 ; 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 2,426,063 1,800,389 1,800,389 - Annual Surplus (Shortfall) 367,937 j (496,563) (302,563)j (302,563) (25,063)j (25,063) (25,063) (25,063) (25,063) (25,063) (25,063) (25,063) (25,063), (25,063) 600,611 j 600,611 2,401,000 Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) I 2,581,771 2,949,707 2,453,144 2,150,581 1,848,018 ; 1,822,955 1,797,892 1,772,829 1,747,766 1,722,703 1,697,640 1,672,577 1,647,514 1,622,451 1,597,388 2,197,998 2,798,609 I I I I I i 2,949,707 2,453,144 2,150,581 1,848,018 1,822,955 1,797,892 1,772,829 1,747,766 1,722,703 1,697,640 1,672,577 - 1,647,514 1,622,451 1,597,388 2,197,998 2,798,609 5,199,609 � TO OA N j I -O V CO N cu C CCLI CO EV r �^ .-.- -o i QJ t V Toei>j. vvos v o v Q c} VO V to to Y i 3 O 41 QJ i?. is is ,._a) w C co Q1 +.' v ^ -o c iiJ coco 7 O V ON : C 01 v v o c. o 4 cv w v C -o an _ N H M W > C -D 'x ce D J LL LL LL O_ d' C Q Q cu Revenue Total Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Ending Carryover (Shortfall) .- COOl 0 a- N M V Ln I- co 0•1M ‘- �- �- .- ‘- ,- c- ,- ,- N V N ul N l0 N 1- N CO N Ol N O en ,-ul en M I- en W en Ol M O V V N V CO V 0-,O V ul Scenario C - Shps30M_APP15M CO 0 27 M 28 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization > Z _ = LL M M O N N O N N O N 0 M O N al O N CO O N N c N N N O N N N N N M N O N N O N -I N O N 0 N 0 N al O N CO O N N a"1 O N I I I I I I I I 40,675,046 I I I I I I 20,000,000 I 20,000,000 I I I I I I I 500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 350,000 1,017,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 3,000,000 ' 5,038,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 I I I I I I 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 258,283 200,000 100,000 100,000 40,000 I I I I I I 283,709 - 1 - I - - I - I - I - 1 - I - - I - 831,000 831,000 831,000 831,000 1,468,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 1,994,000 2,058,992 29,338,000 I 41,875,046 25,031,000 I 3,971,000 6,931,000 I 1,931,000 2,568,000 I 3,094,000 3,094,000 I 3,094,000 3,094,000 I 3,094,000 3,094,000 i 3,144,000 2,794,000 I 2,794,000 o 0 Os -I o O • • • • 431,266 17,890,500 26,694,000 23,430,406 254,484 1,385,000 8,725,500 2,115,501 I I I I I I 161,299 890,000 : 2,512,000 13,046,000 1,033,751 - - 142,791 I I I I I I I 573,651 4,455,859 540,082 362,385 276,621 583,525 507,480 2,597,023 384,755 414,980 806,277 2,709,784 3,512,566 1,607,204 1,597,411 2,865,957 888,681 283,709 19,361,000 : 3,542,000 5,719,000 1,094,291 - 1,847,199 43,982,359 42,013,582 44,673,292 I 2,404,663 583,525 507,480 2,597,023 384,755 414,980 806,277 2,709,784 3,512,566 1,607,204 1,597,411 2,865,957 888,681 interest only interest only interest only interest only full DS I I V I I I 800,000 ; 800,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 I I I I I I I I (400,000) i (400,000) (600,000) I (600,000) (925,739) i (925,739) (925,739) i (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) 400,000 400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,525,868 ; 1,525,868 1,525,868 ; 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 ; 1,525,868 1,525,868 ; 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 I I I I 1,847,199 44,382,359 ' 42,413,582 45,673,292 3,404,663 2,109,393 2,033,348 4,122,891 1,910,624 1,940,849 ; 2,332,146 4,235,653 5,038,434 3,133,072 3,123,279 4,391,825 2,414,549 211,793 (15,044,359)1 (538,536) (20,642,292)1 566,337 4,821,607 I (102,348) (1,554,891)1 1,183,376 1,153,151 I 761,854 (1,141,653)1 (1,944,434) (39,072)1 20,721 (1,597,825)1 379,451 36,513,127 36,724,920 21,680,561 21,142,025 499,732 1,066,069 5,887,676 5,785,328 4,230,436 5,413,813 6,566,964 7,328,818 6,187,165 4,242,731 4,203,659 4,224,380 2,626,555 36,724,920 21,680,561 21,142,025 499,732 1,066,069 5,887,676 5,785,328 4,230,436 5,413,813 6,566,964 7,328,818 6,187,165 4,242,731 4,203,659 4,224,380 2,626,555 3,006,005 0 m Q O 0 0 0 11 co M N 0 0 0 O O 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 111 al 0 O O O O O v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' CO N al O N O 00 O r M O Ill N O M O O 00 lD N al 0 0 Leel N N cr Nm N ,-1 C 209,048,454 Ill 00 lD a-1 0 0 00100100 0 M m N 0 0 O O a -I N N O N V N V M O 1ll Ill LD a-1 01 0 N LID N N M 158,836,439 70,942,304 (26,669,335) 44,272,969 203,109,408 5,939,046 tD 'Cr 0 0, M 01 MH -O N > cn N v OJ O N H Ce D v '� @ =Ln U :I) o J v nn _ _ 0�0 O O) ' QJ N N 6 = U N E o = w c v 0 .. O O a }, b0 p >, "Ci_:, Q � .Q.: c}, ..oLet i i3NO =NQcs w C f6 N a+ V c0 c0 -O ? 'O N Hi v v O O W v> C -D LL LL LL co 0 d' C C Q< w Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Annual Surplus (Shortfall) Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) Ending Carryover (Shortfall) .- W 0-1O a- a— Nm V Lel to 1— 00 0•1M a- a- .- a- a- ,- c- ,- ,- (V V N Lel N LO 1- W Ol O ,- N N N N en en Lel en N- en 00 en CI en O V V N CO asO V1 N 0 O ati Scenario C2 - Shps30M_No F554 00 O IN 29 M 30 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization _ Q x LL Q Q CO } X en oLn N cn v N a O N n et N 0 o N a N o rq m er N N O N a N O a O N M O N co M O ran 0 N LID 0 N N 0 N m mO N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 I I I I I I I I 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 I I I I I I I I 1,994,000 1,129,500 1,058,800 1,058,800 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 960,600 2,794,000 I 1,929,500 1,858,800 I 1,858,800 1,760,600 I 1,760,600 1,760,600 I 1,760,600 1,760,600 I 1,760,600 1,760,600 I 1,760,600 1,760,600 I 1,760, 600 1,760,600 I 1,760,600 1,760,600 0 0 M o M 0 M 0 0 m 0 m o O M O m 0 M O M o 0 M O M o 0 m ligO M O V 0 O O In i I I I I I I I I I I 3,667,573 243,009 609,751 712,979 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 0 0i 0 0 3,667,573 1 243,009 609,751 1 712,979 I I I