HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2008-11-24 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Tukwila City Council Agenda
It z COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
�r, s
e tD o i O
rif Jim Haggerton, Mayor Councilmembers: Joan Hernandez Pamela Linder
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator Dennis Robertson Verna Griffin
Joe Duffie, Council President Kathy Hougardy De'Sean Quinn
6:30 -7:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION
Personnel Issue; pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)
Please see attached reference materials.
MONDAY, November 24, 2008, 7 :'00 PM Tukwila City Hall; Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. _SPECIAL
PRESENTA a. A proclamation designating "Buy and Celebrate Locally Day" in Tukwila. Pg.1
TIONS b. Election results update; Martin J. Durkan, City Lobbyist.
3. CITIZEN At this time, you are invited to comment on items not included on this agenda (please limit
COMMENT your eo, tnen is to five minutes per citizen). To comment on an item listed on this
agenda, please save your comments until the issue is presented for discussion.
4. PUBLIC An ordinance establishing residential and non residential development impact fees as Pg.3
HEARINGS part of the financing for public facilities for Fire and Parks services.
5. SPECIAL a. Impact fee ordinances for Parks and Fire. Pg.3
ISSUES b. Sound Transit street vacation ordinance. Pg,67
c. Department of Community Development fee increases:
1) An ordinance increasing Planning Fees, commencing January 1, 2009. Pg.75
2) A resolution increasing Land Use Fees, commencing January 1, 2009. Pg.87
d. An Interlocal Agreement to provide tourism and marketing services to the City of Pg.99
Des Moines.
e. A resolution regarding non represented employees' wage schedule. Pg.109
f. Eden System Licensing Proposal. Pg.121
g. Final 2008 Budget Amendment. Pg.127
h. Proposed Budget /Capital Improvement Program: Pg.133
1) An ordinance adopting the 2009 -2010 Budget.
2) A resolution adopting the 2009 -2014 Capital Improvement Program.
)Please bring your copies of the Budget /CIP. Q
i. Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue. iljeGtse, 61 back. oyGtC'/2Gt. Pg.161
j. Discussion of 2009 -2010 Council Goals. Pg.167
6. REPORTS a. Mayor c. Staff e. Intergovernmental
b. City Council d. City Attorney
7. MISCELLANEOUS
8. EXECUTIVE SESSION
9. ADJOURNMENT
Tukwila City Hall is wheelchair accessible.
Reasonable accommodations are available at public hearings with advance notice to the City Clerk's Office 206 433 1800/TDD 206 248 2933.
This notice is available at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us. and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities.
Tukwila Council meetings are audio taped.
Office o f the Mayor vr
`l Tukwila, Washington
7908
y PROCLAMATION n :y
WHEREAS, the year -end holiday season is a period of giving, volunteering,
and thriving economic activity which provides a unique opportunity for
individuals, businesses, non profits, agencies and community groups to celebrate
traditions and culture; and
1
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila's diverse and thriving arts and heritage
groups, locally -owned and managed businesses, and other agencies help define
and preserve our City's unique character, economy and culture; and
WHEREAS, locally owned, independent businesses strengthen the City of
Tukwila's economy by employing friends and neighbors, re- investing profits
locally, and lending support to local charities, civic organizations, and
neighborhood associations; and
WHEREAS, the year -end holiday season can create a sizeable environmental
impact due to the carbon footprint produced by the international transport of
many products and food items, as well as the large amount of waste resulting
from packaging and mailing; and
WHEREAS, purchasing gifts of tickets to local concerts, theater productions,
festive events, and locally- created art, products and food, can reduce the
environmental impact of the year -end holiday season, as well as keep our
communities vibrant, and citizens of all ages engaged and entertained;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jim Haggerton, Mayor of the City of Tukwila, do
hereby proclaim November 28, 2008:
Buy and Celebrate Locally Day
in t he City of Tukwila, and encourage all citizens to support and enjoy the locally- 1
Y g pp J Y Y 1
owned organizations in our community.
Signed this day of Alf; 4 2008.
n 3
`Ha ger i or o
to oo -J f
A
j a
Ordinances in draft form are attached.
RN\'IIi\\'itD BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte
1 MTG. DATE
I 11/24/08
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
12/01/08
1 1
Go UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
InitralJ ITEM NO.
ttileeteno Date Pn'pared I,y Mayor's review I Council review
11/24/08 1 LV I�
1 12/01/08 1 LV 7 `4
ITEM INFORMATION
I CAS NUMBER: 08-146
ORIGINAL, AGENDA DATE. NOVEMBER 24, 2008
Ordinances for Fire and Parks Impact Fees
C. \'i'i•.(;Oity Discussion n Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public' Heanrrg n Other
Mfg Date 11/24/08 Mt; Date 111tg Date Jilts Date 12/01/08 lltg Date 1Itg Date 11/24/08 Mtg Date
SPONSOR Cowiiii Mayor Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire n L i P&R Police PIV
SPONSOR'S Discussion regarding adoption of impact fees for Fire and impact fees for Parks. Decisions
St'MM,\RY needed include:
1) what total dollar value of capital projects for Fire, 2) the split in revenues between
impact fees and City contribution for Fire. 3) what total dollar value of capital projects for
Parks, 4) the split in revenues between impact fees and city contribution for Parks.
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm.
F &S Cmte
n Parks Comm.
DAih: 11/18/08 F &S (action); 11/24/08 CAP (info only)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve and forward to COW for discussion
COMMITTEE Forward to Committee of the Whole for discussion and public hearing
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE Ri?()UTRI D AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source. REVENUE IS FROM IMPACT FEES; PROJECTS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED UNLESS FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE
Comments:
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
A
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Memo regarding Fire impact fees with Attachments
Ordinance adopting Fire impact fees with Attachments
Informational Memo regarding Park Impact Fees with Attachments
Ordinance adopting Parks impact fees with Attachments
Performance Audit Report
Minutes from Finance Safety Committee meeting of 11/18/08
U Transportation Cmte
n Planning Comm.
CC: Mayor Haggerton
Rhonda Berry
FROM: Lisa Verner, Mayor's Office
Nick Olivas, Fire Chief
DATE: November 18, 2008
RE: Proposed Fire Impact Fees
ISSUE
BACKGROUND
Additionally, RCW 82.02.050 (4) says, in part:
INFORiMATION MEMORANDUM
To: Finance and Safety Committee (action)
Community Affairs and Parks (information)
Adopt an ordinance for Fire impact fees and an ordinance for Parks impact fees, both for funding
of capital facilities needed by Fire services and Parks services due to anticipated new growth and
development.
The Administration is evaluating new sources of revenue for the City. One such source is
"impact fees" through which new development helps to pay for capital facilities necessitated due
to the new growth. Mayor Haggerton's goal is to analyze options and to adopt impact fees by
the end of 2008:
The Growth Management Act allows impact fees for parks services and for fire services, in
addition to the traffic impact fees the City has already enacted. In order to consider and adopt
impact fees, the City needs to have adopted a Fire Master Plan and identified a level of service
goal for fire services. The 2008 Fire Master Plan, the Mayor's recommendations on
implementation, and the Level of Service for the Fire Department are scheduled for adoption by
Council on December 1, 2008.
Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in
RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a capital facilities element of a
comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW
36.70A.070...
An ordinance to amend the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan is before
the COW on November 10 for public hearing and discussion. It is scheduled for adoption on
December 1. Among other things, the amendment will incorporate by reference the 2008 Fire
Master Plan and the 2008 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, as amended. The Fire Master
Plan, which includes Fire capital projects (some of which will be paid for through impact fees) is
scheduled for adoption on December 1. Then the City will be consistent with RCW 82.02.050
(4).
A public hearing on impact fees is advertised for November 24, 2008.
DISCUSSION
The State Legislature authorized impact fees when it adopted the Growth Management Act in
1990 as one mechanism to help communities address growth. According to RCW 82.02.050 (1),
it is the intent of the State Legislature:
(a) To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and
development;
(b) To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by
which counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth
and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed
to serve new growth and development; and
(c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and
criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative
fees for the same impact.
Impact fees can be assessed for traffic, parks, fire and schools The City already assesses a
traffic impact fee. The Mayor is asking the Council to consider assessing a parks impact fee and
a fire impact fee. None of the school districts which serve Tukwila have asked the City to collect
a school impact fee on their behalf.
Impact fees are used to provide funds for capital projects or capital facilities which are needed
because of new growth. They are used to fund projects which maintain the same level of service
for new growth as is provided for existing development. They may not be used for projects
which are needed due to current deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development.
In essence, impact fees are a mechanism for "growth to pay for growth."
For consideration are two ordinances, one for impact fees for fire services and one impact fees
for parks services. The text of the ordinances is similar. The ordinances address the fee formula,
adjustments, credits, appeals, refunds and exemptions as well as use of the impact fees.
Also, each ordinance includes a spreadsheet for calculating an impact fee and a list of projects
for which the impact fee would be collected.
Conceptually, the fee formula identifies the anticipated growth between 2009 and 2020 (12
years) in several land use categories and the cost of capital facilities needed to serve that growth
and divides the two. The variables include the request for service (either calls for fire /aid service
per land use category or amount of parks needed per resident) and the growth anticipated in each
land use category. Because the City has a strong track record of both residents and employees
using park facilities and fire services, an impact fee for commercial/industrial uses as well as an
impact fee for residential uses is proposed.
Council members may choose which impact fee /city contribution split results in acceptable
levels of impact fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an ordinance which authorizes assessment of impact fees for capital facilities for
Fire services needed due to new growth
Attachment A: Capital Facility Projects
Attachment B: Fire Services Impact Fee Options
Attachment C: Fire Impact Fee Calculation
Attachment D: Excerpts from Performance Audit
ATTACHMENT A
Questions for consideration:
1) Should the City collect impact fees on the entire list of proposed projects?
2) At what percentage should the City implement Fire Impact fees (90/10 split or 80/20 split
Fire Department Capital Facilities List
1. Construct/build relocated Station 51 25,000 sf S 10,000,000
station; existing 15,000 sf station replacement due
to growth, including bays for ladder truck and new
aid car
2. Purchase aid car for Station 51 (new) 185,000
3. Purchase engine for Station 54 to replace aerial 750,000
ladder truck
4. Purchase land for relocated Station 52, if Station 51 5 544,500'
is relocated
5. Construct/build relocated Station 52, if Station 51 is 5 3,000,000
relocated
1 25,000 gsf building x $400 /psf building construction cost
2 acre site (21,780 sf) x $25 /psf land cost
7,500 gsf building x S400 /psf building construction cost
Cost
TOTAL 14,479,500
ATTACHMENT B
FIRE Impact Fee OPTIONS
Total Project Amount over 12 years (through 2020)
$14,479,500
$10,000,000
FIRE
Single Family
Multi Family
All Commercial
Office
Retail
Industrial
Hotel /Motel /Resort
Hospital /Nursing
Home
Medical /Dental
Leisure Facilities
Restaurant/Lounge
Church /Non profit
Education
Special Public Facil
Fees
90%
$13,031,550
$2,060
$2,683
$3,628
$1,297
$283
90%
$9,000,000
$1,423
$1,853
$2,506
$896
$195
Issaquah
(2006)
$622.25
$853.42
$200.00
$640 00
$200.00
$280.00
$9,610.00
$6,680.00
$2,090.00
$6,090.00
$390.00
$810.00
$3,120.00
City
10%
$1,447,950
SF
MF
Office
Retail
Industrial
10%
$1,000,000
SF
MF
Office
Retail
Industrial
Renton
$488.00
$388.00
$520.00
Fees
80%
$11,583,600
$1,831
$2,385
$3,225
$1,153
$251
$8,000,000
$1,265
$1,647
$2,227
$796
$174
Kev:
SF Per Single Family Dwelling I does not have Fire impact fees
MF Per Multi Family Dwelling I $0.52 per gsf
no com'I assm't since 1/1/08; Fire
Office Per 1,000 gsf Office Uses I Authority
Retail Per 1,000 gsf Retail Uses
Industrial Per 1,000 gsf Industrial Uses
City
20%
$2,895,900
SF
MF
Office
Retail
Industrial
80% 20%
$2,000,000
SF
MF
Office
Retail
Industrial
Redmond
Kent* Bellevue* (1999)
$94.48
132.73
$110.80
$126.76
$13.07
AWC Averages
(2008)
Single Family
Multi Family
Auburn***
$362.66
$383.09
Fees
70%
$10,135,650
$1,602
$2,082
$2,822
$1,009
$220
$7,000,000
$1,107
$1,441
$1,949
$697
$152
$4,343,850
SF
MF
Office
Retail
Industrial
70% 30%
$3,000,000
SF
MF
Office
Retail
Industrial
Per Dwelling
I High I Low
$622 00 I $104.00
$853 00 $104.00
City
30%
TABLE 1. Tukwila Fire Impact Fee Calculation, 2008
Net Growth, 2008 -2020
2007 2007
Land Use Housing Employme Housing
Units 3
Units -I nt 2
Single family 3,822 516
Multi- family 4,107 2,384
Office 6,245 370,500
Retail 20,384 2,418,000
Industrial 20,343 3,860,800
TOTALS 46.972 6,649,300
1. OFM numbers
2. PSRC 2007 Covered Employment Estimates
3. 43 SF dufyr. rest is \1F from 2007 Buildable Lands Report
4. Retail: 500gsf per emp: Office: 250esf per emp; Industrial: 800e.sf per emp; X emp growth
5. 90% of Buildable [ands Repon estimates. at some as 2007 employment
TABLE 2. Tukwila Fire Service Demand Calculation, 2008
Land Use
Single family
Multi- family
Office
Retail
Industrial
NET TOTAL
PERCENT OF
SUBTOTAL
Reallocation of
Special Property
Unclassified
2007 Responses
Incident
Responses
619
866
445
1.039
362
3.332
13%
19%
10%
22%
8%
71%
Other 1.341 29% I I
TOTAL 4,673 100% 100% 1,341 1 4,673 1 100%
Note: The 513,031,550 capital cost is 90% of 514,479,500 (the growth related fire capital cost).
TABLE 3. 2007 Incident Responses by Property Type Allocation to Impact Fee Categories
IMPACT FEE CATEGORIES
Fire Dept. Land Multi
Fire Aid Total Single family family Office Retail Industrial TOTAL
Use Categories
Public Assembly 12 42 54
Educational 18
Health Care* 27
Single- family 159
Apartments 224
Boarding House 0
Hotels 102
Business** 441
Industrial 12
Manufacturing 57
Storage 81
SUBTOTAL 1.133
Special Property 1 275 1 855 1 1,130 1
Unclassified 1 148 1 63 1 211 1
SUBTOTAL 1 423 1 918 I 1,341 1,
TOTAL
INCIDENT
RESPONSES BY
IMPACT FEE
CATEGORY
split 60% Multi- family, 40% Office (Redmond)
split 34% Office, 66% Retail (2007 Tukwila)
Based Proportional Incident
on Net Reallocation Responses
Total of "Other"
Building Employme
Area -4 nt -5
249 1 868 1 19%
349 1 1,215 1 26%
179 1 625 13%
418 I 1,458 1 31%
146 508 1l%
1,341 1 4,673 1 100%
619
619
19%
ATTACHMENT C
Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008
1,482
4,836
4,826
11,144
249 349
868 1,215
I Impact Fee
Per
Residential
Unit
SO
SO
Revised
2007 Responses
Per GFA
50.00 SO
50.00 SO
S0.00 SO
Incident
Responses
per 1,000
Units
227
296
54
48
70 I 47
794
2
305
351 680
866 1 445 1,039
26% 13% 31%
1
1
1
179 418
625 1,458
Per 1,000
Sq. Ft. GFA
Increase in Annual Incident
Responses clue to Growth
Incident Capital Costs
Responses Incident Allocated by
per 1,000 Responses Incident
Employees Responses due
to Growth
117 8% SO
705 49% SO
100.0 148 10% SO
71.5 346 24% 50
25.0 120 8% 50
1.437 100% SO
14
104
244
362
3,332
146 1,341
508 4,673
100%
Brian Sonntag, CGFM
Washington State Auditor
he Puget Sound Region experienced an
unprecedented building boom during this decade.
Impact fees' purpose is to help offset the costs of
services associated with new development, such as
roads, schools, fire facilities and parks.
We chose this audit to examine whether cities are
effectively and efficiently using of this revenue source.
We selected the five cities with the state's highest
impact fee revenue from fiscal years 2004 to 2006 to
find out if:
Cities are collecting and administering impact fees
appropriately and in accordance with state law.
The public is getting what it is paying for
Performance audits are conducted under the
provisions of citizens Initiative 900. This audit
was conducted on our behalf by Ernst Young in
accordance with Generally Accepted Government
Auditing Standards.
Cities have an opportunity to improve transparency
and access to public information by posting their
annual impact fee reports on their Web sites.
While cities are required by state law to report the
information annually, not all cities are posting the
information on their Web sites. It is good policy to
make that information readily available to citizens.
We hope all cities and counties that impose imact fees
will take advantage of the best practices identified in
this audit.
If you are interested in following up on the audit
resolution or public hearings, please check
our Web site at: http: /www.sao.wa.gov/
PerformanceAudit /audit_reports.htm.
Mission Statement
The State Auditor's Office independently serves the citizens of Washington
by promoting accountability, fiscal integrity and openness in state and local
government. Working with these governments and with citizens, we strive to
ensure the efficient and effective use of public resources.
a�
hat is an impact fee? A
one -time fee to offset the cost
of services associated with
new development. Cities can
collect four types of impact
fees: School, fire, park and
transportation impact fees.
Impact fees are intended to
supplement other funding
sources and state law requires
that they be spent on the
facilities for which they are
collected.
How are they administered?
State law allows municipalities
that are required to or choose
to plan under the Growth
Management Act to assess
impact fees. Cities set the rate
for and collect the impact fees.
Who pays impact fees?
Impact fees are charged to
builders as part of the building
permit process. Impact fees are
typically passed invisibly from
the builder to the customer.
1
nitiative 900 requires the State Auditor's Office to identify best practices About Initiative 900
during each performance audit. The following best practices were in place at Washington voters approved
the cities during the audit:
Redmond
The City of Redmond Fire Department's method of allocating costs of new
capital facilities between the City and Fire District 34 should be evaluated for
implementation in other cities and districts.
The City of Redmond's fire impact fee calculation and schedule met all
aspects of the related state laws and demonstrates a leading practice by
taking the following items into consideration:
System improvements that are reasonably related to growth
The proportionate share of the costs of system improvements related to
new development
Redmond employs several leading practices with respect to calculating,
charging, and maintaining its transportation impact fee.
These leading practices Include:
Inflation indexing
Costs based on a long -range plan
Adopted fee schedules by land use
Initiative 900 in November
2005, giving the State
Auditor's Office the authority
to conduct independent
performance audits of
state and local government
entities on behalf of citizens
to promote accountability
and cost effective uses
of public resources.
1 -900 directs the Office
to address the following
elements in each
performance audit:
1 Identification of cost savings.
2. Identification of services that
can be reduced or eliminated.
3. Identification of programs or
services that can be transferred
to the private sector.
4. Analysis of gaps or overlaps
in programs or services and
recommendations to correct them.
5 Feasibility of pooling auditee's
information technology systems.
6. Analysis of the roles and
functions of the auditee and
recommendations to change or
eliminate roles or functions.
7. Recommendations for statutory
or regulatory changes that may
be necessary for the auditee to
properly carry out its functions.
8. Analysis of the auditee's
performance data,
performance measures and
self- assessment systems.
9 Identification of best practices.
Initiative 900 provides no
penalties for auditees that do
not follow recommendations in
performance audit reports.
The complete text of
the Initiative is available
at: www.sao.wa.gov/
PerformanceAudit/
PDFDocuments /i900.pdf.
5
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees relating to Fire
(Performance Audit attached at end of packet)
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
AUDIT AREA 6 FIRE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE/CALCULATION FINDING
The City of Redmond has developed a leading practice in its fire impact fee
schedule /calculation. Specifically, the schedule /calculation takes into account the impacts of
fire and aid calls by land use type, projected growth by land use type and the fire Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP).