I 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 1,200,260 1,200,260 I I I I I I I I (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (300,065)'1 (300,065) 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 ' 1,525,868 1,525,868 ; 1,525,868 900,195 900,195 - i I i i I I i 5,193,442 1,768,877 2,135,620 2,238,847 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 900,195 900,195 - Annual Surplus (Shortfall) (2,399,442)1 160,623 (276,820)1 (380,047) 234,732 1 234,732 234,732 1 234,732 234,732 I 234,732 234,732 234,732 234,732 I 234,732 860,405 1 860,405 1,760,600 Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) I 3,006,005 606,564 767,187 490,367 110,320 345,051 579,783 814,514 1,049,246 1,283,977 1,518,709 1,753,441 1,988,172 2,222,904 2,457,635 3,318,041 4,178,446 606,564 767,187 490,367 110,320 345,051 579,783 814,514 1,049,246 1,283,977 1,518,709 1,753,441 1,988,172 2,222,904 2,457,635 3,318,041 4,178,446 5,939,046 aJ N CC al O > -6 al v V a -O L9 I- D V co V C N v V O O_ -O 0 -J tl0 co C C N V j c5 fo co S CC Y CCC N Y C 2 o c C 0_ al 0 r O Y V ._ N C .- O CS o> 07S Q co O 'E 7 u Le) 0O al al,_ i?. v,- w Cl C ca al a+ co +J Vt-i°! m 0 al al p o w al N c 'o m W > C -0 LL LL LL a d' C C Q Q JD °Ca _ 'x al Revenue Total Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Ending Carryover (Shortfall) .— co Ol O .- a— N M V In l0 N- CO ‘.- ‘.- .- ‘- ,- ,- c- ,- Ol ,- M N V NNNNNN In l0 1- W Ol O en en ul en N- en CO en Ol en 0 V V N CO al 0 V1 Scenario C2 - Shps30M_No F554 32 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization M > M O N N D O N N ~ O N 0 N M O N al K O N 00 CY O N N a c N N O N O N N z N N N a 2 o N M N O N N Y 0 N -I N 0 N 0 — N 0 N 01 I O N 00 V, N N LL ei O N I I I I I I I I 40,675,046 I I I I I I 20,000,000 20,000,000 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 500,000 300,000 i 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 i 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 i 300,000 300,000 350,000 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 ° 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 I I I I I I I I 3,000,000 5,038,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 I I I I I 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 : 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 258,283 200,000 100,000 100,000 40,000 I I I I I I 283,709 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I i I 831,000 831,000 498,600 : 498,600 880,800 1,196,400 717,840 ; 717,840 717,840 717,840 717,840 : 717,840 717,840 ; 717,840 2,058,992 29,338,000 i 41,875,046 25,031,000 3,971,000 6,598,600 i 1,598,600 1,980,800 1 2,296,400 1,817,840 f 1,817,840 1,817,840 i 1,817,840 1,817,840 ° 1,867,840 1,517,840 I 1,517,840 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% I- 60% 60% 60% I � I 431,266 17,890,500 26,694,000 23,430,406 - 254,484 1,385,000 8,725,500 2,115,501 I i 161,299 