Fire Impact Fees in the City of Redmond
Next, Ernst Young met with the City of Redmond to gain an understanding of the formula it used to
calculate the City's fire impact fee schedule. Exhibit 12 below shows the City of Redmond's fire
impact fee schedule for the performance audit period.
Exhibit 12 City of Redmond's Fire Impact Fee Schedule 1999 -2006
Land Use
Single- family
Multi family
Office
1 Retail
1 Industrial
Excerpts
Impact Fee
$94.48 per residential unit
$132.73 per residential unit
$0.11 per square foot
$0.13 per square foot
$0.01 per square foot
In order to develop the different rates for land use categories as shown above, the City of Redmond
used historical data to determine the number of emergency (fire and aid) calls per land use type.
Ernst Young noted that national emergency call data is available; however, it was important for
Redmond to use Redmond data instead of national data, given that the jurisdiction has unique fire
safety requirements. Page 45 of 67
Ernst Young noted that the City of Redmond's fire impact fee calculation and schedule met all
aspects of RCW 82.02.050 and 82.02.060 and demonstrates a leading practice. Redmond's fire
impact fee calculation and schedule takes the following items into consideration:
System improvements that are reasonably related to growth
The proportionate share of the costs of system improvements related to new development
Finally, the City of Redmond reviewed its fire impact fee schedule in 2006 and noted that updates
were needed. Therefore, the schedule was updated in 2006, and new rates were charged for fire
impact fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Other cities within the State of Washington should be aware of the City of Redmond's leading
practice for the fire impact fees schedule /calculation. Page 47 of 67
Page 41 of 67
DRz- F
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSMENT OF FIRE IMPACT
FEES ON NEW RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILl'1 Y; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington
and RCW 36.70A, the City of Tukwila has an adopted Comprehensive Plan, which
includes provisions for fire protection facilities as part of its Capital Facilities Element;
and
WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development
activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including fire protection facilities,
and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council desires to provide funding for fire protection
facilities, as referenced in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
through the imposition of residential and non residential development impact fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CFI Y OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that new growth and
development in the City creates additional demand and need for public fire protection
facilities in the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development
should pay its proportionate share of the costs for new fire service facilities to serve new
growth and development in the City. The City Council believes that this can be
accomplished by the assessment of fire impact fees on new residential, commercial, and
industrial development in the City. It is the Council's intent that the provisions of this
ordinance be liberally construed in establishing the fire impact fee program.
Section 2. Definitions. Terms or words not defined herein shall be defined
pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 when given their usual and customary meaning. For the
purposes of this ordinance, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires
otherwise, the words or phrases defined in this section shall have the following
meanings:
1. The "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of 1990,
First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 36.70A RCW et seq., and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991,
First Special Session, as now in existence or hereinafter amended.
2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification of the City
of Tukwila issued by the City's building official which authorizes the construction,
alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection,
placement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure.
3. "City" means the City of Tukwila, Washington, County of King
4. "Development activity" means any construction of a building or structure
that creates additional demand and need for fire safety facilities.
5. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City,
which authorizes the commencement of the "development activity
C. \Documents and Settings \A 11 Uses\ Desktop \Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances \Fire Impact F=_es.doc
LV:ksn 11/21/2008
Page 1 of 5
6 "Encumber" means to reserve, set aside, or earmark the fire impact fees in
order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for
the provision of fire protective services.
7 "Fee payer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated
association or governmental agency, municipality, or similar entity commencing a land
development activity that requires a building permit and creates a demand for
additional fire capital facilities.
8 "Impact fee" means the payment of money imposed by the City on
development activity pursuant to this ordinance as a condition of granting
development approval in order to pay for the fire facilities needed to serve new growth
and development that is a proportionate share of the cost of fire capital facilities that is
used for facilities that reasonably benefit new development. Impact fees do not include
a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, and the administrative fee for collecting and
handling fire impact fees or cost of reviewing independent -fee calculations.
9. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, as found in the
records of King County, Washington, or a person with an unrestricted written option to
purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a
recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the
property.
10. "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost for fire facility
improvements that are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new
development.
11. "Public facilities" means the following capital facilities owned or operated
by governmental entities: (1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks and
open spaces and recreational facilities; (3) school facilities; (4) fire protection facilities
not part of a fire district; and (5) police facilities and essential public facilities as defined
by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Section 3. Fire Impact Fee Assessment.
A. The City shall collect fire impact fees from applicants seeking development
approvals from the City for any development activity in the City for which building
permits are required. This will include the expansion of existing uses, which create the
demand for fire protection services.
B. Fire impact fees shall be assessed at the time of a technically complete building
permit application that complies with the City's zoning ordinances and building and
development codes. Fire impact fees shall be collected from the fee payer at the time
the building permit is issued.
C. Except if otherwise exempt, the City shall not issue the required building
permit unless or until the fire impact fees are paid.
Section 4. Use of Fire Impact Fees.
A. Pursuant to this ordinance, fire impact fees shall be used for fire facilities that
will reasonably benefit the City and its residents.
B. Fees shall not be used to make up deficiencies in City facilities serving an
existing development.
C. Fees shall not be used for maintenance and operations, including personnel.
D. Fire impact fees shall be used for but not limited to land acquisition, site
improvements, engineering and architectural services, permitting, financing,
administrative expenses and applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment
pertaining to fire protection facilities.
E. Fire impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs incurred
by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the
previously constructed improvement.
C \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly MSDATA Ordinances Fire Impact Fees.doc
LV:ksn 11/21/2008
Page 2 of 5
F. In the event bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for fire
facility improvements, impact fees may be used to pay the principal on such bonds.
Section 5. Fire Impact Fee Capital Facilities Plan. In order to collect fire impact
fees, the City must first adopt a Fire Capital Facilities Plan as an element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The City's Capital Facilities PIan for fire protection services shall
consist of the following elements:
1. The City's capacity over the next six years, based on an inventory of the
City's fire facilities both existing and under construction;
2. The forecast of future needs for fire facilities based upon the City's
population projections;
3. A six-year financial plan component, updated as necessary, to maintain at
least a six-year forecast for financing needed within projected funding levels;
4. Application of the formula set forth in this ordinance based upon the
information in the Capital Facilities Plan; and
5. City Council Action. No new or revised impact fee shall be effective until
adopted by the City Council following a duly advertised public hearing to consider the
City's Capital Facilities Plan or plan update.
Section 6. Fire Impact Fee Formula. The impact fee formula is based on the
assumptions found in Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008, Exhibit A, and Tukwila Fire
Department Capital Facilities List, Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference fully
incorporated herein.
FIRE IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Impact Fee
Land Use 1 Per Residential Unit Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Single family 1
Multi family
Office
Retail 1
Industrial 1
Section 7. Fire Impact Fee Adjustments.
A. The City may adjust a fire impact fee at the time the fee is imposed to consider
unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed fairly.
B. In calculating the fee imposed on a particular development, the City shall
permit consideration of studies and data submitted by a developer to adjust the amount
of the fee. The developer shall submit an independent fee calculation study to the Fire
Chief who shall review the study to determine that the study
1. is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies;
2. uses acceptable data sources and the data used is comparable with the uses
and intensities planned for the proposed development activity;
3. complies with the applicable state laws governing impact fees;
4. is prepared and documented by professionals who are mutually agreeable
to the City and the developer and are qualified in their respective fields; and
5. shows the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made.
C. In reviewing the study, the Fire Chief may require the developer to submit
additional or different documentation. If an acceptable study is presented, the Fire
Chief may adjust the fee to that appropriate for the particular development activity. If
an acceptable study is not presented, the developer shall pay the impact fees required
prior to submitting the study
C. \Documents and °xttina \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.dcc
LY_ksn 11/21/2005
Page 3 of 5
D. A developer requesting an adjustment or independent fee calculation may pay
the impact fees imposed by this ordinance to obtain a building permit while the City
determines whether to partially reimburse the developer by making an adjustment or
accepting the independent fee calculation.
Section 8. Credits. A fee payer can request that a credit, or credits, be awarded to
the fee payer for the value of dedicated land, improvements to, or new construction of
any system improvements provided by the developer to facilities that are identified in
the Capital Facilities Plan and that are required by the City as a condition of approving
the development activity
Section 9. Appeals.
A. Arty fee payer may pay the impact fees imposed by this ordinance under
protest in order to obtain a building permit.
B. Appeals regarding fire impact fees imposed on any development activity may
only be taken by the fee payer of the property where such development activity will
occur. No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fee at issue has been
paid.
C. Determinations of the City staff with respect to the applicability of fire impact
fees to a given development activity, or the availability of a credit, can be appealed to
the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to this section.
D An appeal shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the impact fees
under protest or within 10 working days of the City's issuance of a written
determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the City Clerk a notice of
appeal giving the reasons for the appeal with an accompanying appeal fee as set forth
in the existing fee schedule for land use decisions.
Section 10. Refunds.
A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years from the
date the fees were paid, unless extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist, the current
owner of the property on which the impact fees were paid may receive a refund of such
fees.
B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are entitled
to a refund. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered,
impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first out basis.
C. Owners seeking a refund must submit a written request for a refund of the fees
to the City within one year of the date the right to claim a refund arises or notice is
given, whichever comes later.
D. Any impact fees for which no application has been made within the one -year
period shall be retained by the City and expended on appropriate fire facilities.
E. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by
the City
Section 11. Exemptions. The fire impact fees are generated from the formula for
calculating the fees as set forth in this ordinance. The amount of the impact fees is
determined by the information contained in the adopted fire department master plan
and related documents, as appended to the City's Comprehensive Plan. All new
development located in the City will be charged a fire impact fee, provided that the
following exemptions shall apply. Any development activity or project which has
submitted a technically complete building permit application prior to the effective date
of this ordinance shall be exempt from the payment of fire impact fees. The following
shall be exempt from fire impact fees:
1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure having the same use, at
the same site, and when such replacement is within 12 months of demolition or
destruction of the previous structure;
C: Documents and Settin \All us, D \Kelly \MSDATA ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.dcc
LV:ksn 11/21/2008
Page 4 of 5
2. Alteration or expansion of or remodeling of an existing dwelling or
structure where no new units are created and the use is not changed;
3. Construction of an accessory residential structure;
4. Miscellaneous improvements including, but not limited to, fences, walls,
swimming pools, and signs;
5. Demolition of or moving an existing structure within the City from one site
to another;
6. Low income housing developed by individuals, nonprofit corporations, or
a housing authority may be exempted from impact fees at the discretion of City staff
subject to:
a. Fiscal impact analysis of the effect of impact fees upon low- income
housing and how exempting housing from impact fees would forward the goals for
low- income housing in the City and King County;
b That adequate documentation be provided that the housing will
remain available for low- income persons for a 10 -year period of time at affordable rents;
and
c. In the case of owner occupied dwellings, that such housing will be
sold or leased at affordable rates to low- income households for a period of 10 years; and
d. The impact fee for exempt development shall be calculated as
provided by this ordinance and paid with public funds. Such payments may be made
by including such amounts in the public share of the system improvements undertaken
within the City for fire protection services and facilities.
Section 12. Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this ordinance shall preclude the
City from requiring the fee payer to mitigate adverse and environmental affects of a
specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapters 43.21C
RCW and/ or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions, provided that the
exercise of this authority is consistent with Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW
Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 14. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force
five days after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008.
Al T E ST /AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY-
Office of the City Attorney
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published.
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number-
Attachments: Exhibit A Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008
Exhibit B Fire Department Capital Facilities List
C: \Documents and Setting \All riser, Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances \Fire Impact Fees.doc
I.v:ksn 11/21/2005
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008
TABLE 1. Tukwila Fire Impact Fee Calculation, 2008
Net Growth, 2008 -2020' Impact Fee
2007 2007 Per
Land Use Housing Em to me Housing Building Employme
g p y Units 3 Area 4 nt 5 Residential Per GFA
Units -1 nt -2 Unit
Single family 1 3,822 516 1 SO
Multi- family 1 4,107 2,384 I 50
Office 1 6,245 370,500 1,482 80
Retail 1 20,384 1 2,418,000 4,836
80.00
Industrial 1 20,343 1 3,860,800 4,826 50.00
TOTALS 1 46,972 1 6,649,300 11,144
1. OFM numbers
2. PSRC 2007 Covered Employment Estimates
3. 43 SF du/yr, rest is ?.4F from 2007 Buildable Lands Report
4. Retail: 500gsf per emp; Office: 250gsf per emp; Industrial: 800gsf per emp; X emp growth
5. 90% of Buildable Lands Report estimates, at same as 2007 employment
TABLE 2. Tukwila Fire Service Demand Calculation, 2008
Land Use
Single family
Multi family
Office
Retail
Industrial
NET TOTAL
PERCENT OF
SUBTOTAL
2007 Responses
Incident
Responses
619
866
445
1,039
362
3,332
13%
19%
10%
22%
8%
71%
Fire Dept Land
Fire Aid Total
Use Categories
Public Assembly I 12
1 42 54
Educational 18 1 30 1 48
Health Care* 1 27 1 90 1 117
Single- family 1 159 1 460 1 619
Apartments 224 1 570 1 794
Boarding House 1 0 1 2 1 2
Hotels 1 102 1 203 1 305
Business 1 441 1 590 1 1,031
Industrial 1 12 1 2 1 14
Manufacturing 1 57 1 47 1 104
Storage 1 81 1 163 1 244
SUBTOTAL 1 1,133 1 2.199 1 3,332
Proportion
Based al
on Net Reallocatio
Total n of
"Other"
19% 1 249
26% 1 349
13% I 179
31% 418
11% 1 146
100% 1 1,341
619
619
Revised
2007 Responses
Incident
Responses
868
1,215
625
1,458
508
4,673
Single- MuIti-
family family
794
2
19%
26%
13%
31%
11%
100%
Other 1,341 29%
TOTAL 4,673 100% 1, 100% 1 1,341 4,673 1 100%
Note: The 513,031,550 capital cost is 90% of 514,479,500 (the growth related fire capital cost).
227
296
TABLE 3. 2007 Incident Responses by Property Type Allocation to Impact Fee Categories
IMPACT FEE CATEGORIES
48
70 47
54
305
351 680
14
104
244
866 445 1,039 362
Per 1,000
Sq. Ft. GFA
SO
80
50
Incident Incident
Responses Responses Incident
per 1,000 per 1,000 Responses
Units Employees
117
705
100.0 148
71.5 346
25 0 120
1,437
Office Retail Industrial TOTAL
3,332
19% 26% 13% 31% 11% 100%
Special Property 1 275 1 855 1 1,130 1 1 1 1 1 1
Unclassified 1 148 1 63 1 211 1 1 1 1 1 1
SUBTOTAL 1 423 1 918 1 1,341 I I 1 1 1 1
Reallocation of
Special Property 249 349 179 418 146 1,341
Unclassified
TOTAL
INCIDENT
RESPONSES BY 868 1,215 625 1,458 508 4,673
L1IPACT FEE
CATEGORY
split 60% Multi family, 40% Office (Redmond)
split 34% Office, 66% Retail (2007 Tukwila)
Increase in Annual Incident
Responses due to Growth
8%
49%
10%
24%
8°%
100%
100%
Capital Costs
Allocated by
Incident
Responses due
to Growth
80
50
50
50
50
50
Fire Department Capital Facilities List
EXHIBIT B
Capital Facility Cost
1. Construct/build relocated Station 51 25,000 sf
station; existing 15,000 sf station replacement due
to growth, including bays for ladder truck and new
aid car
2. Purchase aid car for Station 51 (new)
3. Purchase engine for Station 54 to replace aerial
ladder truck
4. Purchase land for relocated Station 52, if Station 51
is relocated
5. Construct/build relocated Station 52, if Station 51 is
relocated
25,000 gsf building x $400 /psf building construction cost
2 acre site (21,780 sf) x $25 /psf land cost
3 7,500 gsf building x $400 /psf building construction cost
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\ Desktop \Kellyy\MSDATA \Ordinances\Fire Exhbit B.doc
LV:ksn 11/14/2008
10,000,000
185,000
750,000
544,500
3,000,000
TOTAL 14,479,500
Page 1 of 1
CC: Mayor Haggerton
Rhonda Berry
RE: Proposed Parks Impact Fees
ISSUE
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
To: Finance and Safety Committee (action)
Community Affairs and Parks (information)
FROM: Lisa Verner, Mayor's Office
Rick Still, Deputy Parks Recreation Director
DATE: November 18, 2008
Adopt an ordinance for Parks impact fees for funding of capital facilities needed by Parks
services due to anticipated new growth and development.
BACKGROUND
The Administration is evaluating new sources of revenue for the City. One such source is
"impact fees" through which new development helps to pay for capital facilities necessitated due
to the new growth. Mayor Haggerton's goal is to analyze options and to adopt impact fees by
the end of 2008.
The Growth Management Act allows impact fees for parks services and for fire services, in
addition to the traffic impact fees the City has already enacted. In order to consider and adopt
impact fees, the City needs to have an adopted Parks Plan. The City Council adopted the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan on June 23, 2008 and amended this plan on November 17, 2008
by establishing a level -of- service for parks and opens space.
Additionally, RCW 82.02.050 (4) says, in part:
Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in
RCW 82.02.090 which are addressed by a capital facilities element of a
comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW
36.70A.070...
An ordinance to amend the Capital Facilities Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan was
before the COW on November 10 for public hearing and discussion. It is scheduled for adoption
on December 1. Among other things, the amendment will incorporate by reference the 2008
Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, as amended. The Parks LOS ordinance was approved
on November 17, 2008 and includes a list of Parks capital projects (some of which will be paid
for through impact fees). A public hearing on impact fees is scheduled for November 24, 2008.
DISCUSSION
The State Legislature authorized impact fees when it adopted the Growth Management Act in
1990 as one mechanism to help communities address growth. According to RCW 82.02.050 (1),
it is the intent of the State Legislature:
(a) To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and
development;
(b) To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by
which counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth
and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed
to serve new growth and development; and
(c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and
criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative
fees for the same impact.
Impact fees can be assessed for traffic, parks, fire and schools. The City already assesses a
traffic impact fee. The Mayor is asking the Council to consider assessing a parks impact fee and
a fire impact fee. None of the school districts which serve Tukwila have asked the City to collect
a school impact fee on their behalf.
Impact fees are used to provide funds for capital projects or capital facilities which are needed
because of new growth. They are used to fund projects which maintain the same level of service
for new growth as is provided for existing development. They may not be used for projects
which are needed due to current deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development.
In essence, impact fees are a mechanism for "growth to pay for growth."
The ordinance address the fee foiniula, adjustments, credits, appeals, refunds and exemptions as
well as use of the impact fees. Also, the ordinance includes a spreadsheet for calculating an
impact fee and a list of projects for which the impact fee would be collected.
Conceptually, the fee formula identifies the anticipated growth between 2009 and 2020 (12
years) in five land use categories and the cost of capital facilities needed to serve that growth and
divides them proportionally. The variables include the request for service (the amount of parks
and recreation services needed per resident or per person employed in the City of Tukwila) and
the growth anticipated in each land use category. Because the City has a strong track record of
both residents and employees using park and recreation facilities, an impact fee for
commercial/industrial uses as well as an impact fee for residential uses is proposed.
A brief discussion of two of the attachments is a follows.
Attachment B:
The PARKS Impact Fee Options page compares two differing project totals, three differing City
contributions, and three corresponding differing impact fees for five different land use
categories. These numbers are representing the collection of fees over a 12 year period, 2009 to
2020. The five land use categories below each Capital Project Total amount is: per single family
dwelling, per multi- family dwelling unit, per 1,000 gsf of office use, per 1,000 gsf retail use and
per 1,000 gsf of industrial use.
Option A indicates the impact fees and City contribution amounts if the Capital Projects Totaled
$12,250,000. This is the total amount of projects that corresponds to the Level -of- Service
adopted by the City Council.
Option B indicates the impact fee and City contribution amounts if a lesser level -of- service is
chosen for a total project amount of $8,750,000. This lesser level -of- service is shown to
represent another option the City Council could choose.
Both Options A B, have three additional breakdowns included identifying what the cost
association is for three different collection rates and corresponding City contribution rates. If
impact fees are collected at 90% of the total and the City's Contribution is 10 80% impact fees
and 20% City's contribution; and 70% impact fees and 30% City's Contribution are listed across
the page to the right for each land use category.
The main issue before the City Council is adopting an ordinance for Parks impact fees for
funding of capital facilities needed by Parks services due to anticipated new growth and
development. There are two main sub issues the City Council needs to determine to establish the
Parks Impact Fees
Sub -Issue One: The City Council needs to determine what Level -of- Service they want to collect
impact fees.
Sub -Issue Two: The City Council needs to determine what percentage of the Capital Projects
Total Cost they want to contribute.
SPECIAL NOTE:
The finance and Safety Committee has requested two pieces of additional information:
1. What is the Impact Fee /City Contribution percentage being collected /paid by the city for
future growth for the six sample cities' park impact fees near the bottom of Attachment A.
This information is being collected from these cities and will be provided to the City
Council.
2. What is the justification for the `Hours Der Week' listed on Attachment B?
An analysis of the Tukwila Community Center users indicates that a resident uses their
facility pass 2.44 times more than that of a business pass holder. The ratio for the formula
would be the same if we use 1.0 time per week for a business user and 2.44 times per week
for resident OR if we use 0.41 times per week for a business user and 1.0 time per week for
resident. Since the ratio would be the same the percent used for the Impact Fee Cost
Allocation would be the same.
Attachment C
Table 1: 2008 Park Impact Fee Calculation was based upon the City of Redmond's Park Impact
Fee model. On the left of the foiiii, the five land use categories are listed. The next three
columns indicate the 2007 units for the respective land uses; followed by the next three columns
indicate the 2020 estimated units for the respective land uses. The Net Growth from 2008 to
2020 is calculated by subtracting the 2020 minus the 2007 numbers.
At the very top right hand comer of Attachment C, a formula is shown for how the numbers are
calculated to develop a `percent of hours' of park use for each land use category. These
percentages are then multiplied by Impact Fee to collect the funds to meet the level -of- service
identified on Attachment B to determine the Cost Allocation per land use. The Cost Allocation
is multiplied by the number of units (A -1 or A -2, respectfully) to determine the cost per unit or
Impact Fee.
Note: Exhibit A, Table 1: 2008 Park Impact Fee Calculations the sample used is the adopted
Level of Service of $12,250,000 and a 90% Impact Fee ($11,025,000) with a 10% City's
Contribution ($1,225,000). The City will need to contribute the $1,225,000 for the capital
improvements plus the ongoing maintenance and operations cost for the life of the projects
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an ordinance which authorizes assessment of impact fees for capital facilities for
Parks Level -of- Service services needed due to new growth
Attachment A: Project List Park Impact Fees
Attachment B: Parks Services Impact Fee Options
Attachment C: Parks Impact Fee Calculations
Attachment A
Questions for consideration:
1) Should the City collect Impact Fees on the entire list of projects?
2) At what percentage should the City implement Park Impact Fees (90/10 split or 80/20 split
Project List Park Impact Fees
Duwamish Riverbend Hill
Trail Connections
Tukwila Pond
Southgate Park
City of Tukwila Pool
Boat Launch
TOD Pedestrian Bridge
Develop Phase II
Green River Trail to Renton Black/Cedar River
Development Phase II
Expand and Develop
[Extend land lease]; expand features and services
Christianson, Codiga, Fort Dent, Log Cabin
Sounder Connection
Total
Project Cost
$3,000,000
1,000,000
$3,000,000
1,000,000
$1,500,000
$750,000
52,000,000
S12,250,000
ATTACHMENT B
PARKS IMPACT FEE OPTIONS
ATTACHMENT C
TUKWILA PARKS IMPACT FEES 2008
TABLE 1: 2008 PARK IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
a T
'1% t ii
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHNG THE ASSESSMENT OF PARKS
IMPACT FEES ON NEW RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Growth Management Act of the State of Washington
and RCW 36.70A, the City of Tukwila has an adopted Comprehensive Plan, which
includes provisions for parks facilities as part of its Capital Facilities Element; and
WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 authorizes cities to impose impact fees on development
activity as part of the financing for public facilities, including parks facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council desires to provide funding for parks
facilities, as referenced in the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan,
through the imposition of residential and non residential development impact fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines that new growth and
development in the City creates additional demand and need for public parks facilities
in the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development should pay its
proportionate share of the costs for new parks facilities to serve new growth and
development in the City. The City Council believes that this can be accomplished by the
assessment of parks impact fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial
development in the City. It is the Council's intent that the provisions of this ordinance
be liberally construed in establishing the parks impact fee program.
Section 2. Definitions. Terms or words not defined herein shall be defined
pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 when given their usual and customary meaning. For the
purposes of this ordinance, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires
otherwise, the words or phrases defined in this section shall have the following
meanings:
1. The "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 17, Laws of 1990,
First Extraordinary Session, Chapter 36.70A RCW et seq., and Chapter 32, Laws of 1991,
First Special Session, as now in existence or hereinafter amended.
2. "Building permit" means an official document or certification of the City
of Tukwila issued by the City's building official which authorizes the construction,
alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection,
placement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure.
3. "City" means the City of Tukwila, Washington, County of King.
4. "Development activity" means any construction of a building or structure
that creates additional demand and need for parks facilities.
5. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City,
which authorizes the commencement of the "development activity
C. \Documents and Setting \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees.doc
LV_ksn 11/21/200S
Page 1 of 5
6. "Encumber" means to reserve, set aside, or earmark the parks impact fees
in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for
the provision of parks services.
7. "Fee payer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated
association or governmental agency, municipality, or similar entity commencing a land
development activity that requires a building permit and creates a demand for
additional parks capital facilities.
8. "Impact fee" means the payment of money imposed by the City on
development activity pursuant to this ordinance as a condition of granting
development approval in order to pay for the parks facilities needed to serve new
growth and development that is a proportionate share of the cost of parks capital
facilities that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit new development. Impact fees
do not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, and the administrative fee for
collecting and handling parks impact fees or cost of reviewing independent fee
calculations.
9. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, as found in the
records of King County, Washington, or a person with an unrestricted written option to
purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a
recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the
property.
10. "Proportionate share" means that portion of the cost- for parks facility
improvements that are reasonably related to the service demands and needs of new
development.
11. "Public facilities" means the following capital facilities owned or operated
by governmental entities: (1) public streets and roads; (2) publicly owned parks and
open spaces and recreational facilities; (3) school facilities; (4) fire protection facilities
not part of a fire district; and (5) police facilities and essential public facilities as defined
by Chapter 36.70A RC41'.
Section 3. Parks Impact Fee Assessment.
A. The City shall collect parks impact fees from applicants seeking development
approvals from the City for any development activity in the City for which building
permits are required. This will include the expansion of existing uses, which create the
demand for parks services.
B Parks impact fees shall be assessed at the time of a technically- complete
building permit application that complies with the City's zoning ordinances and
building and development codes. Parks impact fees shall be collected from the fee
payer at the time the building permit is issued.
C. Except if otherwise exempt the City shall not issue the required building
permit unless or until the parks impact fees are paid.
Section 4. Use of Parks Impact Fees.
A. Pursuant to this ordinance, parks impact fees shall be used for parks facilities
that will reasonably benefit the City and its residents.
B. Fees shall not be used to make up deficiencies in City facilities serving an
existing development.
C. Fees shall not be used for maintenance and operations, including personnel.
D. Parks impact fees shall be used for but not limited to land acquisition, site
improvements, engineering and architectural services, permitting, financing,
administrative expenses and applicable mitigation costs, and capital equipment
pertaining to parks facilities.
C. \Documents and Setting \All Users \Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees.doc
LV_ksn 11/21/2008
Page 2 of 5
E. Parks impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs
incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by
the previously constructed improvement.
F. In the event bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for
parks facility improvements, impact fees may be used to pay the principal on such
bonds.
Section 5. Parks Impact Fee Capital Facilities Plan. In order to collect parks
impact fees, the City must first adopt a parks capital facilities plan as an element of the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's Capital Facilities Plan for parks services shall
consist of the following elements:
1. The City's capacity over the next six years, based on an inventory of the
City's parks facilities both existing and under construction,
2. The forecast of future needs for parks facilities based upon the City's
population projections;
3. A six-year financial plan component, updated as necessary, to maintain at
least a six-year forecast for financing needed within projected funding levels;
4. Application of the formula set forth in this ordinance based upon the
information in the Capital Facilities Plan; and
5. City Council Action. No new or revised impact fee shall be effective until
adopted by the City Council following a duly advertised public hearing to consider the
City's Capital Facilities Plan or plan update.
Section 6. Parks Impact Fee Formula. The impact fee formula is based on the
assumptions found in Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008, Exhibit A, and Tukwila Parks
Capital Facilities List, Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference fully incorporated
herein.
Land Use
Single Family
Multi- Family
Office
Retail
Industrial
PARKS IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Impact Fee
Per Residential Unit 1 Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. GFA
Section 7. Parks Impact Fee Adjustments.
A. The City may adjust a parks impact fee at the time the fee is imposed to
consider unusual circumstances in specific cases to ensure that impact fees are imposed
fairly.
B. In calculating the fee imposed on a particular development, the City shall
permit consideration of studies and data submitted by a developer to adjust the amount
of the fee. The developer shall submit an independent fee calculation study to the
Director of Parks and Recreation, who shall review the study to determine that the
study:
1. is based on accepted impact fee assessment practices and methodologies;
2. uses acceptable data sources and the data used is comparable with the
uses and intensities planned for the proposed development activity;
3. complies with the applicable state laws governing impact fees,
4. is prepared and documented by professionals who are mutually agreeable
to the City and the developer and are qualified in their respective fields, and
5. shows the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made.
C: \Documents and setting \,"-J1 Useis\ D K \MSDATA Ordinances \Parks Impact Fees.doc
LV :ksn 11/21/2008
Page 3 of 5
C. In reviewing the study, the Director of Parks and Recreation may require the
developer to submit additional or different documentation. If an acceptable study is
presented, the Director of Parks and Recreation may adjust the fee to that appropriate
for the particular development activity If an acceptable study is not presented, the
developer shall pay the impact fees required prior to submitting the study
D. A developer requesting an adjustment or independent fee calculation may pay
the impact fees imposed by this Ordinance to obtain a building permit while the City
determines whether to partially reimburse the developer by making an adjustment or
accepting the independent fee calculation.
Section 8. Credits. A fee payer can request that a credit, or credits, be awarded to
the fee payer for the value of dedicated land, improvements to, or new construction of
any system improvements provided by the developer to facilities that are identified in
the Capital Facilities Plan and that are required by the City as a condition of approving
the development activity.
Section 9. Appeals.
A. Any fee payer may pay the impact fees imposed by this ordinance under
protest in order to obtain a building permit.
B Appeals regarding parks impact fees imposed on any development activity
may only be taken by the fee payer of the property where such development activity
will occur No appeal shall be permitted unless and until the impact fee at issue has
been paid.
C. Determinations of the City staff with respect to the applicability of parks
impact fees to a given development activity, or the availability of a credit, can be
appealed to the City's Hearing Examiner pursuant to this section.
D. An appeal shall be taken within 10 working days of payment of the impact fees
under protest or within 10 working days of the City's issuance of a written
determination of a credit or exemption decision by filing with the City Clerk a notice of
appeal giving the reasons for the appeal with an accompanying appeal fee as set forth
in the existing fee schedule for land use decisions.
Section 10. Refunds.
A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years from the
date the fees were paid, unless extraordinary circumstances or reasons exist, the current
owner of the property on which the impact fees were paid may receive a refund of such
fees.
B The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are entitled
to a refund. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered,
impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first out basis.
C. Owners seeking a refund must submit a written request for a refund of the fees
to the City within one year of the date the right to claim a refund arises or notice is
given, whichever comes later
D Any impact fees for which no application has been made within the one -year
period shall be retained by the City and expended on appropriate parks facilities.
E. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by
the City
Section 11. Exemptions. The parks impact fees are generated from the formula for
calculating the fees as set forth in this ordinance. The amount of the impact fees is
determined by the information contained in the adopted parks master plan and related
documents, as appended to the City's Comprehensive Plan. All new development
located in the City will be charged a parks impact fee, provided that the following
exemptions shall apply. Any development activity or project which has submitted a
technically complete building permit application prior to the effective date of this
C \Documenis and Setting All Users \De ktop \Ke_lly \MSDATA\ Ordinances\ Parks Impact Fees.dcc
LV:ksn 11/21/2CO5
Page4of5
ordinance shall be exempt from the payment of parks impact fees. The following shall
be exempt from parks impact fees:
1. Replacement of a' structure with a new structure having the same use, at
the same site, and when such replacement is within 12 months of demolition or
destruction of the previous structure;
2. Alteration or expansion of or remodeling of an existing dwelling or
structure where no new units are created and the use is not changed,
3. Construction of an accessory residential structure;
4. Miscellaneous improvements including, but not limited to, fences, walls,
swimming pools, and signs;
5. Demolition of or moving an existing structure within the City from one site
to another;
6. Low income housing developed by individuals, nonprofit corporations, or
a housing authority may be exempted from impact fees at the discretion of City staff
subject to:
a. Fiscal impact analysis of the effect of impact fees upon low income
housing and how exempting housing from impact fees would forward the goals for
low- income housing in the City and King County;
b. That adequate documentation be provided that the housing will
remain available for low- income persons for a 10 -year period of time at affordable rents;
and
c. In the case of owner- occupied dwellings, that such housing will be
sold or leased at affordable rates to low income households for a period of 10 years; and
d. The impact fee for exempt development shall be calculated as
provided by this ordinance and paid with public funds. Such payments may be made
by including such amounts in the public share of the system improvements undertaken
within the City for parks services and facilities.
Section 12. Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the
City from requiring the fee payer to mitigate adverse and environmental affects of a
specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapters 43.21C
RCW and /or Chapter 58.17 RCN, governing plats and subdivisions, provided that the
exercise of this authority is consistent with Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW.
Section 13. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 14. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force
five days after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number.
Attachment: Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008, Exhibit A
Tukwila Parks Capital Facilities List, Exhibit B
C. \Documents and Setting \All w ars \Desktop\ K \MSDATA \Ordinances \Parka Impact Fees.doc
LV :ksn 11/21/2COS
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
TUKWILA PARKS IMPACT FEES 2008
TABLE 1 2008 PARK IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Tukwila Parks Capital Facilities List
Project List Impact Fees 2009 to 2015
Duwamish Riverbend Hill
Trail Connections
Tukwila Pond
Southgate Park
City of Tukwila Pool
Boat Launch
TOD Pedestrian Bridge
EXHIBIT B
Develop Phase II
Green River Trail to Renton Black/Cedar River
Development Phase II
Expand and Develop
[Extend land lease]; expand features and services
Christianson, Codiga, Fort Dent, Log Cabin
Sounder Connection
C:\Documents and Settings\A11 Users\ Desktop \Keilp\.MSDATA \ordinances\Parks Impact Exhibit B.doc
LV:ksn 11/14/2008
Total
Page 1 of 1
Project
Cost
3,000,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
750,000
2,000,000
12,250,000
Use of Impact Fees in
Federal Way, Olympia, Maple Valley,
Redmond and Vancouver
Report No. 1000014
October 14, 2008
www.sao.wa.gov
Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag, CGFM
PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT
Brian Sonntag, CGFM
Washington State Auditor
Li he Puget Sound Region experienced an
unprecedented building boom during this decade.
Impact fees' purpose is to help offset the costs of
services associated with new development, such as
roads, schools, fire facilities and parks.
We chose this audit to examine whether cities are
effectively and efficiently using of this revenue source.
We selected the five cities with the state's highest
impact fee revenue from fiscal years 2004 to 2006 to
find out if:
Cities are collecting and administering impact fees
appropriately and in accordance with state law.
The public is getting what it is paying for.
Performance audits are conducted under the
provisions of citizens Initiative 900. This audit
was conducted on our behalf by Ernst Young in
accordance with Generally Accepted Government
Auditing Standards.
Cities have an opportunity to improve transparency
and access to public information by posting their
annual impact fee reports on their Web sites.
While cities are required by state law to report the
information annually, not all cities are posting the
information on their Web sites. It is good policy to
make that information readily available to citizens.
We hope all cities and counties that impose imact fees
will take advantage of the best practices identified in
this audit.
If you are interested in following up on the audit
resolution or public hearings, please check
our Web site at: http: /www.sao.wa.gov/
PerformanceAudit/audit_reports.htm.
Mission Statement
The State Auditor's Office independently serves the citizens of Washington
by promoting accountability, fiscal integrity and openness in state and local
government. Working with these governments and with citizens, we strive to
ensure the efficient and effective use of public resources.
What is an impact fee? A
one -time fee to offsetthe cost
of services associated with
new development. Cities can
collect four types of impact
fees: School, fire, park and=-
transportation impact fees.
impact fees are intended to=
supplement other funding
sources and state law requires
that they bespent on
facilities for which they are==
collected.
How are they administered?
=State law allows municipalities
I required to or choose-=
=to plan under the Growth
Management Act to assess
impact fees. Cities set the_ rate_:=
for and -the impact
:Who pays impact fees?
_Impact fees are charged to
builders as part of the building____
permit process. Impact fees
typically passed .invisibly frorn__-
the builder to the customer
1
Objectives
The audit was designed to determine:
1. The method each city uses to calculate impact fees based on the direction in
state law (RCW 82.20.050);
2. How each city demonstrates that these fees are appropriate; and
3. How effectively each city uses impact fees to pay for public facilities that:
Correspond to the demand for public facilities from new development.
Benefit new development proportionate to its share of the financing of new
or expanded facilities; and are consistent with a comprehensive plan or a
capital element of a comprehensive land use plan that has been adopted in
accordance with state law.
If the city does not meet these objectives, what are the resulting costs to all residents
and what can be done to reduce those costs?
Additionally, the audit addressed the nine elements contained in Initiative 900,
outlined on page 5 of this summary.
The audit cost $726,466.
Legislature
Several of the issues identified during the audit are caused by a lack of clarity in
laws governing impact fees, particularly regarding the items cities may purchase
with impact fee money. For instance, Olympia interpreted the law regarding road
impact fees to allow it to spend the money on bike trails. Redmond interpreted the
law regarding fire impact fees to allow the City to purchase fire trucks. The law states
the fees can only be spent on fire "facilities;" however the law does not define a
fire facility. The Legislature has an opportunity to empower cities to improve their
performance and definitively comply with state law.
Issues
The audit identified three main conclusions regarding the five cities' collection and use
of impact fees.
Lack of clarity in state law may be causing some cities to calculate and spend
impact fees in a manner that could be inappropriate.
One city is charging builders higher impact fees than they should and their fees
are not supported by a capital facilities plan as prescribed by law. We recommend
that city discontinue charging the fees until they are supported.
New developments in some cities are receiving questionable benefits for the
impact fees paid.
Best Practices Identified for All Municipalities
The audit identifies a number of best practices that streamline or improve the
collection, assessment and use of impact fees in order to minimize the costs and
maximize the benefits associated with them.
The complete text of
Initiative 90015 available
at www.sao.wa.gov/
PerformanceAudit
PDFDocuments /i900.
pdf.
Visit www.
sao.wa.gov/
PerformanceAudit/
audit reports.htm
for:
Full report
Cities' responses,
action plans
Public hearings
Cities' annual
status reports
2
Audit Issues
udit R
inanciiaf Impacts
1. Capital Facilities
State law defines capital facilities for
fire, transportation, park and school
impact fees. However, the definitions are
ambiguous, resulting in cities applying
varying interpretations of the term.