890,000 ° 2,512,000 13,046,000 1,033,751- - 142,791 - 1 - - I - I i 573,651 4,455,859 540,082 362,385 276,621 583,525 507,480 597,023 i 1,384,755 1,414,980 806,277 2,709,784 773,130 283,709 19,361,000 3,542,000 5,719,000 1,094,291 - 1,847,199 43,982,359 1 42,013,582 44,673,292 2,404,663 583,525 507,480 597,023 1 1,384,755 1,414,980 806,277 2,709,784 1 773,130 - - - - interest only interest only interest only interest only full DS u I 800,000 800,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 6 u 1 I u (400,000) (400,000) (600,000) (600,000) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739)U (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739)U (925,739) 400,000 400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,847,199 44,382,359 ; 42,413,582 45,673,292 3,404,663 2,109,393 ; 2,033,348 2,122,891 2,910,624 2,940,849 2,332,146 4,235,653 2,298,998 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 211,793 (15,044,359): (538,536) (20,642,292): 566,337 4,489,207 : (434,748) (142,091): (614,224) (1,123,009): (514,306) (2,417,813): (481,158) 291,972: 341,972 (8,028): (8,028) 36,513,127 36,724,920 ! 21,680,561 21,142,025 I 499,732 1,066,069 . 5,555,276 5,120,528 . 4,978,436 4,364,213 3,241,204 2,726,898 309,085 (172,073). 119,898 461,870 . 453,841 36,724,920 21,680,561 21,142,025 499,732 1,066,069 5,555,276 , 5,120,528 4,978,436 4,364,213 3,241,204 2,726,898 309,085 , (172,073) 119,898 461,870 453,841 445,813 0 Q O V OO O 0 1A 00 M N N O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O r- in N N 01 O 1 0 0 0 O O O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O M O O In N l0' N eI M 00 r- O N Ol 0 N M 00 N 0 (0 M M V Uf1 N N 191,124,914 1A 00 l0 d0 0 0m00,00 0 M M N 0 0 O O .-i N O O N a to a 0 0 N to l0 e -I 0 0 00 N P 1!1O 1.0 N N N M 143,904,439 70,942,304 (26,669,335) 44,272,969 188,177,408 2,947,506 l0 O N P V al N IU In CLI 7 C j O) CC O CU 0 �^ ;1)- N N O Q C 0 O H D E E U c COoo O U vi 0 v al U 2 Q O J 03 00 el Y O')F.) Q � 0 L O ,, VI al Ol W Wco Q 0_ E E OJ cu LL I: C 0 � Y C p U ,[ 00 0 J 0O M LL N C .T+ v `� O0 w W CL CC c L E N C oA C N ' (0 0 � E r O ,� O ? �_ Q L Y v V p :, C 'B a '0 Q Q L1 00 C IP .X v Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Annual Surplus (Shortfall) Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) Ending Carryover (Shortfall) s— CO Ol O .— N .— .— M .— V Vl .— .— I— e— co .— O> .— M N �' N ul N LD I. CO 0) O .— N N N N M M L!1 M h- M 00 M 0 CO O V N V co V 01 V O .n N 0 O Scenario D- Shps30M_APP15M_No54 00 O lD 33 M 34 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FINANCIAL PLAN - 30 Year LTGO Amortization Q ao Q = Q Q CO > X co 0 o m 0 N CO O N N N LID 0 N ill 'Cr N O csi0 M er O N N O N N 'Cr N O .:I- 0 O N G1 M O N CO O CV N 0 N a 0 N N o N m o N I i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 i I I I I I I I I I I I I 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 