2. Fire Districts
The City of Redmond Fire Department
has developed a leading practice in its
relationship with Fire District 34. The fire
department's method of allocating costs
of new capital facilities between the city
and Fire District 34 should be evaluated
for use by other cities and districts.
3. Park Zoning
Olympia may not be spending park impact
fees as effectively as it could, based on
the results of a citizen survey and based
on other cities' use of multiple park
zones.
4. Interest- Bearing Accounts
Each city uses a different method to
allocate interest payments to impact
fee general ledger accounts.
The City of Vancouver's method
of allocating interest is a leading
practice among the Cities.
5. School Impact Fee Interest
Olympia and Federal Way do not remit any
interest they earn on school impact
fees to the school districts; therefore,
the interest income is not spent on the
purpose for which the impact fee was
imposed, as required by state law.
The Washington Legislature should amend
RCW 82.02.090 to better define capital
facilities and the following terms:
1. "Fire protection facilities"
2. "Public streets and roads"
3. "School facilities"
4. Address whether transportation impact
fees can be spent on multimodal
transportation (i.e., biking, walking, etc.).
Washington cities should be aware of the
City of Redmond's leading practice in its
relationship with Fire District 34 and attempt
to institute a similar contract if that city has a
relationship with a neighboring fire district.
Olympia should consider removing
the "one-haft to one mile" and "10- to
20- minute walk" from its definition of a
"Neighborhood Park."
Olympia should consider dividing the City
into two park zones to demonstrate a clear
relationship between where impact fees are
collected and spent. Two zones for park
impact fees would appear to be reasonable,
as the City is approximately six miles across.
Cities should consider using technology
similar to Vancouver's system that
allows for daily allocation of interest and
minimizes manual data entry.
Cities should not allocate interest based
on a rate that is not equal to actual
interest earned.
The Legislature should consider modifying
RCW 82.02.070 to better define "separate
interest- bearing accounts."
Cities should allocate actual interest earnings
on school impact fees collected and remit
those interest earnings to the appropriate
school district(s) so the interest earned on
impact fees can be spent in accordance with
state law.
$876,709
A more accurate
allocation of costs
between a city and
related fire districts.
$36,974
Using an
automated system
will reduce staff
time currently
used in manual
processes.
Accurately
tracking interest
income reduces
the risk of errors
or fraud.
Clarifying an
ambiguous law will
help cities.
$9,469
3
Audit issues
l udit Recommendations
F inancial Impacts-
6. Fire Impact Fee Schedule/
Calculation
Olympia's fire impact fee schedule/
calculation does not effectively
demonstrate the connection between
growth and system improvements.
Olympia does not take into
account the cost of public facilities
necessitated by new development or
the availability of other financing.
Redmond has developed a leading
practice in its fire impact fee
schedule /calculation, specifically the
method it uses to take into account
the impacts of fire and aid calls by
land use type, projected growth by
land use type and the fire Capital
Facilities Plan.
7. School Impact Fee Schedule/
Calculation
Some cities that collect school impact fees
are not consistently reviewing impact fee
calculations prepared by school districts.
8. Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule /Calculation
Redmond uses several leading practices
in calculating, charging and maintaining
its transportation impact fee.
9. Permit System
Redmond inputs collection, interest
earnings, and expenditure of each
impact fee in a database and in the
City's cash receipt system. The City is
duplicating work by entering the same
information twice.
Vancouver and Olympia integrated their
permitting systems with their accounting
systems. This is a leading practice that
results in more effective intemal controls
and limits manual data entry.
Cities should be aware of Redmond's
leading practice for the fire impact fees
schedule /calculation.
The City of Olympia should revisit its fire
impact fee schedule and consider if it
is suitable to continue charging the fire
impact fee. Specifically, Olympia should
more effectively address RCW 82.02.050
and 82.02.060 in its calculation and
demonstrate the fire impact fee it charges
reasonably relates to system improvements
that are reasonably attributable to growth.
Additionally, the City of Olympia should
consider implementing a periodic review
of its fire impact fee calculation and
schedule to determine if the fee is still
adequate, given the city's capital facility
needs and anticipated growth.
Cities should revisit their review process
of the school impact fee calculation /schedule
and capital facilities plan, knowing they
may be involved if litigation results from the
school impact fee assessed.
Cities should consider a construction cost
adjustment to align transportation impact
fees with the cost of projects they fund.
Cities that calculate impact fees based on
a short-term project list should consider
expanding that list to include projects
farther in the future that will be needed to
accommodate growth.
-Cities should adopt a transportation
impact fee schedule that allows
developers to easily determine the impact
fee to be paid upon building permit
issuance. The transportation fee schedule
should be based on typical land uses and
trips per land use.
Redmond should eliminate database
tracking of individual impact fee collection,
expenditures, and interest allocation to
save staff time.
All cities should maintain a permit system
that automatically interfaces with its
accounting system. Leading practices are
in place in Vancouver and Olympia.
$185,565
$345,313
Cities benefit
by having more
confidence that the
school impact fee they
charge is appropriate.
Impact fees will
more closely
match the costs
they support.
Cities may charge
a fee that better
represents the cost
of growth.
Developers will be
able to calculate
and understand
their transportation
impact fee
without outside
assistance.
$76,280
4
i_ nitiative 900 requires the State Auditor's Office to identify best practices
ei dur each performance audit. The following best practices were in place at
the cities during the audit:
Redmond
The City of Redmond Fire Department's method of allocating costs of new
capital facilities between the City and Fire District 34 should be evaluated for
implementation in other cities and districts.
The City of Redmond's fire impact fee calculation and schedule met all
aspects of the related state laws and demonstrates a leading practice by
taking the following items into consideration:
System improvements that are reasonably related to growth
The proportionate share of the costs of system improvements related to
new development
Redmond employs several leading practices with respect to calculating,
charging, and maintaining its transportation impact fee.
These leading practices include:
Inflation indexing
Costs based on a long -range plan
Adopted fee schedules by land use
Vancouver
The City of Vancouver uses the Emphasys SymPro system to assist in
managing the city treasury function, including interest allocation. The system
tracks investment earnings and interfaces with the city's general ledger
to retrieve the daily balances for all accounts to which to allocate interest.
Investment earnings are then allocated across the general ledger accounts
based on their average daily balances.
The City of Vancouver's school impact fee review process is a leading
practice, as the City demonstrates the most in -depth and comprehensive
review of the school impact fee calculation and schedule.
Vancouver and Olympia
The cities of Vancouver and Olympia integrated their permitting systems with
their accounting systems. This was identified as a leading practice among
the Cities due to the tighter internal controls and minimal manual entry.
About Initiative 900
Washington voters approved
_Initiative 900 in November_
2005; giving the State
Auditor's Office the authority
to conduct independent
performance audits of
state and local government_-
entities on behalf of citizens
toprornote accountability
and cost- effective uses
'of public resources.
1 -900 directs'the Office
to address the following
elements in each
performance audit:
Identification of cost savings.
6:
Identification of services that can be reduced or eliminated::
Identification of programs or
services that can be transferred_ if
to the private sector.
Analysis of gaps or overlaps
in programs or services and
recommendations to correct them.
Feasibility of pooling auditee's_
information technology systems.
Analysis of the roles and
functions of the auditee and.
recommendations to change or
eliminate roles or functions.
Recorrimendations forstatutory
or regulatory changes that rnay_°
be necessary for the auditee to
properly carry out its functions.
Analysisof the auditee's
per formance__data,
performance
self assessment systems=
9. identification of best practices_.
:Initiative 900 provides no
penalties forauditees that do
riot- followrecommendations in
performance audit reports._
The`complete text of
-the Initiative is available'
at: ww w.sao.wa.gov/
PerformanceAudit
PDFDocuments /i900.pdf.
5
We made the following recommendations to the Washington Legislature:
Amend RCW 82.02.090 to better define capital facilities and alleviate ambiguity.
Consider modifying RCW 82.02.070 to better define "separate interest bearing
accounts."
n 900 requires the legislative bodies for the governments in this report
to hold at least one public hearing to consider the audit results and receive
comments from the public within 30 days of this report's issue.
The corresponding legislative body must consider this report in connection with
its spending practices. A report must be submitted by the legislative body by
July 1 each year detailing the status of the legislative implementation of the State
Auditor's recommendations. Justification must be provided for recommendations
not implemented. Details of other corrective action must be provided as well.
The state Legislature's Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) will
summarize any statewide issues that require action from the Legislature and will
notify the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of public hearing agendas.
Follow -up performance audits of any state or local government entity or program
may be conducted when determined necessary by the State Auditor.
Initiative 900 provides no penalties for state agencies or local governments that do
not follow recommendations made in performance audit reports.
To receive electronic notification
of audit reports, sign up at:
https: /www.sao.wa.gov /applications/
subscriptionservices/
ILARCposts its 1 -900
public hearings and
agendas at: http:
www.leg.wa.gov/
ILARC/i- 900.htm
6
Washington State Auditor
sonntagb @sao.wa.gov (360) 902 -0360
Director of Performance Audit
Linda Long, CPA, CGFM, CGAP Iongl @sao.wa.gov (360) 902 -0367
Brian Sonntag, CGFM
Communications Director
Mindy Chambers chamberm @sao.wa.gov (360) 902 -0091
To request a public record from the State Auditor's Office:
Mary Leider, Public Records Officer Ieiderm @sao.wa.gov (360) 725 -5617
For general information from the State Auditor's Office:
Main phone number (360) 902 -0370
Web site http: /www.sao.wa.gov
Toll-free hotline for reporting government waste and abuse (866) 902 -3900
To find your legislator http: /apps.leg.wa.gov /districtfinder
To contact the City of Federal Way:
Mayor Jack Dovey jack.dovey @cityoffederalway.com (253) 835 -2401
To contact the City of Olympia:
Mayor Doug Mah dmah @ci.olympia.wa.us (360) 753 -8447
To contact the City of Maple Valley:
Mayor Laure lddings council@ci.maple-valley.wa.us (425) 413 -8800
To contact the City of Redmond:
Mayor John Marchione mayor @redmond.gov (425) 556 -2101
To contact the City of Vancouver:
Mayor Royce Pollard mayor @ci.vancouver.wa.us (360) 696 -8211
Americans with Disabilities
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document will be made available in alternate formats.
Please call (360) 902 -0370 for more information.
7
State of Washington
Performance Audit of Impact Fees
i!i ERNST& YOUNG
Quallfyln Everything We Do
AUDIT AREA 3 PARK ZONING
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
FINDING
The use of multiple zones is seen as an effective way to reasonably relate the collection and
expenditures of park impact fees to areas experiencing growth as discussed at the end of this
page. Based on the use of one zone, the City of Olympia is potentially spending neighborhood
park impact fees that are inconsistent with its definition of a neighborhood park and results of a
citizen survey. Therefore, the City of Olympia may not be spending park impact fees as
effectively as it could using multiple zones.
BACKGROUND
Original Finding Identification
During Phase 1 of the performance audit, Ernst Young noted that the City of Olympia and the
City of Redmond use only one zone for the assessment, collection, and expenditure of park
impact fees. The City of Vancouver uses multiple park zones in an effort to demonstrate a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged to the developer and the park needs
generated by growth in that zoning area.
According to RCW 82.02.050 3 (a), impact fees "Shall only be imposed for system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development." While there are no
requirements in Washington State law to have multiple park zones, Ernst Young noted that
other cities find zoning to be an effective way to make the impact fee relationship, a reasonable
relationship.
Audit Work Conducted
During Phase 3 of the audit, Ernst Young examined the potential finding further. First, Ernst
Young met with the City of Vancouver to gain an understanding of how multiple park zones work
for Vancouver. Next, Ernst Young met with the City Olympia to gain an understanding of why
one zone was selected for assessing, collecting, and spending park impact fees in Olympia.
Finally, Ernst Young sampled some park impact fees that were collected to determine where
they were potentially spent within the City of Olympia.
Ernst Young LLP Page 26 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
Vancouver's Rationale for Multiple Park Zones
Ernst Young noted that the City of Vancouver has chosen to implement ten different park
zones (or districts) so as to provide a clear demonstration between where fees are spent and
where fees are collected. The size of each zone is large enough so that an adequate amount of
funding can be collected in each area. The ten park zones span the urban unincorporated area
of the county, as the City of Vancouver and Clark County operate under the same parks
department. If one were to look at the city limits of Vancouver, there would be approximately
four park zones within the City limits. In addition to multiple zones effectively demonstrating the
connection between where fees are spent and where they are collected, the City offered the
following other benefits of having multiple park zones:
The impact fees assessed vary by zone to account for the differences in and value
across the city. Therefore, a developer building a house in zone one, where and is
more expensive, will pay a higher impact fee, where as a developer building a home in
zone ten, where land is cheaper, will pay a smaller impact fee.
Multiple park zones allow the City to have the ability to not collect impact fees in a zone
if the zone at some point contains all necessary parks to meet the level of service
standards and there is not significant anticipated growth in the zone.
The City of Vancouver did provide some disadvantages to having multiple park zones, which
included the following:
Accounting is more difficult with multiple park zones.
There is Tess flexibility with spending the park impact fees collected_
Spending the impact fees within the six -year time period (as required by law) is more
difficult.
City of Olvmoia One Zone Research
Ernst Young met with the City of Olympia to gain an understanding of how one park zone
works for the City and how effectively the single zone demonstrates the connection between
where fees are collected and where they are spent. Ernst Young noted that because the City
operates its parks system as a single zone, Olympia may spend park impact fees collected in
the City on any park within the City limits.
Ernst Young LLP Page 27 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
Types of Parks in Olympia
First, Ernst Young noted that the City of Olympia develops the following types of parks using
park impact fees, as per the City's Capital Facilities PIan
Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks are a common gathering place for families
and children, all within a 10 -20 minute walk from home.
Community Parks: Community parks are places for organized recreation programs and
sports activities. Community parks will include athletic fields and picnic shelters or other
facilities for large -scale community use.
Special Use Parks: Special use parks offer unique features and are typically more
special- interest oriented. Examples of these parks are the Japanese Garden and
Heritage Fountain. These parks are used by the entire community and become
treasured places in the community.
Open Space Parks: Open space is for passive use, nature trails, and wildlife habitat.
Questions Regarding the Neighborhood Park Designation
After gaining an understanding of the various types of parks, Ernst Young became concerned
about the neighborhood park designation. All other parks (community, special use, and open
space) in the City of Olympia are built for use by the entire City (as per their definition shown
above); thus, implementation of a single park zone appears reasonable, as the entire
community benefits from the development of these parks regardless of where a home is built.
However, neighborhood parks are built specifically for neighborhoods, as the definition in
Olympia's capital facility plan indicates that they are a 10 -20 minute walk from a home.
Furthermore, Olympia's Park and Open Space Standards and Definitions document describes
neighborhood parks as generally small in size and serve an area of approximately one -half
to one mile radius but serve all residents in the community." Based on this understanding, Ernst
Young noted that one park zone might allow a park impact fee to be collected on one side of
the City, yet be spent on building a neighborhood park across town, outside of the City's own
definition of neighborhood parks. In this scenario, the neighborhood park may not benefit the
citizens and developers who paid the park impact fee, as the neighborhood park is built further
than a 10 -20 minute walk and further than one -half to one mile away.
The City of Olympia's Justification for One Zone
The City of Olympia implemented park impact fees in 1993 and has utilized one zone since its
implementation. The justification for the City's determination to use one zone in 1993 is based
Ernst Young LLP Page 28 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
on reasoning similar to that identified by the City of Vancouver as disadvantageous to having
multiple park zones (noted above). The City of Olympia further explained to Ernst Young that
the "reasonableness" of one zone can be understood based on the outcome of an Olympia
citywide survey conducted in 2006. The survey was conducted by the City to assess residents'
opinions and behaviors regarding City services. The survey included the following City
government programs and services:
Communication with citizens
Garbage and recycling
Sewer
Drinking water
Storm and surface water
Parks
Public safety
Transportation services
The survey selected 400 residents, at random, from a list of utility customers. The survey was
conducted over the phone and has a margin of error of ±1- 5% at the 95% confidence interval.
The direct results of the parks portion of the survey included the following:
"39% visited a park in Olympia 12 or more times in the past year
7 in 10 were "very satisfied" with their park experiences.
Majorities were "definitely" willing to travel up to six miles to get to an open space area
(59 and a special use park (52 44% were "definitely" willing to travel to a
community park.
3 in 5 were "definitely" (36 or "probably" (25 willing to travel three miles to a
neighborhood park.
1 in 3 respondents (or someone in their household) had participated in a recreational
activity provided by the City.
9 in 10 agreed that art events are valuable to the quality of life in the City "4
Ernst Young's Views on the Survey Results
The survey results for the special use, open space, and community parks (bullet three above)
do support the City's definition and plan for usage of these parks by citizens across the City in a
single park zone. However, the survey results (bullet four above) do not support the City's
definition and /or implementation of a single park zone for neighborhood parks. The survey
Ernst Young LLP Page 29 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
shows that a total of 61% of Olympia residents would "definitely" or "probably" travel up to three
miles to visit a neighborhood park. The City of Olympia is approximately six miles across;
therefore, survey results for neighborhood parks do not correlate to the City's approach of one
zone.
Testing of Park Impact Fees Collected
Ernst Young conducted an analysis of park impact fee collections during the audit period 2004
2006 and the expenditure of the 2004 and 2005 collections Ernst Young found that
although there were community, special use, or open space park systems located close to
where the impact fees were gathered, roughly 96% of the neighborhood parks were not built
within the one -half to one mile radius of where the impact fees were gathered. Ernst Young
also found that the average distance between the location where an impact fee was collected
and the location where the impact fee was potentially used (the average distance of the impact
fee collection to the three possible parks where the impact fee was spent) on a neighborhood
park was approximately four and one -half miles. This four and one -half mile average shows
that neighborhood parks are not built within the one -half to one mile radius or 10 to 20- minute
walking distance from the location of the development, based on Olympia's definition of
neighborhood parks. Given that neighborhood parks are constructed at locations that on
average may be several miles from the impact fee collection development site, neighborhood
parks are being developed in current neighborhoods lacking parks, raising the question of
whether the single zone approach most effectively demonstrates the connection between the
impact fees and the growth that paid them.
System Approach to Parks in Olympia
To support its neighborhood park definition, City planners in Olympia explained the one -half to
one mile distance is a goal for the City's system of parks This goal is based on a standard level
of service of neighborhood park acres for 1,000 residents. Olympia has a goal of 1.44 acres per
1,000 residents. Olympia utilizes a 20 -year plan for its parks system. In the next 20 years, the
City hopes to realize its current definition of a neighborhood park.
Olympia explained to Ernst Young that its park planning utilizes a "systems approach."
According to RCW 82.02.050 3(c), Impact fees are permitted to be "used for system
improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development." Olympia's parks may be
considered appropriate improvements given the definition of System Improvements in RCW
Ernst Young LLP Page 30 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
82.02.090: "public facilities that are included in the capital facilities plan and are designed to
provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project
improvements
RECOMMENDATIONS
Cities should consider the use of multiple zones to more effectively demonstrate a clear
relationship between where impact fees are collected and spent. Ernst Young recommends
that the City of Olympia take both of the following actions in its approach to park planning:
1. Consider revising the "one -half to one mile" and "10-20 minute walk" statements from its
definition of a "Neighborhood Park" if the City's intent is to build these neighborhood
parks for the entire City rather than for a more localized neighborhood.
2. Consider dividing the City into two park zones to more effectively demonstrate a clear
relationship between where impact fees are collected and spent. Two zones for park
impact fees would appear to be reasonable, as the City is approximately six miles across
and according to the survey:
"3 in 5 were "definitely" (36 or "probably" (25 willing to travel three miles to a
neighborhood park."
If 61% of the citizens are "definitely" or "probably" willing to travel three miles to a
neighborhood park, then dividing the City into 2, three -mile wide zones would appear to
be appropriate to meet the demands of the City residents.
Note: The City of Redmond uses only one park zone as well; however, the audit focused on the
City of Olympia because it exhibited the greatest opportunity during the Phase 1 planning
process. No detailed performance audit work was conducted at the City of Redmond; however,
the City of Redmond should consider the above recommendations as well.
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS AND /OR OTHER IMPACTS
There is no direct potential cost savings associated with the recommendations above.
However, with the current definition of a neighborhood park, Ernst Young calculated the dollar
amount of impact fees that were collected during the performance audit period (2004 -2006) that
Ernst Young LLP Page 31 of 67
were potentially spent more than three miles away (Note. Ernst Young used three miles,
rather than one -half to one mile, due to the results of the survey discussed above). This dollar
figure was calculated by performing the following steps:
1. Randomly selected a sample of 50 neighborhood park impact fees collected during the
period (12% of the entire population). A total of 417 neighborhood park impact fees
collected during the performance audit period have been expended.
2. Determined the distance between the address where the impact fee was collected and
where the impact fee could have potentially been spent within the City on a
neighborhood park. Ernst Young used Google Maps to perform this function.
3. Out of 50 samples selected, Ernst Young noted that 80% of impact fees were
potentially spent on a neighborhood park more than three miles away
4. Ernst Young then extrapolated the results of the testing to the remaining 417 impact
fees collected for the period by determining that 80% of the entire amount was
potentially spent on neighborhood parks greater than three miles away. The total dollar
figure came to $36,974.
5. Finally, Ernst Young noted that park impact fees have been collected in the City of
Olympia since 1993 under the same methods and park definitions. However, Ernst
Young did not obtain data outside of the performance audit period (i.e., outside the
scope of the audit) and was therefore unable to calculate the total dollar amount of park
impact fees spent on neighborhood parks in areas that did not experience growth since
the inception of the fee in 1993.
Refer to Appendix E Olympia Park Impact Fee Collection and Spending for a detailed
map of the sample of 50 park impact fees tested.
Exhibit 7 Estimated Olympia Park Impact Fees Potentially Spent on Neighborhood Parks Greater Than Three Miles Away
During the Performance Audit Period of 2004 -2006
Estimated Olympia Park Impact Fees
Potentially Spent on Neighborhood Parks
Greater Than Three Miles Away
Ernst Young LLP
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
$36,974
Page 32 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
AUDIT AREA 6 FIRE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE /CALCULATION
FINDING
The City of Redmond has developed a leading practice in its fire impact fee
schedule /calculation. Specifically, the schedule /calculation takes into account the impacts of
fire and aid calls by land use type, projected growth by land use type and the fire Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP).
The City of Olympia's fire impact fee schedule /calculation does not appear to effectively
demonstrate the fee's connection to system improvements related to growth, the cost of public
facilities necessitated by new development or the availability of other financing.
BACKGROUND
Original Finding Identification
During Phase 1 of the performance audit, Ernst Young noted that the City of Olympia collects
fire impact fees at a flat per- square -foot rate ($0.159 per square foot), regardless of the land use
type. Therefore, a single family home pays the same rate per square foot as a restaurant or
manufacturing facility. The fire impact fee rate was determined by an outside consultant in
1994. Ernst Young noted that the fire impact fee has not been updated since its adoption in
1994.
During Phase 1, Ernst Young noted that the City of Redmond assesses fire impact fees based
on the type of land use. To determine the fire impact fee that each type of land use pays, the
City of Redmond takes into consideration the number of historical fire and aid calls based on the
type of land use (i.e., multi- family vs. retail, etc.).
Audit Work Conducted
During Phase 3 of the performance audit, Ernst Young spent more time working with the cities
of Redmond and Olympia to gain a better understanding of how the impact fee calculation and
schedule were determined.
Ernst Young LLP Page 41 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
Fire Impact Fees in the City Olvmr is
City of Olympia Planning and Fire Department
Ernst Young met with the City of Olympia's Fire Department and Planning Department to gain
a better understanding of the impact fee calculation that what was prepared in 1994 to
determine the reasoning behind a flat rate for all land uses. The City of Olympia was initially
unable to explain how the calculation was determined in 1994, as there were no individuals
currently within the City who were working when the calculation was determined Further
information was later provided by the City to speak to the independent study that was conducted
in 1994 to determine the impact fee rate. The information provided explained how the City's
approach was standards driven, using prior years' costs against the total area of fire coverage
to define a per- square -foot fee for any new development in the City to maintain that standard
level of service. The City maintained that this method allows it to forecast the cost of new fire
protection based on prior years' incurred expenses. However, the City did state that this
method did not directly relate to its forecasted expenses for fire protection facilities in its capital
facilities plan. The City of Olympia also explained to Ernst Young that there have been very
few (if any) developer complaints regarding the fire impact fee requiring a detailed explanation
of the study.
Rate Study
Ernst Young was able to obtain a copy of the fire impact fee study prepared for the City by an
independent consultant in 1994 Ernst Young reviewed the study to gain an understanding
of how the calculation was prepared, and the rate was ultimately determined. Ernst Young
noted that the fire impact fee rate per square foot was calculated by the independent consultant
using the following steps:
1. Determined the City of Olympia's fire protection facilities inventory as of June 1992 and
the 1992 square feet of development served by the current inventory. Using these
figures, a fire apparatus per square foot was determined for the City for 1992. See
Exhibit 9 below.
Ernst Young LLP Page 42 of 67
Exhibit 9 - Fire Apparatus per Square Foo of Development
AiparatuS. Per
eveloprnerit
7
u��'
3 38,171,851 1 000000078
6 38.171,851 1 .000000157
3 38,171,851 1 .000000078
1 38.171.851 1 .000080028
38,171,851 1 .000000026
Stations
Pumpers
Rescue Units
1 Aerial Units
Hazardous Materiais Units 1
2. Next, the 1992 cost per inventory item was determined, as well as a cost per square
foot. See Exhibit 10 below.
Exhibit 10 - Capital Cost per Square Foo of Development'
po en.
Stations
Pumpers
Rescue Units
Aerial Units
Hazardous Materials Units
.*guarOlfti Oda
.000000078
.000000157
.000000078
.000000026
.000000026
Total Cost/Sq Ft
3. Previous years' expenditures for fire protection facilities were then determined. See
Exhibit 11 below.
Exhibit 11 Previous Expenditures for Fire Protection Facilities
ga
1985
1986
1987
1088
1989
1990
|1881
1992
1993
9-Year Total
State of Washingto Performance Audit of Impact Fees
$.131352
.043175
.00429 1
0104 1
.00208 1
0.1012971
1,684,000
275,000
55,000
400,000
80,000
�37,870
285,940
137,530
47,120
47,280
42,460
109,780
28,308
36,410
4. An annual average of the nine-year total was calculated ($85 Using this number,
along with the 1992 square feet of development (38.171.851). an annual average per
square foot of development was computed: $0.0022491.
Ernst Young LLP Page 43 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
5. Using a discount rate of 7 the net present value of 27.5 years of future payments (at
$0.0022491) will total $0 032157 per square foot.
6. Therefore, the impact fee rate is $0.159140 per square foot ($0.191297 (from
Exhibit 14) minus $0.032157.))
Upon completion of reviewing Olympia's fire impact fee calculation to arrive at the $0.159 per
square foot assessed to developers, Ernst Young could not determine whether Olympia's rate
study meets the following requirements by Washington State law:
"Should only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the
new development" (RCW 82.02.050). Furthermore, "system improvements" are
defined in RCW 82.02.090 as public facilities that are included in the capital
facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the
community at large, in contrast to project improvements."
"Should not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that
are reasonably related to the new development" (RCW 82 02.050)
A schedule of impact fees adopted for each type of development activity subject to
impact fees, including (RCW 82.02.060):
The amount of the impact fee to be imposed for each type of system
improvement
The schedule should be based on a formula or other calculation method
The formula should take into account proportions including, but not limited
to:
1. The cost of public facilities necessitated by new development
2. The methods by which public facilities were financed
3. The availability of other means of funding public facility improvements
4. An adjustment to the cost of the public facilities for past or future
payments either made or anticipated to be made, including payments
proratable to the system improvement, along with
a. User fees
b. Debt service payments
c. Taxes
Ernst Young noted that the City of Olympia's fire impact fee calculation does not appear to
include all required considerations:
Ernst Young LLP Page 44 of 67
1. System improvements that are needed due to growth (a requirement of RCW 82.02.050);
rather, the calculation uses previous years' expenditures.
2. Proportionate share of the costs of system improvements related to new development (a
requirement of RCW 82.02.050), as no such information related to new development is
mentioned in the calculation.
3. The formula used to determine the fire impact fee amount does not appear to take the
following items into consideration (a requirement of 82.02.060):
The cost of public facilities necessitated by new development
The methods by which public facilities have been financed
The availability of other means of funding public facility improvements
4. The calculation was conducted in 1994 and has not been revised or updated since
implementation, even though costs and growth patterns have changed.
5. The calculation includes capital facilities that are currently ambiguous under RCW
82.02.090. As stated in Audit Area 1 of this report, RCW 82.02 090 defines the term
capital facilities for fire, transportation, park and school impact fees. However, the
definitions provided are ambiguous, resulting in the Cities applying varying
interpretations of the definition of a "fire protection facility." Under the same guidelines
as those defined in Audit Area 1 of this report, the City of Olympia's use of fire apparatus
(i.e., pumpers, rescue units, aerial units and hazardous materials units) as components
to its fire impact fee calculation should be considered.
Fire Impact Fees in the City of Redmond
Next, Ernst Young met with the City of Redmond to gain an understanding of the formula it
used to calculate the City's fire impact fee schedule. Exhibit 12 below shows the City of
Redmond's fire impact fee schedule for the performance audit period.
Exhibit 12 City of Redmond's Fire Impact Fee Schedule 1999 -2006
Y_ a id. In pact:Fe
a
Single- family 1 $94.48 per residential unit
Multi- family I $132.73 per residential unit
Office 1 $0.11 per square foot
1 Retail 1 $0.13 per square foot
1 Industrial 1 $0.01 per square foot 1
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
in order to develop the different rates for land use categories as shown above, the City of
Redmond used historical data to determine the number of emergency (fire and aid) calls per
Ernst Young LLP Page 45 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
land use type. Ernst Young noted that national emergency call data is available; however, it
was important for Redmond to use Redmond data instead of national data, given that the
jurisdiction has unique fire safety requirements.
The City of Redmond determined its fire impact fee schedule (Exhibit 12) by performing the
following calculation steps in 1999:
1. Determined the capital facility needs for the fire department as of 1999 Once the capital
facility needs were identified, the City of Redmond determined the percentage of those
needs that arose due to growth.
2. Obtained 1997 historical incident response (fire and aid) data from the City fire
department. Response data is logged by the City of Redmond according to 13 land use
categories. The land use incident response data was further organized into the following
land use categories:
a. Single- family
b. Multi- family
c. Office
d. Retail
e. Industrial
3. Determined the increase in annual incident responses due to growth, by land use type
4 Allocated the capital facility needs by incident responses due to growth (calculated in
step one above) to each land use type, based on the proportionate number of incident
calls per land use type.
5 Calculated the anticipated growth per land use type over a 17 -year period.
6. Determine the impact fee to be paid by each land use type (Exhibit 16) by dividing the
capital costs allocated to each land use type (step four) by the anticipated growth per
land use type (step five).
Ernst Young noted that the City of Redmond's fire impact fee calculation and schedule met all
aspects of RCW 82.02.050 and 82.02.060 and demonstrates a leading practice. Redmond's fire
impact fee calculation and schedule takes the following items into consideration
System improvements that are reasonably related to growth
The proportionate share of the costs of system improvements related to new
development
Ernst Young LLP Page 46 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
Finally, the City of Redmond reviewed its fire impact fee schedule in 2006 and noted that
updates were needed. Therefore, the schedule was updated in 2006, and new rates were
charged for fire impact fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Other cities within the State of Washington should be aware of the City of Redmond's leading
practice for the fire impact fees schedule /calculation.
The City of Olympia should revisit its fire impact fee schedule and consider if it is suitable to
continue charging the fire impact fee. Specifically, Olympia should more effectively address
RCW 82.02.050 and 82.02.060 in its calculation and demonstrate that the fire impact fee
charged reasonably relates to system improvements that are reasonably attributable to growth.
Additionally, the City of Olympia should consider implementing a periodic review of its fire
impact fee calculation and schedule to determine that the fee is still adequate, given the yearly
changes in growth expectations and capital facility needs.
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS AND OTHER IMPACTS
There are no direct potential cost savings associated with this finding and recommendation.
However, Ernst Young looked at and compared the City of Olympia's fire impact fee in two
ways:
1. Scenario 1: Ernst Young used the City of Redmond's calculation and growth data to
project what the City of Olympia's fire impact fee schedule could have potentially been
during the audit period, based on actual costs defined in the City of Olympia's 2003
capital facilities plan.
2. Scenario 2: Ernst Young took the City of Olympia's current fire impact fee calculation
and removed the capital facilities in question (i.e., fire apparatus).
Ernst Young then took the above two scenarios and compared them to the amount of fire
impact fees that were collected during the audit period.
Ernst Young LLP Page 47 of 67
Scenario 1: Fire Impact Fee Schedule Calculation Based on the City of Redmond's
Calculation
Ernst Young used the City of Redmond's calculation, noted as a leading practice in our finding
in this audit area, as a way to demonstrate what the City of Olympia's fire impact fee might have
been if it was directly tied to its fire CFP. Ernst Young also used the City of Redmond's
growth data and historical statistical fire and aid response data to develop a potential fire impact
fee schedule for the .City of Olympia. To do this, Ernst Young performed the following steps
1. Used the City of Olympia's Fire CFP from 2003 as a basis for the needed capital
facilities. (Note: Ernst Young could not determine the capital facilities in the 2003 CFP
that were due to growth; therefore, Ernst Young used 100% of the fire capital facilities
from the plan for purposes of this calculation.)
2. Inserted Olympia's CFP data into Redmond's calculation Olympia did not have
sufficient historical incident response data (determines the fee each land use type pays)
or anticipated growth data to use in the calculation Therefore, for purposes of this
calculation, Ernst Young used Redmond's historical incident response data and
Redmond's anticipated growth with the following adjustments Ernst Young noted that
the City of Redmond is a high growth city, where as the City of Olympia is somewhat of
a low- growth city; therefore, Ernst Young did not use 100% of the City of Redmond's
growth in the calculation for the City of Olympia. Rather, Ernst Young looked at the
population growth between the two cities during the period 2000 -2007 and noted that
the City of Olympia's growth was 36% of the City of Redmond's growth, based on
population statistics. Therefore, Ernst Young used 36% of Redmond's growth in the
calculation and applied this to the growth rates by land use type noted below.
Note: The City of Redmond's anticipated growth over the 17 -year period varies by
land use type. The information below details the City of Redmond's anticipated
growth rate by land use type for the 17 -year period and the City of Olympia's
estimated growth rate by land use type at 36% of Redmond's anticipated growth.
Single- family
1 Multi- family
1 Office
Retail
Industrial
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
c f %R tiiorid'.s_ -_.City`of-Qlyrripia's_Estiiiiafed
pr as a C'fo�rvth Forecas ted Growth
54% 19%
63% 23%
133% 48%
65% 23%
24% 1 9%
Ernst Young LLP Page 48 of 67
After performing the above steps, Ernst Young estimated the potential fire impact fee
schedule for the City of Olympia for the performance audit period. Exhibit 13 below shows the
potential fire impact fee schedule for the City of Olympia.
Exhibit 13 Potential Olympia Fire
Anticipated Growth
YLaidse
Single- family
Multi- family
Office
J _Retail
1 Industrial
Impact Fee Schedule Based on Anticipated Growth Equal to 36% of Redmond's
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
Im pact Fee-
1 $82.73 per residential unit
1 $116.22 per residential unit
1 $97.02 per 1,000 sq. ft.
1 $110.99 per 1,000 sq. ft.
1 $11.45 per 1,000 sq. ft.
Next, Ernst Young obtained a list of all fire impact fees collected for the performance audit
period (2004 -2006) (Note: A total of $491,036 in fire impact fees was collected for the period.)
Using this data, Ernst Young recalculated each fire impact fee collected. Using the above fire
impact fee schedule, it shows that the City of Olympia under this scenario would have
potentially collected $145,723 in fire impact fees, which is $345,313 less than what the City
charged under its current calculation.
Scenario 2: Recalculation of the City of Olympia's Fire Impact Fee Calculation
Ernst Young used the fire impact fee study prepared for the City by an independent consultant
in 1994' to recalculate the fire impact fee schedule by removing the capital facility items in
question (i.e., fire apparatus, etc.).
1. Ernst Young determined the City of Olympia's fire protection facilities inventory as of
June 1992 and the 1992 square feet of development served by the current inventory
This was done by removing the capital facilities (Le., fire apparatus) in question, as seen
in Exhibit 14 below.
Ernst Young LLP Page 49 of 67
Exhibit 14 Fire Apparatus per Square Foot of Developrnent
Stations
Pumpers
Rescue Units
1 Aerial Units
Hazardous Materials Units
2. Next, the 1892 cost per inventory item was datannined, as well as a cost per square
foot. See Exhibit 15 below.
Exhibit 15 Capita Cost per Square Foo of Development'
Stations
3
/g
|Z
4
i4
3B.171.8§�
38,171,851
38.171.851
30.1-74.851-
State of Washingto Performance Audit of impact Fees
Apparatus
~x '.r����--�-'
Foot
38.171.851 .000000078
1 704000045-7
,04900-909-7g
Total Cost/Sq Ft 0.1313521
izsot
3. Previous years' expenditures forfina protection facilities were then determined. See
Exhibit 16 below (same as Exhibit 15 shown above).
Exhibit 16 Previous Expenditures for Fire Protection Facilities
1985
1988
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1 9-Year Total
:Expenditures
37,870
285,940
137,530
47,120
47,280
42,460
109,780
28,308
36,410
$772,698
4. An annua average of the n r tota was calculated ($85,855). Using this number
along with the 1992 square feet of development (}8.171.851). an annual average per
square foot of development was computed ao$O.0U224S1.
5. Using a discount rate of 7%, the net present value of 27.5 years of future payments (at
$0.O0224S1) will total $O.O32157 per square foot.
Ernst Young LLP Page 50 of 67
6. Therefore, the fire impact fee rate is $0.099 per square foot ($0.131352 [from
Exhibit 19] minus $0.032157).)
Ernst Young took the new fire impact fee calculation of $0.099 per square foot of development
and recalculated under this scenario what should have been collected in fire impact fees over
the audit period. Ernst Young calculated that $305,470 would have been collected; which is
$185,656 less than what the City charged under its current calculation.
Comparison of Scenarios 1 and 2 above to the Actual Fire Impact Fees Collected
Finally, Ernst Young compared the above two fire impact fee calculations to the actual amount
of fire impact fees collected by the City of Olympia during the audit period (2004- 2006).
Exhibit 17 Comparison of Potential Fire Impact Fees Collected During the 2004 -2006 Performance Audit Period
491,036
Potential Overcharge
Potential Undercharge
145,723
345,313
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
otential Fire
tmpact=F_ees
ollected=Utnder
'cePario 2
305,470
185,565
Potential. Fire
Impact Fees
ollected Based
:PPiiserOf
.updated CFP
7
In looking at the above table, the City of Olympia has potentially overcharged for fire impact fees
anywhere from $185,565 to $345,313; however, please note the potential for an undercharge,
as stated below in the final comments to this audit area.
Lastly, Ernst Young noted that the City of Olympia's fire impact fee schedule /calculation has
been the same since its inception in 1994; however, since Ernst Young only had fire impact
fee collection data for the audit period, it was unable to calculate an overcharge for the life of the
fire impact fee (i.e., 1994 2008).