i 717,840 903,600 1,058,800 1,058,800 640,400 640,400 640,400 , 640,400 640,400 , 640,400 640,400 640,400 640,400 640,400 640,400 640,400 640,400 1,517,840 1,703,600 1,858,800 1,858,800 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 1,440,400 .. O N O M 0 O cl- O cr 0 0 0 0 C O C C O o O 0 ..._. II 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 � 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 2,451,607 ; 2,451,607 1,200,260 ; 1,200,260 - I I i I I (925,739). (925,739) (925,739): (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739)1 (925,739) (925,739): (925,739) (925,739) (925,739) (300,065); (300,065) - 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 900,195 900,195 - I I 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868: 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 1,525,868 900,195 900,195 - __ -- Annual Surplus (Shortfall) (8,028): 177,732 332,932 , 332,932 (85,468): (85,468) (85,468): (85,468) (85,468): (85,468) (85,468), (85,468) (85,468): (85,468) 540,205 , 540,205 1,440,400 Beginning Carryover (Shortfall) I 445,813 437,785 615,516 , 948,448 1,281,379 , 1,195,911 1,110,442 , 1,024,974 939,506 , 854,037 768,569 683,100 597,632 512,163 426,695 , 966,900 1,507,106 437,785 r 615,516 948,448 1,281,379 1,195,911 1,110,442 1,024,974 939,506 854,037 I 768,569 683,100 597,632 512,163 426,695 966,900 1,507,106 2,947,506 N cu 7 0.1 OJ CC Ii N -O U CU c tI cn -o N v v v ciS VO V N O Q O- a .v -O -O ++ o O_ Oo L9 v H D J LL O � N Ul w �-+ O_ yl LL O s Q C ` cc) i m n. -o a� QS m ++ -C aT+ N O 0 w N co w > LL d cc j CO CmC �CO EU YOLn- ._ O? a+ +� ,--3 3 m • Q .i m = V V C C 'C C "O Q Q Y .O tlA X v Revenue Total % Dbt Svc capacity used for PSP Project Expenditures Justice Center FS 51 FS 52 FS 54 Apparatus & equip Shops Project Expenditures Total Debt Service Debt service LTGO Utility Fds pay rent = 50% of dbt svc GF Debt Service Total Expense Total Ending Carryover (Shortfall) co Ol co r- .- N I- M V Vl I� a- I- T- a- co I- O> .- M N �' N u'1 N lO N I-- N CO N al N O M .- MN") Lc) I- M co M O> M O V N -1- CO -1- Ol -1- 0 Ln Scenario D- Shps30M_APP15M_No54 CO O N CNI 35 M 36 February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 1 O O 0 O O L!1 W 0 00 z 0 a 0 W z W W a) 4O z TaMTIMMir rAltiTTIORTMEMIXIM U7=IMITE C 0 Q a) L 4-,L � To L CD (O _a O (6 > •a--' 0n of o U 00 >> -0 c- >.. (O N t 00 v -o Ln a) 00 L . c0 4--, a -.i 00 a.., Ln ULn _ O a., C (L6 lN0 O • vni 0 t4 N U W >, 0 M a) > O a-' N -D � ,a1 7 j> N 0 i ). U L i/) 4— 0 U) OL Restriction lies in Auburn current rate is 2.03239 ballot title and cannot exceed maximum rate. U L 5- = = C (O U CaJ U a) .v ) +, o a +, I- = i C C CO CO a) 7 a) a) a) a) a) CO m LL N N Note: as of 2/12/18 no information available as to what cities have lid lifts in O a--) ro O -0 Q (6 C — i �O agOo a) > v rn c O X o E a) C N C L M O J 4-+ V} (O 0. a--' i/} L Property tax — property owners a) U f0 0 Restriction lies in ballot title and h0 C .0 CD L.