Please note that this is simply an estimated fire impact fee schedule for the City of Olympia, as
growth and historical fire and aid call data was not sufficient from the City. The City asserts it
has undercharged the fire impact fee. Ernst and Young believes this assertion may be possible
based on the fire impact fee calculation the City uses not being tied to its Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) and the City's CFP appears to not be up -to -date. The City is planning on building a new
fire station that costs roughly $7.9 million; however, this facility was not included on the 2003
Ernst Young LLP Page 51 of 67
State of Washington Performance Audit of Impact Fees
CFP. Had the City tied its impact fee calculation to its CFP and updated its CFP, it is possible
that the City may have undercharged, rather than overcharged. Although, the City provided
Ernst Young population statistics, fire and aid call data, and construction data, it was
insufficient to validate the City's assertion.
Ernst Young LLP Page 52 of 67
City of Tukwila
Finance and Safety Committee
FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2008, 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Dennis Robertson, Chair; Pam Linder and Kathy Hougardy
Staff: Rick Still, Lisa Verner, Gail Labanara, Viki Jessop, Shawn Hunstock, Mary Miotke, Nick Olivas,
David Haynes, Derek Speck, Rhonda Berry and Melissa Hart
Guests: Mark Segale, Bill Arthur and Chuck Parrish
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
The agenda was amended to reflect the new order of business as presented below.
I. PRESENTATIONS No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Interlocal Aereement to Provide Tourism and Marketing Services to the City of Des Moines
Katherine Kertzman indicated that the proposed agreement is very similar to the previous interlocal
agreement with the City of Des Moines. The notable change is the term of the agreement, which went
from a three -year term to a one -year term that will renew for subsequent one -year terms unless otherwise
terminated with 120 days notice. Des Moines's payment will remain the same, 100% of lodging tax
collected per year. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
B. Impact Fee Ordinances for Fire and Parks
Staff reported that Administration is evaluating new sources of revenue for the City. One such source is
impact fees; through which new development helps to pay for capital facilities necessitated due to the
new growth.
The Growth Management Act allows impact fees for parks services and fire services, in addition to
traffic impact fees, which the City has already enacted. Lisa Verner stated the regulations regarding
impact fees state that the amount collected must be used for capital facilities and the amount collected
cannot fund a 100% of a project. Since impact fees cannot fund 100% of a project, prior to impact fee
implementation, the City would need to indicate the fee split, such as 90% impact fees and 10% City
funding.
The information proposed by staff is based on the City of Redmond's model. The State of Washington
conducted a Performance Audit of impact fees which stated, "The City of Redmond has developed a
leading practice in its fire impact fee schedule /calculation."
Committee members asked clarifying questions from staff and recommended the following information
be provided to Council at the Committee of the Whole Meeting:
Do neighboring cities collect impact fees and what are their impact fee /city splits?
What is the impact fee /city funded split for the City of Redmond?
How were the percentages achieved in the calculation worksheets?
Committee Chair Robertson requested staff to simplify the information provided and reorganize the
packet of back -up documentation so the presentation is more straightforward. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
Co UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
i 1 4,
�y
O,i t 2 Initial IlM NO.
f pmt, `�y 1- Meeting Date Prepared by Mayor's review __council review
Ls. l t d 1 11/24/08 1 BG ,A.4.4 I
12/01/08 1 BG .A. l 'i 1
19o8 6
1
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 0 S 4 7 I ORIGINAL AGENDA DAIE: NOVEMBER 24, 2008
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Ordinance for a time extension on the 35 Ave S Street Vacation
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 11/24/08 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date 12 /01 /08 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date:
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svcs El DCD Finance Fire El Legal P &R Police P11"
SPONSOR'S This ordinance will extend the expiration date for the Sound Transit street vacation located at
SUMMARY 35 Ave S (the Tukwila Int'I Blvd station) to April 30, 2009. Conditions have been met at two
other street vacations, 48 and 49 Ave S, and they will be recorded at King County. The
conditions on the remaining four street vacations can not be satisfied and are therefore null
and void as they expired on April 30, 2008.
REVIEWED COW Mt CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
BY Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 11/12/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIT. Approve Ordinance.
COM IITTEE Unanimous approval; forward to COW.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0.00 $0.00
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
11/24/08
12/01/08
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
11/24/08 Information Memo dated November 18, 2008 (revised after TC meeting)
Ordinance with location map
I Transportation Committee Meeting Minutes from November 12, 2008
I
I 12/01/08
I
INFORMATION MEMO
To: Mayor Haggerton
From: Public Works Director
Date: November 18, 2008
Subject: 35th Ave South Street Vacation
ISSUE
Time extension and status update on progress of the street vacations agreed to between the City of Tukwila and
Sound Transit as part of the Sound Transit Light Rail project.
BACKGROUND
At the May 12, 2008 Committee of the Whole meeting, an update was presented of the seven Sound Transit
light rail street vacations. Four vacations were voided due to conditions that could not be met; one vacation met
the conditions and was completed, and two were granted time extensions. Since that time, the 48 Ave S street
vacation conditions have been met and finalized. Sound Transit is still negotiating with WSDOT on the 35
Ave S street vacation and requires an additional time extension.
The street vacation portion of 35th Ave S lies between Sound Transit property and the WSDOT SR -518 right
of -way. Portions of the Tukwila International Boulevard Station's parking lot have been built on this proposed
street vacation property. The proposed right -of -way limits run the full length of the abutting properties and
include the cul -de -sac bulb. A draft ordinance is attached to extend the time to April 30, 2009. A street vacation
is not complete until all of the conditions have been met.
The following table provides a brief status summary of the seven street vacations.
File Ordinances
No. Street (Expired 4/30/07, Payment Status Participation
4/30/08 or 10/31/08)
2087 2158 2203 New Ordinance w/ time to 4/30/09.
3.40.62 35 Ave S Null Void $446,088.00 ST WSDOT land, proceeding w/ vacation.
2088& 2159 Null Void All ST land, payment in full.
3.40.63 48 Ave S 2204 to be Recorded $53,592.00 All conditions have been met.
2089 2160 Conditions can not be satisfied.
3.40.64 47 Ave S Null Void $176,516.00 Private owners refused to participate.
2090, Null Void All conditions have been met.
3.40.65 49 Ave S 2061 to be Recorded $0.00 $0 as City initiated on City land.
2091 2162 $0 (City Conditions can not be satisfied.
3.40.66 S 138 St Null Void initiated) Private owners refused easements.
2092 2163 Conditions can not be satisfied.
3.40.67 S 146 St Null Void $73,635.00 Private owners refused to participate.
2093 2164 Conditions can not be satisfied.
3.40.68 S 133` St Null Void $101,052.00 Private owners refused to participate.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve ordinance extending the time for the 35 Ave S street vacation to April 30, 2009.
Enclosures
P: \BOB'Sound Transit\Street Vacations\3.40.62 35th \11.18.08 ST street vacation update info memo.doc
D A FT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, VACATING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN
THE CITY, DEDICATED FOR STREET PURPOSES, GENERALLY
DESCRIBED AS 35th AVENUE SOUTH, RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY
FROM SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD (SOUTH 154TH STREET) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 354 FEET, INCLUDING THE PARTIAL CUL -DE -SAC
BULB; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP OF THE CITY;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Tukwila and Sound Transit executed the Development and
Transit Way Agreement for Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway
Route Project on December 8, 2004; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 11.60 of the Tukwila Municipal Code identifies street vacation
procedures including public notification; public hearing, review and comment; and
submittal of relevant information to City Council, all of which have been done; and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit Link Light Rail proposes that a station be constructed at
this location; and
WHEREAS, 35th Avenue South has been a right -of -way for more than 25 years;
and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit provided a real property appraisal_ from a member of
the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers in the amount of $446,088.00; and
WHEREAS, utilities exist in the right -of -way being vacated; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2005,
for the purpose of considering the vacation of certain property located in the City of
Tukwila, as described in the ordinance title; and
WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council found that
the property should be vacated, subject to certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2087,
authorizing the vacation of certain City property to Sound Transit, subject to Sound
Transit satisfying certain conditions by April 30, 2007; and
WHEREAS, Sound Transit failed to satisfy those conditions by April 30, 2007 and
requested additional time for satisfying the conditions for this street vacation; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2007, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2158,
authorizing the vacation of certain City property to Sound Transit, subject to Sound
Transit satisfying certain conditions by April 30, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on May 19, 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 2203,
authorizing the vacation of certain City property to Sound Transit, subject to Sound
Transit satisfying certain conditions by October 31, 2008; and
C: \Documents and Settings \All Users \Desktop \Kelly \MSDATA \Ordinances \Street Vac 35th Avenue Southdoc
GL:ksn 11/5/2008 Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, Sound Transit failed to satisfy those conditions by October 31, 2008,
and has requested additional time for satisfying the conditions for this street vacation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Vacation.
A. The following property located in the City of Tukwila is hereby vacated:
Approximately 23,891 square feet of 35th Avenue South, running
southwesterly from Southcenter Boulevard (South 154th Street) for approximately 35
feet, including the partial cul -de -sac bulb.
B. This vacation is conditioned upon satisfaction, by April 30, 2009, of the
following:
1. Provision of compensation for $446,088.00.
2. Provision of utility easement(s).
3. Provision of easement(s) to Sound Transit for construction, operation and
maintenance of the Tukwila Freeway Route Project consistent with the Development
and Transit Way Agreement referenced herein.
Section 2. Duties of Public Works. The Public Works Department is hereby
directed to record a certified copy of this ordinance with King County, upon
determination by the Public Works Director that the conditions referenced above have
been satisfied.
Section 3. Amendment of Official Street Map. Upon the recording of a certified
copy of the ordinance, the City Public Works Director shall amend the City's official
street map to be consistent with this ordinance.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City. This vacation shall not become effective until the
conditions contained herein have been fully satisfied, until all fees owed the City have
been paid, and until five working days after the date that this ordinance and all relevant
documents have been recorded with King County Records.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
Filed with the City Clerk:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Passed by the City Council:
Published:
Effective Date:
Office of the City Attorney Ordinance Number:
Attachment: Exhibit A, Street Vacation 35th Avenue South, 3.40.62
C: \Documents and Settings\All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA\ Ordinances \Street Vac 35th Avenue Southdoc
GLksn 11/5/2008 Page 2 of 2
1
Exhibit A
Street Vacation
35' Avenue South
3-40.62
3,15.5•1
cam con
.;---4-
s a---; :3 20031
e i 6
1
1 i
r
1
li.. Jr Ill III
(1) PIZ 7 't
1
CL.) 1;;.••
i CO 4:
i 1 i'll
(17 ii
fi 4I Li> Area
75.
(a ii -c
fi
(Z) HOME
fir
ra
•:i
ill V 18
L/ 0919 19 f."..
t---. s ?Mt
1
Nt •:•:i•
17/ SR 518
1. 1
67
1
'ON
I
NORTH
CJ I y9s r
gk �-e; .tiz City of Tukwila
4 F a Transportation Committee
7908
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
November 12, 2008 5:00 pin. Conference Room #1 *Wednesday Meeting due to Holiday
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Pam Linder, Chair; Dennis Robertson and Verna Griffin (filling in for De'Sean Quinn)
Staff: Jim Morrow, Frank Iriarte, Peter Lau, Mike Mathia, Gail Labanara, Lisa Verner, Moira
Bradshaw, Jaimie Reavis, Jon Harrison
Guests Chuck Parrish
CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair Linder called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
L PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
H. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. East Marginal Wav Fiber Interconnect Proiect Bid Award
This project will use surplus overlay funds to install vaults, conduit and junction boxes to interconnect the traffic
signals on East Marginal Way South. Once all of the facilities are installed, the future overlay project will be much
easier to complete. We are trying to include miscellaneous conduit work with overlay work. Dennis asked that if the
overlay fund is not sufficient, then why are we using these funds on an interconnect project. In this case, the surplus
was unexpected and we did not have a road segment designed to overlay in this limited time period. This conduit
work is also not as weather sensitive as an overlay project. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 17 REGULAR DUE TO TIME CONTRAINTS.
B. Sound Transit Street Vacation Ordinance
l' Sound Transit has requested a time extension on this final street vacation at 35"' Ave S to April 30, 2009.
Jim Morrow reported that with a street vacation, the property is split in half to the abutting property owners.
In this case it would be Sound Transit and WSDOT. WSDOT would like the land donated to them. We have
informed Sound Transit to work out the street vacation with WSDOT as Sound Transit facilities have been
built on entire parcel. Pam Linder requested an updated memo with all of the Sound Transit street vacations
listed in a chart. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD T O NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
C. Summary of State Auditor's Performance Audit on Impact Fees
Jim Morrow reported that staff had just attended classes regarding the I -900 initiative that authorized the
State Auditor to complete performance audits to determine leading or best practices. One of these audits
included impact fees. There were five recommendations on traffic impact fees and Tukwila currently has
four of these practices in place. The only recommendation lacking is incorporating a tracking system with
the Finance Depaitnient. As the City incorporated traffic impact fees in 2005, Pam Linder asked what the
public's comments have been regarding the process and the fees. Jim stated that there have been no
complaints regarding the traffic impact fees as the developers are easily able to determine the cost of their
potential traffic impact fees on any new development. INFORMATION ONLY.
D. Walk and Roll Nan Update
Jaimie Reavis summarized the significant changes including the comments from the State Community Trade
and Economic Development and Transportation Depai tiiients. There was agreement that when the Council
chooses a new source of funding that a percentage of that new revenue should be dedicated to projects from
the Plan. A question was asked about bike facilities from Klickitat into Southcenter and along Southcenter
Pkwy. Staff responded that Southcenter Pkwy isn't a regional route for commuters and that it acts as a
CAS NUMBER 08-148
Permit fee increases for 2009 and 2010
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
12/01/08
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
A'Ieetin, Date Prepared by
11/24/08 J.P.
12/01/08
Attg Date 11/24/08 tlltg Date Alts Date
Lnttals
ITEM INFORMATION
Mayor's review I cotutctl review
1
ORIG INAL AGENDA DATE: 11/24/08
C.\ "1'1;(x)R1 Discussion n Motion n Resolution Ordinance n Bid Award
Public Heanng Other
Fund Source:
Comments_ No expenditures required, no impact to general fund,
illtg Date 12/01/08 Mtg Date ilitg Date
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
ATTACHMENTS
Information memo to Committee of the Whole
Draft Ordinance with attachment
Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting minutes from 11/10/08
III'/INo,
Mtg Date
+SI'ONSOR Cottnal Mayor n Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PIV
SPONSOR'S The fees collected by the permit center for code administration have been maintained at a
Sl!MI1\IARY consistent rate of cost recovery since the 2003 International Codes were adopted by the
City. A proposed 5% increase for each year of the budget cycle would index the cost
recovery rate to the increase in administrative costs.
RI..\'II?wt:'1.D BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA'1E: 11/10/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve fee increase
CommnTEE Approve fee increase, and forward to 11/24/08 COW
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
Ex P1 ;N1) ITLIR 1 RI:QUIRJ;D AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0 $0
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
INFORMATION MEMO
To: COMMITTEE OF THE OLE
From: Jack Pace, DCD Director
Date: November 19, 2008
Subject: Proposed Permit fee increa es for 2009 and 2010.
ISSUE
Shall the City Council approve increases in the permit fees for Building, Mechanical,
Electrical, Plumbing, and Fuel -gas piping penniits, such that there is an incremental
increase scheduled for each year of each budget cycle.
BACKGROUND
Building permit and inspection fees can be defined as user fees or service charges. Our
system of permit fees, inspection fees and plan review fees are intended to recover a
portion of the total cost of code administration and required inspections for each pellniit.
In 2007 the issue of a fee increase was brought to the Council and approval was granted
to increase the permit fees by 4% for 2008. This was the first proposed fee increase since
the 2003 adoption of the International Codes.
The department will be implementing internet access for the application and issuance of
certain permits that currently can be issued "across the counter The intent is to increase
efficiency of the building permit process and eliminate the current turn around time for
these permits. This system will be a key component of code administration and therefore
the cost thereof should be recovered by the permit fees.
ANALYSIS
The fees collected by the permit center for code administration have been maintained at a
consistent rate of recovery since the International Codes were adopted by the City. A
proposed 5% increase for each year of each budget cycle is proposed. This would index
the recovery rate to the increase in administrative costs. For reference the following
exhibits are submitted as attachments.
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Jack Pace, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 e Phone: 206- 431 -3670 e Fax: 206- 431 -3665
Exhibit "A" is a draft ordinance with the fee schedules including a 5% increase in the fee
rates for 2009. The ordinance calls for an additional 5% increase for 2010.
Exhibit `B" is a comparison of the proposed increase for Tukwila and the current 2008
fee rates of surrounding jurisdictions.
REVENUE SOURCE
No revenue required for this proposal. No impact to biennium budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed fee increase, and forward to the next regular council meeting for
adoption.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE C11Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2189, AS CODIFIED
AT TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 16.04, SECTION 16.04.250,
"SCHEDULE OF PERMIT FEES," TO ADOPT NEW PERMIT FEE
SCHEDULES FOR BUILDING, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND
FUEL -GAS PIPING PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, permits issued by the City of Tukwila are not valid until the fees
prescribed by law have been paid; and
WHEREAS, the current permit fee schedules were established in 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to increase the cost recovery rate for permit
administration and inspection services to reflect the increased costs incurred by the
City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to implement increases in 2009 and 2010;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TMC 16.04.250 Amended. Ordinance No. 2189, as codified at TIvIC
Chapter 16.04, 'Buildings and Construction," is hereby amended to provide a 5%
increase in the fee schedules for 2009, and an additional 5% increase in said fee
schedules to be implemented in the year 2010 as follows:
16.04.250 Schedule of Permit Fees
A. Building Permit Fee Schedule.
Total Valuation
$1 to $500
$501 to $2,000
$2,001 to $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $500,000
$500,001 to $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up
DRAFT
$60
$60 for the first $500, plus $4 for each additional $100, or
fraction thereof, to and including $2,000
$120 for the first $2,000, plus $18.20 for each additional
$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000
$556.80 for the first $25,000, plus $14.20 for each additional
$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
$911.80 for the first $50,000, plus $9.80 for each additional
$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000
$1,401.80 for the first $100,000, plus $7.87 for each additional
$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000
$4,549.80 for the first $500,000, plus $6.56 for each additional
$1,000, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
$7,829.80 for the first $1,000,000, plus $4.35 for each
additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
Building Permit Fees
C:\Documents and Settines\ A11 Users Desktop\ Celly'MSDATA \Ordinancas\Schedule of Pcrmit Fces.doc
JP:ksn 11/21/2008
Page 1 of 5
1. Plan Review Fee. A plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting
plans and specifications for review. The plan review fee shall be 65% of the permit fee
as set forth in the permit fee schedule. The plan review fee specified herein is a separate
fee from the permit fee and is in addition to the permit fee.
2. Other Fees.
a. Inspections outside normal business hours: $90 per hour with a three
hour minimum charge.
b. Re- inspection fee: $60 per hour, assessed upon call for third inspection
of same correction notice.
c. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated: $60 per hour
(one -half hour minimum charge).
d. Additional plan review necessary due to additions or revisions to the
plans: $60 per hour (one -half hour minimum charge).
e. Commencing work before permit issuance shall be subject to an
investigation fee of 100% of the usual permit fee.
f. Renewal of expired permits: The fee shall be one -half the amount
required for a new permit for such work, provided that suspension or abandonment has
not exceeded one year Renewals after expiration of more than one year shall require a
full permit fee and plan review fee where applicable.
B. Mechanical Permit Fee Schedule.
1. Plan review fee: 25% of the calculated permit fee.
2. Commencing work before permit issuance shall be subject to an
investigation fee of 100% of the usual permit fee.
3. Inspections outside of normal business hours: $90 per hour with a three
hour minimum charge.
4. Re- inspection fee assessed. $60 per hour
5. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to
plans or to plans for which an initial review has been completed. $60 per hour (one -half
hour minimum).
6. Renewal of expired permits: The fee shall be one -half the amount required
for a new permit for such work, provided that suspension or abandonment has not
exceeded one year Renewals after expiration of more than one year shall require a full
permit fee and plan review fee where applicable.
Valuation of
Work (Total
Contract Amount)
1 $250 or less
$251 to $500
$501 to $1,000
$1,001 to $5,000
$5,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $250,000
$250,001 to $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and up
Mechanical Permit Fees
$60
$60 for first $250, plus $7.30 for each $100 or fraction thereof,
to and including $500
$78.25 for the first $500, plus $8.10 for each $100 or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000
$118.75 for the first $1,000, plus $8.95 for each $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including $5,000
$154.55 for the first $5,000, plus $9.35 for each $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including $50,000
$575.30 for the first $50,000, plus $7.80 for each $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including $250,000
$2,135.30 for the first $250,000, plus $6.85 for each $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000
$7,272.80 for first $1,000,000, plus $6.25 for each $1,000 or
fraction thereof
CADocuments and SettingsWI UserslDesk tmaNKelty\MSDATA \Ordinano .Schedule of Permit Fces.doc
JP:ksn 11212008
Page 2 of 5
C. Plumbing Permit Fee Schedule.
1. Permit Issuance Issuance of each permit (base fee): $32.00.
2. Issuance of each supplemental permit: $15.75
3. Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to items 1 2 above)
For one plumbing fixture (a fixture is a sink, toilet, bathtub, etc.) 1 $60
For each additional fixture $13
For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $23
Rain water system per drain (inside building) 1 $13
For each water heater and/or vent 1 $13
For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and $13
vent, except for kitchen -type grease interceptors
For each grease trap (connected to not more than four fixtures) (greater 516.25
than 750 gallon capacity)
For each grease interceptor for commercial kitchens (greater than 750 gallon 527
capacity)
For each repair or alteration of water piping and/ or water treating 513
equipment, each occurrence
1 For each repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture 1 513
For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter including backflow 527
protection devices therefore.
For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler
backflow protection. 1 to 5, 513, over 5, $13 for first 5, plus 53 for each
additional.
For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric -type vacuum
breakers: 2 inch diameter and smaller, 527, over 2 inch in diameter, 529
For each medical gas piping system serving one to five inlets outlets for a $76
specific gas
1 For each additional medical gas inlet/ outlet
4. Other Inspections and Fees.
515 1
a. When a plan or other data is required to be submitted with a permit
application, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and
specifications for review. The plan review fee shall be 25% of the calculated permit fee
and shall be in addition to the permit fee.
b. Inspections outside of normal business hours: 590 per hour, with a
three -hour minimum.
c. Re- inspection fee: $60 per hour
d. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated. $60 per hour.
e. Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to
approved plans: 560 per hour (with a one -half hour minimum charge).
D Fuel Gas Piping Permit Fees.
1. Permit Issuance:
For issuing each permit (base fee): (50 if permit is in conjunction with a $32
plumbing permit for an appliance with both plumbing and gas
connection.)
For issuing each supplemental permit 1 515.75
C:IDocuments and Settine_s\All UserslDesktoplKell y:NISDATAIOrdinances\Schedule of Permit Fees.doc
JP:ksn 11212008 Page 3 of 5
2. Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to items above):
For each gas piping system of one to five outlets
For each additional gas piping system outlet, per outlet
1. NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
1 New single- family dwellings (including a garage)
1 Garages, pools, spas and outbuildings
1 Low voltage systems
2. SINGLE FAMILY REMODEL AND SERVICE CHANGES
1 Service change or alteration no added /altered circuits
Service change $78 with added /altered circuits, plus $11 for each added
circuit (maximum permit fee $145.60)
1 Circuits added /altered without service change (includes up to 5 circuits)
Circuits $52 added /altered without service change (more than 5 circuits)
$7.30, plus for each added circuit (maximum permit fee $94)
1 Meter /mast repair
1 Low voltage systems
3. MULTI-FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL (including low voltage)
C: \Documents and Settings'All Users \Deskt op\ KcllVMSDATAIOrdinances\Schedule of Permit Fees.doc
JP:ksn 11212008
$60
$13
3. Other Inspections and Fees (fuel gas piping):
Inspections outside of normal business hours (three -hour minimum) $90 /hour
Re- inspection fee $60 /hour
Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated 1 $60 /hour
Additional plan review required by changes, additions, or revisions to $60 /hour
approved plans (minimum charge one -half hour)
Work commencing before permit issuance shall be subject to an 100% of the
investigation fee equal to 100% of the permit fee permit fee
4. Plan review fee: The fee for review shall be 25% of the total fuel gas piping
permit fee. The plan review fee is a separate fee from the permit fee and is required
when plans are required in order to show compliance with the code.
5. Renewal of expired permits: The fee shall be one -half the amount required
for a new permit for such work, provided that suspension or abandonment has not
exceeded one year. Renewals after expiration of more than one year shall require a full
permit fee and plan review fee where applicable.
E. Electrical Permit Fees.
1 $145 60 1
1 $78 1
1 $57 1
$78
$52
$65
S57
VALUATION
OF ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEE
CONTRACT
1 $250 or less 1 $60
$251 $1,000 $60 for the first $250 plus $4.00 for each $100 or fraction
thereof, to and including $1,000.
$1,001 $5,000 $90 for the first $1,000 plus $20 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $5,000.
$5,001 $50,000 $170 for the first $5,000 plus $16.40 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $50,000
$50,001 $250,000 $908 for the first $50,000 plus $12.00 for each $1,000 or fraction
thereof, to and including $250,000.
$250,001 $1,000,000 $3,308 for the first $250,000 plus $8.50 for each $1,000 or
fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.
1 Over $1,000,000 1 $9,683 plus 0.5% of cost over one million.
Page 4 of 5
4. OTHER INSPECTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES
a. Plan review fee: In addition to the permit fee, when plan review is
required, a plan review fee must be paid at the time of permit application equal to 25%
of the permit fee, with a minimum of $60.
b. Work covered without inspection or work not ready at the time of
inspection may be charged a re— inspection fee at the hourly rate listed above.
c. Work without a permit: Any person who commences electrical work
before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to an investigation fee. The
investigation fee shall be twice the established peiulit fee as set forth in the electrical fee
schedule or increased by $100, whichever is greater. This fee, which shall constitute an
investigation fee, shall be imposed and collected in all cases, whether or not a permit is
subsequently issued.
Temporary service (residential)
Temporary service/ generators
1 Manufactured /mobile home service (excluding garage or outbuildings)
Carnivals:
1 Base fee
1 Each concession
Inspections or plan review not specified elsewhere: $60 per hour, (one-
half hour minimum charge)
F. Fee Refunds. The Building Official may refund any permit fee paid by the
original permit applicant that was erroneously paid or collected. The Building Official
may also authorize the refund of not more than 80% of the permit fee when no work
has been done under a permit issued in accordance with the code. Where a plan review
fee has been collected, no refund will be authorized once it has been determined that
the plan review process has commenced. Refund of any permit fee paid shall be
requested by the original permittee in writing and not later than 180 days after the date
of fee payment.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to
be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force on
January 1, 2009, after passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008
ATTEST/ AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A Valuation Index
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Published.
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number:
C:1Documents and Scttins\All Users\ Deik topU :ellAMSDATAIOrdinanceskSchedule of Permit Fea.doc
JP:ksn 11/21/2008
$60
$75
$80
$75
$10
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED 2009 FEES
CAS NUMBER 08-149
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY
Fund Source:
Coinnzents:
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
bg lLf 9
E \PI ?NDITURI? R QUIRI
$o
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Lutralr
Meetut; Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review I Council review
11/24/08 NG 1 ✓4. r
12/01/08 NG
ITEM INFORMATION
1ORIGINAL,AGENDA DATE. NOVEMBER 24, 2008
A(;I:ND:\ tn:M TPILk Proposed update to Tukwila's land use fee resolution
C.\T►,GC)RY N Discussion n Motion N Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing I 1 Other
dlt Date 11/24/08 111tg Date Mtg Dote 12/1/08 Mtg Date ditg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
1S P( )NSOR Counczl Alger Adm Svcs N DCD Fznance Fire Legal 0 P&R Police n PW
Staff is recommending that Tukwila's permit fees be increased for 2009 and 2010 to
reflect the City's increased costs to provide services. In some cases, where our fees are
significantly lower than the average of nearby jurisdictions, or are inconsistent with other
permits that require a similar level of review, we are recommending a greater increase.
RI ?\'II., \C'I?D BY 111 COW Mtg. N CA &P Cmte I 1 F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. U Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 11/10/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADM IN. Adopt fee resolution effective 1/1/09
CONIMVITEP: Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
AMOUNT BUDGETED
$0 $0
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
ATTACHMENTS
Informational memorandum dated 11/17/08
Attachment A: Tukwila's land use fees compared to nearby jurisdictions
Attachment B: Complete list of fees, proposed increases and potential revenues
Attachment C: Draft Resolution
Minutes from the Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting of 11/10/08
ITEAT No.
5,c 2
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
November 10, 2008, 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Verna Griffin and Kathy Hougardy (filling in for De'Sean Quinn)
Staff: Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, Lisa Verner, Jack Pace, Bob Benedicto; Rhonda Berry and Melissa Hart
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hernandez called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Increase fees for Building and Planning.
The Department of Community Development is bringing forth two proposed fee increases to the
Committee for recommendation to full Council:
Permit Fees Increase for 2009 and 2010
Land Use Fees
City of Tukwila
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Permit Fees. Staff is seeking Council approval to implement a 5% increase in the Schedule of Permit
Fees during each year of the 2009 -10 biennial budget cycle. Council approved a 4% increase in Permit
Fees for 2008, which was the first increase for such fees since the 2003 adoption of the International
Codes.
In order to increase the efficiency of permit processing, staff will be implementing a program to process
and issue some types of permits via the City's website. A 5% increase in fees each year of the 2009 -10
budget cycle will allow the City to continue recovering a portion of total costs for permitting including
processing and inspection. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW
FOR DISCUSSION.
Land Use Fees. Staff is seeking Council approval to implement an annual increase in Land Use Fees
(minimum 5% each year) during the 2009 -10 biennial budget cycle as well as begin charging a fee for
annexations and development agreements.
Committee members asked clarifying questions on both proposed fee increases and requested two
separate ordinances for the above fees for presentation to Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
B. Levels of Service Standards for Parks. Recreation Open Space Plan
At the October 27, 2008, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting, Committee members
reviewed, approved and forwarded to full Council a Parks and Recreation capital facilities project list.
This list will be included in an ordinance which amends the Parks Recreation Open Space Plan to
establish levels -of- service standards and identify capital facilities needed to maintain those levels -of-
service.
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
PROPOSED FEE CHANGES
City of Tukwila
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
FROM: Jack Pace, DCD Director
RE: Proposed Land Use Fee Update
DATE: November 17, 2008
Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director
MEMORANDUM
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
The Council last updated the Land Use Fee Schedule in 2007 with implementation at the
beginning of 2008. Staff has since identified additional items that should be added to the list and
is recommending that the fees be updated to reflect increased City costs.
Periodically we review Tukwila's fees against the average charged by our south King County
neighbors and the overall increase in cost to provide City services. Attachment A shows
Tukwila's current land use fees compared to the fees charged by Auburn, Burien, Kent, Federal
Way, Renton and SeaTac for similar penults.
In calculating the average fees charged by adjacent jurisdictions we tried to compare "apples to
apples," but we also found that there were many different approaches to fee calculation. Most
jurisdictions used systems more complex than Tukwila's flat fee approach, for example:
o Burien's flat fee acts as a retainer with any staff or consultant time over a certain number of
hours charged back to the applicant at $70 per hour. The cost of any special studies is also
passed through to the applicant.
Many of SeaTac and Federal Way's fees are calculated on a sliding scale based on either
square footage or value of construction.
When two or more applications for a project are processed together Kirkland and Renton
charge the full amount for the highest fee and reduce the associated permit fees by 50
However on average Kirkland's fees were significantly higher than those charged in the
south County.
Staff is recommending that Tukwila's permit fees be increased by at least 5% annually, the
amount Tukwila's overall budget has grown in recent years, rounded to the nearest $5. In some
NG Page l of 11/17/2008
P :\Users\Nora\FeeUodatetoCOW.doc
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone 206 -431 -3670 Fax: 206 -431 -3665
cases where our fees are significantly lower than the average or are inconsistent with other
permits that require a similar level of review we recommend an additional increase. This would
still put us at or near the average of our neighboring jurisdictions. Attachment B shows the
complete list of current land use fees, the proposed increases and the potential revenue generated
by the changes.
The only fee that would be lowered under the proposal is for shoreline substantial development
permits in the LDR Zone. Our current fee is a bit higher than the average and the reduction
would have minimal effect on revenue since most owner- occupied single family houses are
exempt from permitting requirements.
Staff is also recommending that we start charging a fee for annexations and development
agreements. The fee for development agreements is proposed to be $500 for the first 20 hours of
staff time with additional staff hours charged at $50.
FUTURE UPDATES
Redmond, Kirkland and Federal Way update their fees on an annual basis so that they stay
current with City expenses. Given our new two -year budget cycle staff is also suggesting fees
for 2010 be tied to the growth of the City budget, rounded to the nearest $5, see Attachment B.
Council could adopt a two year fee schedule to align with the two year budget cycle.
REQUESTED ACTION
Review the proposed fee schedule, provide Staff with policy direction about the fee changes and
forward the proposal to the full Council for review and adoption.
NG Page 2 of 2 11/17/2008
P \Users\Nora\FeeUpdatetoCOW.doc
ATTACHMENT A
COMPARISON OF NEIGHBORING JURSIDICTIONS LAND USE PERMIT FEES
Permit Type LDR
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Approval /Inspection 5110
Administrative Design Review 1 5490
Administrative Planned
Residential Development 5610
'Anexation Petition 1No Fee
Appeal of Sign Code Decision 5110
Appeal of Type 1 Decision 5110
Appeal of Type 2 Decision 5110
Appeal of Type 4 Dedsion 5110
Binding Site Improvement Plan 51,215
Boundary Line Adjustment 5305
Code Interpretation 5110
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 51,215
Conditional Use Permit 52,435
I Design Review Major
Modification 5490
1 Development Agreement No Fee
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Deviation (TMC 18.45.080 and
.100) $240
Exception from Single Family
Design Standard 5240
'Lot Consolidation 595
Parking Variance, Modification or
Waiver (TMC 18.56.130, .140) I 5240
Permanent Sign Permit 5125
53015 +5125
Planned Residential Development new unit
Preapplication Meeting
Public Hearing Design Review
Public Notice Mailing Labels
Reasonable Use Exception (TMC
18.45.180)
Rezone (Map Change) or Zoning
Code Text Amendment
Sensitive Area Master Plan
Overlay
SEPA Cheddist
SEPA EIS Administrative Fee
SEPA MDNS Appeal
SEPA Planned Action
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
Shoreline Environment
Redesignation
Shoreline Permit Exemption
Letter
Tukwila Pricing
Other
Zones
5240
51,700
5110
5730
5615
51,215
$615
51,215
5110
$NA
$2,435
51,215
80
NA
$490
5610
No Fee
5215
5215
5215
5215
51,215
$545
5110
51,215
82,435
5490
No Fee
5365
NA
5185
2009 Proposed Fees,
Min. 5% Increase
Yearly Revenue
Zones Permits Increase
.7'82
15
25
51
8600
51,700 .,ts1:785_ ,.$2,555
8110 1:? $200 k:: l $200
51,215 $500.. �T $1,275_
5615 1 8! 000-
51,215 1Fi- $1,275 'r >s 51;275
y am
5615 t- -'51,000__ f SUM
$1,215 1` S1 276 $1•;275
$215 =_$i 15 $22
5 -t275_
5305 t3T4 1 8350
52,435 x $2;555_ 52;555
51,215
5125
X1;275
$130
,1 13
$365
5125 `_130 `45130
$3015 +5125: 3135 #830"' -$3135 +1301
/new unit "=knew unite: new.unit
5240 '4250
11/17/2008 2009FeelncreaseProposal.xls
3
$0
$25
$0
50
50
50
50
50
51,235
85
53,140
5240
$25
5 548
1 $10
1 55
1 510
120 5600
35 5336
15 512,825
10 5900
50
2 5770
80
19 $7,315
50
50
4 5180
80
50
515
2010 Proposed Fees,
Min. 5% Increase
Total Other
Revenue LDR Zones
50 1 5120
5515 1
$0
50
$0
50
50
50
50
55,200
5115
58,000
55,110
5515
$540
$840
52,625
_$120
$120
53290 +135
new unit
58,736 1 5260
$38,325 51,875
52,000 1 5210
80 $840
52,000 51,050
50 51,340
519,000 51.050
50 51,340
50 $120
51,400 NA
50 52,685
50 51,340
5390 50
NA
5540
5840 Id
-$2,625
$235-
5235
5120 $235-
5120
51,340 1 $1,340
5420 $630
5120 $120- 1
1 52,100 1 52,160
52,685 1 `52,685
$540 $540
$525** $525**
51,248 5260 $400
5250 1 5260 =NA
5100 $105
$250 5260
515,600 5135
$210
:$400
$135
33290 +135
-new unit.
$260
$2,685
-$210
51.;330
51,050:=
51,340
$1,051}
81,340.
$235-
5370 _I
52,685'
51,340
5140
ATTACHMENT B
Permit Type
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
Short Plat (2-4 lots)
Short Plat (5-9 lots)
'Special Permission Cargo
Container (TMC 18.50.060)
Special Permission Landscape
Requirement Deviations (TMC
18.52.020) $240
speaai Permission Parking ana
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065
.070) $240
speaal Permission sign ana Sign
Area Increase, except "unique
sign" (various sections of TMC
title 19) $240
$1215+$65
Subdivision Final Plat (10+ lots) new unit
Subdivision Preliminary Plat(10+ $3510+120
lots) new unit
Temporary Sign Permit
Tree Permit and Exceptions
(TMC 18.54.140)
Undassified Use Permit
Unique Sign Determination (TMC
19.28.010)
Variance
Wireless Communication Fadlity,
Administrative
Wireless Communication Fadlity,
Major or Height Waiver Request
Wireless Communication Fadlity, I
Minor (TMC 18.71)
Zoning Verification Letter
Tukwila Pricing
Other
LDR Zones
1 $2,435 1 52,435
1 $610 1 $1,215
1 $1,215 1 $1,215
1 $240 1 5365
565 565
525 525
52,435 52,435
5240 5365
5730 51,215
5490 5490
$2,435 52,435
$240 $240
$0 $125
2009 Proposed Fees,
Min. 5% Increase
fET Otheril Yearly Revenue Total
Permits Increase Revenue
z000
$365
I
$380
$365
$365
$1215+565
4''(-1-4425-
new unit
53510+120 3.6.6,6,135:1136g5;f124;
new unit
'1;=
;-$127570 1127.5'+ 70
5380
'$2
at$28tt:
$1,700
25510
55: :7:
I
Suggest lowering cost for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit in LDR
Fee would cover first 20 hours of staff time, additional time charged at $50/hour
9 1 (5585) I 521,330
11 I $4,290 1 511,000
3 1 52,355 1
56,000
1 50 1
50
1 510 5250
3 530 5750
2 530 5760
50
1 $240 1 $4,950
70 5350 1 54,900
2 50 550
1 $120 $2,555
1 510 5250
2 5140 51,600
1 525 5515 I
50 $0
1 $10 1 5250
7 525 5650
$34,731 $164,561
2010 Proposed Fees,
Min. 5% Increase
LDR Zones
1 $2,100 1 $2685 I
I $1,050 1 52,100 I
I 52.100 I $2,6 5- 1
I -'5269 I ;=5400
5260 $400
5260 5400
5260 $400:
51330 75 51330 75
unit 1' new unit
$3830+135 53830+135
new unit new unit
575= T_
I I
I $2,685 52,685
I $260 .$400
$-840
-$540
11/17/2008 2009FeelncreaseProposal.xls 2
52.685 52,885
5265
s� ..'-='-$140
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A LAND USE FEE SCHEDULE, AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 1654.