+ C CO a) U N CD •C E U CD 0 c 0 0 c 0 C 0 O N C N O (O t0 C a1 C C by 2 CU +' M Q E L 4O.+ O CO c6 a� C U v Y a� cannot exceed a 9- 0 a) CO a) U C c 0 0 C 0 CO q0 0 1- a) c a) wo CD a) U .- 0 CO N Ln M N LCD N O ate, CO VI a) a✓ CO a) Ln • • a) t C CO N O N 0 7 Luo c c a) > O 0. 0. (O a) O a) CD 0 c 7 CO t O 0 M -1 O a as E a) (O U) s N -1 O N O CU" 0 E a) O Z C a) 0 0 O_ c0 a) CD O vi C O Co - v 4-C O O i -o c (O U B&O tax can be .2% available to Bellevue levies 0.001496 on all four sectors Burien levies 0.001 on all four sectors exceed .2% if businesses via voter approved a) U -)- a) a., _Q CU o Lo a) _8 COLA as CO a-' Q .- > C 0 -C3n C O N CD O O N 0 u L O 73 CD i t 'O O a) a_' as Q N > a) CD Ln = CD '- O0 a., N a , O L1 o O> ci O - C > .2 c co -0 a) t0 0 C = V (O -a (O +, E a) U a . . a) L N (C6 ov L E C tis Q C C Otio •U 0Ca j O L .L U O U O : CO O a-'' '4- L) 4- N U = i�O O '- C N C O c (O •- c0 O C E E a) as E C 0 C ate, O -co O o Ln L1 N > oo Lo o I- o O O . O (:) c6 O — a) O t0 O L O a) 4-, v, (O L ,� a) a) a C > Q '> a0 O — vi a) NC Ln a) a) O o +, U C TD C o 'L- c.°� Y $ CC O If)) 0 • • • • • 0 -0 CD O CODL O O CU 4, C a) O _ 03 U o c O C OL (ox OM o C (O m 3 l0 0_ a✓ i). t D U Property tax — property owners -0 N C a) o is.L 0 0 as )_o = 4o ao as > as LO > U U because cost v) Ov) v) I a) Lip V) C Q a) 0 •- C CO a F L 0 Q O o = c v c o >. C 0 o E L '(� tea) tea) CO Ln EO O l0 N cu O vii vii O c -a a) > =L , o .a aim o ao J J > Q m --1 N 3 B&O Tax 4-, C a) 0 C a) Q aJ C -0 0 businesses' Q O U bD sJ a) 0 L a., C 0 Q CD O C a) O a) 7 N v1 a) L 4-, C a) 4-, 4-,0 v v) aO., C U) . a-, U CD 4— C a) a) a -1 O N E O U- a CO a) C CO U CO I- CU a) N C 0 C a) cc C a) a as CD a) a) LmLJ- CO a) > a) a) CO C 0 4-+ U U) a) vl CD vl a) a., c0 c CD a 7 C a) a) a) U L a) t _O 0 N CO C 37 38 February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 2 O O O O O L(1 w 0 CO V) z 0 H 0 w z `w w a) 0 z 3:Mf•TiL? U=MIE O a) (a .2% sales tax a) 0 • available to dedicated for a) U) _C 0 • +, L }+ m C C L 0 I L L 0 a) CaJ (s ▪ j; - _ § c C a) '� ((5 (a }' 6 1, aJ 0al • C � C .X 0 U Z L U - N al .—, 4- a) 110 N U O v D � L ▪ Q O -O Q C CO a) +, L C L▪ A CD a) U) C CO a) t Q i CU C : 0 O Q Sales tax — 4- O +, 0 a) as Lro town visitors •-- v c U.' 4- 0 a(0 o O U" O o▪ U U O oU c 0 = O U o •� = o 0_ _a o 4--0 o 0 o a ▪ a N> 0 0_ O_ a • 0 O O O v O U 0 ✓ � (a v (a Q �n +, til U `'_ 0. > > •� v F— a) 0 +, dedicated for 0 a- ) roU 0 a) U, a) O > 0 a) > O a a ro a) a) 4- U (o a) C O � + C -0 a) -0 co 0 N L O cos- cu aL U cu O 41 (NI a) v U) co ▪ a) � L N . C 0 O 0 a) co 4a a) 4O 0 (a 1.- 0 0 c -I C a m 0 4-, L co U 0 a) C O N a) 0 • • • • U 4- ta 0 a) 4-+ • >- 4-C 0 U (U _a L C L a N O U c o> U O t O +' L — 0 N (1) 0 a- al C = 4J) > v 7 Cl. 4- (a owners and U District Car (a H 0. O_ ca a-+ O C a) 0 a) N • N a L 4-, a) 4-, 0 v U) a... O C N . a... U 4- 4 C a) U) a) ci -1 O N E O 4- a) (B a) Ln Cro Uro ro I- a) V) C 0 C a) cc C roa) (a a) a) LL C a) CO a) 7 v a) CO C 0 4-+ 0 a) 4-, v (U U) a) +-, (U L C a) 7 C a) a) U) v U a) t +-. O 4- O To C 39 40 February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 3 0 0 0 0 0 Lf1 w 0 CO N z 0 H 0- 0 0 w z w w cc a) O z IMritraTir rdtirTilltRTMEMIMM a) fa E w OMMIERM TC:i'fTf�'ii' vera:e os. v constrained to O a) Could be used Dedicated to the O a) 4— CLi • U ▪ 4 > N ra . - 47, > ▪ @ tA Uv _o a) 0 co .- co . a Q @o 0 Qo0 .c— v 4— 0_ C 0_ O vs C U - a)E CD (I) -O •O E a) 2O c O ▪ E Q -a Q O O a) C C U u - 0 to 0 • a) a) L_ -0 (1) c Q O O i i rcs specific project N v C 0 > 0_ 0_ rB 0 C N 0 cu C a) L .N CU N 4--' 0 C N•_ T 4' U (O 9- C a) a) L Q r -I N E 0 C▪ D 4--' CO CO CD Ln C CO U CO I- a) Ln C 0 C CU CC C CU > CO co o v LL C v v > CU a) m C 0 v U N CU L CCS a) (T▪ 5 5- L C N a C QJ a) ,L.)) a, U i a) s 0 O • DI f6 C iF 41 42 February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 4 O 0 0 O 0 Ln w 0 CO V) z 0 O. 0 z W a) 0 Z rdtirTiotRTMEMEEM ,J1 x t10 C U U J c CD c�7 rL° -ID co E a cri Q O 0- +-,n3 ac ii I- co CI-- 4- a) U C L O Lj _ —_co v Fa O n L u C v D t >• +� L Q) 0 LL E ai a) a) N i ..r.:,4-+ C u _c4-.+ ) L . a)t a) U U a4 -,I- Y +� Q ._ -O rO N U L z a1 I a L a) Q 4— O O Ln a) rr a) `- +, CO +' a.) Cl.) CO' a) `- CO a) N N C C 0) b.0 1.0 .E an C C'en • t a) = m 0 C c O -CO U U U CO r0 h c-1 N C O C CO (-NI CD +, C +-, x 40 •— h0 0 CD + C CO C C L!1 N Y - Y N110 c c_ ,4= L .0 L C a) al a) ,'..7. 0 0- o CO a o OA a) oL^ o Ln L ro cri a) v co cs CD v `^ o 0 D CD CD *Ls O O O +' O vn vi 4-, C O L J CU CC C vi > •N C an c0. . �^ 0 a) v CO c .� • a vii E (. JD v .v X C .N .N as i o E E CC = O a) O D C CO a) 0 a) D O a) N m a) O O Q Q CO Q m Q a �c Q ac m-0 V) Cl -v) U z • 0. 0. 0 0. 0. 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 Councilmani C 0 C C 8 Reexamini U 40 _ -0 XCU as 03 CU Tukwila Rates: Admissions tax: 5% a.) a) O Q E a) a) E L r0 Q Y L a) v a Ln ra Cr) (1) O t 0. O N m E r0 N L a) +' E v Lv v CI - 0 E O v (1i v CU v CD 0 C 0- E E X J a) r0 40 E Y C +-•+ L N L r0 D r0 a. m a. 44 February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 5 O O O O O 1.n 4/1- U.1 0 CO N z 0 I- a 0 w z `w w fY ut i 405) Z 3:Mf•TiL? O fa CUE dA I_ tfl w > U=MIE MCi'fTiiM a) i 3 = u i .0 > i cc a) > Limit in RCW 35.21.870 of o Lao a) (� L a i vi C +, C 1].a C 7-5 O a) i O u 0 (E6 4JTu i 0 lD a) .-. C v Z 0 0 L Go .D a) ...,-:f 0 v) (a O 4-, CU CU +, 7:, m 0 > L U CU +, 2 a) i . ci C u Ho -c needed to raise the rate above 6% for other utilities such as water, sewer, stormwater (a 0 v) to +, C i • v C _0 .o a) I-4-, 3 U (a o.0 ~ a--' co oA C i +,0:3 oA C U• U C a) O C >, L C a) CL CU CU • -0 COC+O , (co vii sa) _ 0 a) 7 O vii 2 c"1, -.•; L LO a) 4-,4-, (o O> C U v +, CU L in t H v (o 3 H o o o 0 0 0 O O O LD LD LD LD LD 0 0 O O c-1 c-1 O O r-1 Sea 0 C. o O N 0 0 0 LD 6 6 O .-1 O Ln .-1 .-1 \ in .�-1 (0 H Ln 0 0 0 0 0 O O coo 6 6 6 6 Ln 0 O 6 C CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O O 6 6 6 0 0 0 00 L L 0 00 LO +, c00 a o 00dr 0 0 0 0 cd lD lD 6 6 c-1 o 00 Ln ('n Q) c-1 0 ul c' c-1 L C O O O O O O O O O O Bvue 0 0e e o O O o oo Lf) Ln L.n L0 4 4 0 e dr O p Ln c-1 O in Q0 0 0 0 0 us us us L r< 00 r< r< 0 F Utility U t .L sZ i w Z C7 Ti) U LO i L a) a) Ln E L' -n e. c -I L 0 0 aJ 13 Li) Q C X p 0- C o O in - t3 (o E Q O in 0) 00 v) (o M 0 a) vii 0 Q II -V"). -C -a = u vi (o 00 a1 C +�, Lj 0 in 4-, •4-, Q i a--, V i V) a) a) ro U Councilmani O O O 0 LD 0 4-., a U O L LD a) CL ro L 0 L O a > ro a) roin a) U C O a) L 6 a) L 0 LIDa) a U X a) Additional 1% L. 0 0 C N 0 (a X Q i C O =p E i O C 'n i v) E a) E Q a) 0 a) 0 0 (a 11 0. s -O U U a Councilmani U 60% of Tukwila e-1 0 water 100% of Tukwila parcels consumption 5.- 0 LC) a) °° + O o -' in > T} a) a) 4-, L > . U a) +, O i CU i in - Q C I -DA u . (0 _c in a) 47, O 4— a) 4- a) in t U C (a (o a) (0 .4=, 0 on vi a) i C.- a) co (>a (0 C U _Q 7:5 co C C (0 0 O h a) U X .= +c, u L Y •� C a) a) L oA a-, L C (0 t t LelV a) 00 4- C ro C i O X (0 L (t) C i en L C a) +C C U O '+, - a) L,7vI (0 C t C a) 'a-+ W > C IP . 0 )ten 0 +., C — bA U 0 ax) O = C Councilmani everyone on U Tukwila utilities T a) U .0 a-+ in ro 0 a) a) C L b.0 2 L °U Ln (o N c-1 0 4* 00 +, a) U C *3.7 CU (n 0 3- = C a) 0 +, U fa of C -0 CU E (a aJ +, a) U L L en +, co i 0 4 L i a) > of C Ln C (La a) LL > a) ro 0 00 a) Z Management 0. a (fp C in a) 0 a) in N N a) C a) i in +O, C in .>- U 4- 4 C a) a) a 0 N E O 4- a) +, co a) Ln C (0 U co coH a) Ln C 0 C a) cc C coa) c (0 a) a) LL C a) L m a) a) a) m C 0 a) U C a) in (a a) co L C a) C a) > a) L in a) U L a) t O 0 To C 45 46 February 21, 2018 New Revenue Matrix Attachment — Page 6 VI a) 4O Z 3:Mf•TiL? RCW 9.46.113 states tax collected from a) a) a L U C UA C O cts 0.0 E E O O 7D (B U L to (o activities must is established in MCi'fTiiM m 0 E Q Q a) a) a) cc a) U 's a) O Q a) U a U dA C O E (o tin revenue O '-0 — aI COOv v N °) v O v 00 • U �' +J O a) C oUvDrn MO0O 0tr. UN � .c 0. (o (o t/1 :4- ao C (a W H ri M increased to o v N N U N C 7 a) co ToO v E o °J C a' O p v -o U �. c -0 N a) n co co 0 iin )g )g° Ls)Or_i N N ° ° ° Q u7 N In Z I- U N o 0 o O tf) (.1 u7 VI C CC o 0 0 Lel N In a) ++ a' C (0 C\ cu Y \ O —,-C to N ri .--I O.a' O ++ O 0 7 C [p o 0 0 c' Ln N in oo O 0 a) IA .o 411. r.: L O > 0co Q N Z O H3 a O wa) Z m > 111 cc = m o 0 o Q to N to Z C Q o to N OT -I d' = 0_ v, +� as of (a N 0 0 oc E 0 p vv) N t = U v,73 c E (Ea = i c`o CE Q 0 a H U MCi'fTiiM m 0 E Q Q a) a) a) cc a) U 's a) O Q a) U a U dA C O E (o tin revenue O '-0 — aI COOv v N °) v O v 00 • U �' +J O a) C oUvDrn MO0O 0tr. UN � .c 0. (o (o t/1 :4- ao C (a W H ri M increased to o v N N U N C 7 a) co ToO v E o °J C a' O p v -o U �. c -0 N a) n co co 0 48