WHEREAS, the City intends to update land use permit fees on an annual baths with
any increases tied to growth in City expenses for providing land use services; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a biennial budget process; and
WHEREAS, the City has studied its costs related to providing land use services and
found that the current fees do not cover the City's expenses and need to be increased,
and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the fee increase will take effect January 1,
2009;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Land use permit and processing fees will be charged according to the
following schedule:
1 Administrative Design Review
Administrative Planned
Residential Development
Annexation Petition
Appeal of Sign Code Decision
Appeal of Type 1 Decision
Appeal of Type 2 Decision
1 Appeal of Type 4 Decision
Binding Site Improvement Plan
Boundary Line Adjustment
Code Interpretation
1 2009 Fees 1 2010 Fees
Other Other
Permit Type LDR Zones LDR Zones
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Approval /Inspection $115 N/A $120 N/A
1 $515 $515 1 $540 1 $540
$800 $800 $840 $840
$2,500 1 $2,500 $2,625 $2,625
$115 $225 $120 $235
$115 $225 $120 $235
$115 $225 $120 $235
$115 $225 1 $120 $235
$1,275 $1,275 $1,340 $1,340
$400 $600 $420 $630
1 $115 $115 $120 1 $120
CiDocuments and SettinsWl UserslDcsktop \KeIiy\MSDATA1ResolutionslLand Use Fee Schedule 2C09.doc
NG:ksn Il alaoos
Page 1 of 3
I 2009 Fees (Cont.) 1 2010 Fees (Cont.)
Other Other
Permit Type LDR Zones LDR Zones
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment $2,000 $2,000 $2,100 $2,100
I Conditional Use Permit I $2,555 I $2,555 I $2,685 $2,685
Design Review Major
Modification $515 $515 $540 $540
Development Agreement I $500 I $500 I $525 $525
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Deviation (TMC 18.45.080 and
.100) $250 $380 $260 $400
Exception from Single Family
Design Standard I $250 N/ A $260 N/ A
I Lot Consolidation I $100 I $200 1 $105 I $210
Parking Variance, Modification
or Waiver (TMC 18.56.130, .140) $250 $380 $260 $400
I Permanent Sign Permit $130
Planned Residential
Development ($3135 +$130 $3135 +$130 53290 +$135 $3290 +$135
per new unit per new unit per new unit per new unit
I Pre application Meeting 1 5250
I Public Hearing Design Review I $1,785
Public Notice Mailing Labels $200
Reasonable Use Exception (TMC
18 45.180) $800
Rezone (Map Change) or Zoning
Code Text Amendment 51,000
Sensitive Area Master Plan
Overlay 51,275
SEPA Checklist 51,000
SEPA EIS Administrative Fee $1,275
SEPA MDNS Appeal 5115
SEPA Planned Action N/A
I Shoreline Conditional Use Permit I 52,555
Shoreline Environment
Redesignation 51,275
Shoreline Permit Exemption
Letter 50
Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit 52,000
Short Plat (2-4 lots) 51,000
Short Plat (5 -9 Lots) 52,000
5250
52,555
$200
S1,275
s1,000
51,275
51,000
$1,275
5225
5350
52,555
51,275
5130
52,555
52,000
52,500
Fee would cover first 20 hours of staff time, additional time charged at $50 /hour
C)Documents and SettingslAll Users \D IctoiA KellyWSDATAUtesolutions\Land Use Fee Schedule 2009.doc
NG:ksn 11/21 /2003
5130 5135 5135
$260 5260
$1,875 52,685
5210 $210
5840 51,330
$1,050 51,050
51,340 51,340
51,050 1 $1,050
51,340 51,340
$120 5235
N/A 5370
52,685 1 52,685
51,340 51,340
50 5140
$2,100 $2,685
51,050 $2,100
52,100 1 52,625
Page2of3
1 2009 Fees (Cont.) 1 2010 Fees (Cont.)
Other Other
Permit Type LDR Zones LDR Zones
Special Permission Cargo
Container (TMC 18.50.060) $250 5380 $260 5400
Special Permission Landscape
Requirement Deviations (TMC
18.52.020) 9250 9380 5260 $400
Special Permission Parking and
Modifications to Certain Parking
Standards (TMC 18.56.065
.070) $250 $380 $260 5400
Special Permission Sign and Sign
Area Increase, except "unique
sign" (various sections of TMC
title 19) 5250 $380 $260 9400
$1275 +570 51275 +570 91330 +575 51330 +$75
Subdivision Final Plat (10+ lots) per new unit I per new unit per new unit per new unit
Subdivision Preliminary Plat 93685+9125 $3685 +$125 93830+5135 93830+9135
(10+ lots) per new unit per new unit per new unit per new unit
Temporary Sign Permit 1 970 j 970 1 $75 1 $75
Tree Permit and Exceptions
(TMC 18.54.140) $25 $25 925 925
1 Unclassified Use Permit 1 92,555 I 92,555 1 92,685 1 $2,685
Unique Sign Determination
(TMC 19.28.010) $250 9380 9260 9400
I Variance I $800 91,700 1 5840 I 91,785
Wireless Communication
Facility, Administrative $515 5515 $540 $540
Wireless Communication
Facility, Major or Height Waiver
Request 92,555 $2,555 92,685 $2,685
Wireless Communication
Facility, Minor (TMC 18.71) 9250 9250 $265 9265
1 Zoning Verification Letter 1 50 1 9130 I 50 I 5140
Section 2. Resolution No. 1654, dated December 3, 2007, is hereby repealed,
effective January 1, 2009.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CIvIC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Joe Duffie, Council President
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
C:1Documcnts and SettinnsUil Users\ Desktop \KellyWISDATA\Rrsolutions`aand Use Fee Schedule 2009.doc
NG:ksn 11212008
Page 3 of 3
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PARKS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
November 10, 2008, 5:OOp.m.; Conference Room #3
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Joan Hernandez, Chair; Verna Griffin. and Kathy Hougardy (filling in for De'Sean Quinn)
Staff Bruce FIetcher, Rick Still, Lisa Verner, Jack Pace, Bob Benedicto; Rhonda Berry and Melissa Hart
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hernandez called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
I. PRESENTATIONS
No presentations.
H. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Increase fees for Building and Planning
The Department of Community Development is bringing forth two proposed fee increases to the
Committee for recommendation to full Council:
Permit Fees Increase for 2009 and 2010
Land Use Fees
City of Tukwila
Community Affairs and Parks Committee
Permit Fees. Staff is seeking Council approval to implement a 5% increase in the Schedule of Permit
Fees during each year of the 2009 -10 biennial budget cycle. Council approved a 4% increase in Permit
Fees for 2008, which was the first increase for such fees since the 2003 adoption of the International
Codes.
In order to increase the efficiency of permit processing, staff will be implementing a program to process
and issue some types of permits via the City's website. A 5% increase in fees each year of the 2009 -10
budget cycle will allow the City to continue recovering a portion of total costs for permitting including
processing and inspection. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW
FOR DISCUSSION.
Land Use Fees. Staff is seeking Council approval to implement an annual increase in Land Use Fees
(minimum 5% each year) during the 2009 -10 biennial budget cycle as well as begin charging a fee for
annexations and development agreements.
Committee members asked clarifying questions on both proposed fee increases and requested two
separate ordinances for the above fees for presentation to Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
B. Levels of Service Standards for Parks. Recreation Open Space Plan
At the October 27, 2008, Community Affairs and Parks Committee meeting, Committee members
reviewed, approved and forwarded to full Council a Parks and Recreation capital facilities project list.
This list will be included in an ordinance which amends the Parks Recreation Open Space PIan to
establish levels -of- service standards and identify capital facilities needed to maintain those levels-of-
service.
CAS NUMBER 08-150
Fund Source:
Comments:
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
12/01/08
Et1'I 2 .NDrI'uI Ji RJ•QUIRED
$0
COUNCIL A GENDA SYNOPSIS
tlleeting Date
11/24/08
12/01/08
oS- /sO
Prepared by
KK
KK
litg Date 11/24/08 Aitg Date 12/01/08 Mtg Date AItg Date
Mayor's review Council rewew
ITEM INFORMATION
1 ORIG1NALAGENDA DATE. NOVEMBER 24, 2008
AGENDA ITEM Trn.l: Interlocal Agreement with the City of Des Moines re: Tukwila /Seattle Southside
Visitor Services
C.\TI .GORV Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award n Public Heanng Other
(SPC)NSOR Council /Yla Adrn Svcs DCD Finance Fire Leeal n P&R Police PTV
In 2005, Tukwila entered into a three year Interlocal Agreement with the City of Des
Moines for tourism promotion services. It is time to renew the agreement. This agreement
is an extension of the original agreement for tourism promotion services with the City of
Des Moines committing 100% of their lodging tax revenue estimated to be $20,000
annually. The term is for one year commencing )an. 2009 and shall renew annually unless
terminated for cause or with 120 days notice.
RF\'Il BY COW Mtg [1 CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte n Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA'Z'E: 11/18/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Accept Interlocal Agreement and authorize Mayor's signature.
COMMITTEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to the Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
AMOUNT BUDGETED. APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$0 $0
MTG. DATE 1 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
1 11/24/08
ATTACHMENTS
Memo to Finance Safety
Draft Interlocal Local Agreement
Minutes from Finance and Safety Committee meeting 11/18/08
ITEM ND.
Mtg Date lItg Date litg Date
FROM:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance and Safety Committee
Tourism Marketing Program Manager
DATE: October 31, 2008
SUBJECT: Des Moines Interlocal Agreement
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize Mayor to sign a new Inter -local Agreement.
ISSUE
This agenda item is to approve an interlocal agreement to provide tourism and marketing
services to the City of Des Moines.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the City of Des Moines entered into an agreement with the City of Tukwila to purchase
tourism and marketing services for increasing awareness of Des Moines as a travel destination.
The City of Tukwila provides these services under the Seattle Southside Visitor Services brand.
SSVS is the official convention and visitor bureau for the Cities of Tukwila, SeaTac, Kent and
Des Moines. The agreement with Des Moines had a three -year term that expires on January 1,
2009. It is time to renew the agreement.
DISCUSSION
The proposed agreement is very similar to the previous one. The main change is the new term is
for one year commencing on January 1, 2009. It shall renew for subsequent one -year teinus
unless otherwise terminated for cause or with 120 days notice. Des Moines's payment to SSVS
will remain the same at.100 percent of Des Moines lodging tax collected per year.
The City's Lodging Tax Advisory Committee has reviewed the opportunity and recommends
that it be renewed.
FISCAL IMPACT
Des Moines's annual lodging tax collected is approximately $20,000 and was approved for
SSVS for 2009 -2010. Both City Councils review this program annually as part of the Cities'
regular budget process. This proposed agreement is already reflected in the City of Tukwila's
proposed 2009 -2010 budget and no additional budgetary authority is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Inter -local Agreement for Tourism and Marketing Services between the City of Tukwila
and the City of Des Moines.
Phone: 206 433 -1800 City Hall Fax: 206- 433 -1833 www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
FOR
TOURISM AND MARKETING SERVICES
BETWEEN CITY OF TUKWILA AND CITY OF DES MOINES
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT "Agreement is made and entered into pursuant to the
Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 of the Revised Code of Washington, by and between
the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Tukwila" and the City of Des
Moines, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Des Moines
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Des Moines desires to acquire professional tourism and marketing services for the
purpose of increasing awareness of Des Moines and the surrounding areas as a tourist
destination;
WHEREAS, Tukwila is designated as the Administrator responsible for administering Interlocal
Agreements with the Cities of Des Moines, SeaTac, and Kent to provide tourism and marketing
services under the program name Seattle Southside Visitor Services "SSVS
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Des Moines to continue its participation
in the SSVS program;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this agreement, the
parties agree as follows:
a) Incorporate Des Moines's tourism businesses into the existing SSVS Tourism
Networking Committee for the purposes of creating awareness, support and
participation in SSVS's various marketing activities;
b) Facilitate input from Des Moines's tourism businesses for the purposes of
developing, implementing and evaluating annual marketing strategies;
c) Attend Des Moines's Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meetings;
d) Submit quarterly reports to Des Moines's Lodging Tax Advisory Committee
regarding marketing budget infoiniation, implementation schedules, and
marketing strategies;
e) Implement annual marketing and media plans incorporating Des Moines's
tourism businesses
2. Scope of Services. The City of Tukwila and SSVS agrees to provide the following
tourism and marketing services to Des Moines:
AGREEMENT
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to continue to include Des Moines in
SSVS's tourism and marketing program, as administered by Tukwila, to promote
tourism in Des Moines.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
TOURISM AND MARKETING SERVICES 1
f) Incorporate Des Moines hotels, major tourist attractions and Des Moines
sponsored events and venues into SSVS's vacation planner, website, coupon book
and restaurant concierge book. Shopping destinations, restaurants, tourist
attractions, and other tourism businesses located in Des Moines will be offered
the opportunity to be included in these materials for a fee;
g) Create and distribute tourism materials, including but not limited to those
identified in subsection "f" above, regarding Des Moines related tourism
businesses
h) Provide Annual Economic Impact Report as required under SBH 3206, chapter
28, laws of 2008, to the City of Des Moines each year until this section expires in
2013 no later than April 1 for submittal to the State of Washington Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development, no later than May 1.
The scope of services described above may be increased or decreased from time to time by
mutual written agreement by this Agreement's Administrators. The scope of services shall not
include implementation of Des Moines's specific tourism projects. At such time as Des Moines
and SVSS mutually agree, SSVS may advise or assist Des Moines regarding Des Moines's
specific projects.
3. Compensation. As its proportionate share of SSVS' program, Des Moines will contribute
100% of its Hotel -Motel Tax revenue for so long as this agreement remains in effect, for
the services provided for by this Agreement. SSVS shall invoice Des Moines monthly.
4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for one year commencing on January 1, 2009.
Unless written notice of non renewal is given by either party 120 days before the end of
the term, this Agreement shall automatically renew for one -year tennis until terminated as
set forth below.
5. Records. SSVS, as administered by Tukwila, shall maintain or cause to be maintained
books of accounts concerning the total operation of this Agreement, in which books shall
be entered, fully and accurately, each transaction pertaining to this Agreement. All the
books will be open during normal business hours for inspection and examination by Des
Moines.
6. Termination. Tukwila or Des Moines may teiniinate this Agreement in writing with 120
days written notice. The terminating party shall be liable for its share of financial
obligations entered into on its behalf prior to teimination including but not limited to
printing costs and media buys.
7. Ownership. SSVS shall maintain ownership of all property acquired pursuant to this
Agreement.
8. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified in writing at any time with
the mutual consent of both parties.
9. Hold Hai Tukwila and Des Moines agree that each party shall defend, indemnify,
and hold hainiless the other party and its officers, officials, agents employees, and
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
TOURISM AND MARKETING SERVICES 2
volunteers from any and all claims, injuries, actions, damages, losses or suites including
reasonable attorney's fees, which arise out of or are connected with any errors,
omissions or negligent acts in the performance of this Agreement.
10. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Copies of notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address:
Katherine Kertzman, Tourism and Marketing Program Manager
Seattle Southside Visitors Center
14220 interurban Avenue South, Ste 130
Tukwila, WA 98168
Copies of notices to the City of Des Moines shall be sent to the following address:
Patrice Thorell, Parks and Recreation Director
1000 South 220 Street
Des Moines, WA 98198
IN WITNTESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed.
CITY OF TUKWILA CITY OF DES MOINES
Mayor Mayor
Dated: Dated:
Attest: Attest:
City Clerk City Clerk
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
Assistant City Attorney City Attorney
INTERLOCA L AGREEMENT FOR
TOURISM AND MARKETING SERVICES 3
FINANCE AND SAFETY COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
November 18, 2008, 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3
City of Tukwila
Finance and Safety Committee
PRESENT
Councilmembers: Dennis Robertson, Chair; Pam Linder and Kathy Hougardy
Staff: Rick Still, Lisa Verner, Gail Labanara, Viki Jessop, Shawn Hunstock, Mary Miotke, Nick Olivas,
David Haynes, Derek Speck, Rhonda Berry and Melissa Hart
Guests: Mark Segale, Bill Arthur and Chuck Parrish
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
The agenda was amended to reflect the new order of business as presented below.
L PRESENTATIONS No presentations.
II. BUSINESS AGENDA
A. Interlocal Agreement to Provide Tourism and Marketing Services to the City of Des Moines
Katherine Kertznian indicated that the proposed agreement is very similar to the previous interlocaI
agreement with the City of Des Moines. The notable change is the term of the agreement, which went
om a three -year term to a one -year term that will renew for subsequent one -year terms unless otherwise
terminated with 120 days notice. Des Moines's payment will remain the same, 100% of lodging tax
collected per year. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
B. Impact Fee Ordinances for Fire and Parks
Staff reported that Administration is evaluating new sources of revenue for the City. One such source is
impact fees; through which new development helps to pay for capital facilities necessitated due to the
new growth.
The Growth Management Act allows impact fees for parks services and fire services, in addition to
traffic impact fees, which the City has already enacted. Lisa Verner stated the regulations regarding
impact fees state that the amount collected must be used for capital facilities and the amount collected
cannot fund a 100% of a project. Since impact fees cannot fund 100% of a project, prior to impact fee
implementation, the City would need to indicate the fee split, such as 90% impact fees and 10% City
funding.
The information proposed by staff is based on the City of Redmond's model. The State of Washington
conducted a Performance Audit of impact fees which stated, "The City of Redmond has developed a
Ieading practice in its fire impact fee schedule /calculation."
Committee members asked clarifying questions from staff and recommended the following information
be provided to Council at the Committee of the Whole Meeting:
Do neighboring cities collect impact fees and what are their impact fee /city splits?
What is the impact fee /city funded split for the City of Redmond?
How were the percentages achieved in the calculation worksheets?
Committee Chair Robertson requested staff to simplify the information provided and reorganize the
packet of back -up documentation so the presentation is more straightforward. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
CAS NUMBER 08-151
Meeting Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review I Council renew
11/24/08 VU 1 A I 1
12/01/08 1 VU 1
ITEM INFORMATION
AGENDA rl'E rTriim Non- represented employees' wages and benefits for 2009
C) 1'I .GORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance
11tg Date 11/24/08 Mtg Date lltg Date 12 /1 /08 tlltg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adrrt Svcs DCD n Finance 1 1 Fire n Le [I PR Police PW
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY employees' wage schedule and benefits.
Ri'Vi :VII) BY COW Mtg CA &P Cmte [Si F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utihties Cmte Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. U Planning Comm.
DATE: 11/18/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Adoption of Resolution
COMMI1TEE Unanimous Approval; Forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPI?NDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED
Fund Source: 2009 -2010 BI- ANNUAL BUDGET
Comments' Included in the 2009 budget
MTG. DATE
11/18/08
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
1 ORIGINAL AGENDA D1Vi'E. NOVEMBER 24, 2008
Altg Date
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
ITEM No.
C.
Bid Award Public Heanng 1 1 Other
illtg litgDate
Council is being asked to consider the Resolution to adopt the 2009 non represented
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
MTG. DATE 1 ATTACHMENTS
11/18/08 I Informational memorandum dated 11/13/08
Draft Resolution with attachments (wage schedule, benefits, longevity pay plan)
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 11/18/08
Memo
1
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Jim Haggerton, Mayor
To: Finance Safety Committee Members
CC: Mayor Jim Haggerton
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Shawn Hunstock, Director of Finance
From: Viki L. Jessop, PHR, Administrative Services Director
Date: 11/13/2008
Re: Recommendation for 2009 Non Represented Wages Benefits Package
Mayor Haggerton, Rhonda Berry and I have had a number of conversations over the past few months
regarding the state of the economy, the overall regional financial situation, and the City of Tukwila's
budgetary concerns. Though many of the City's neighbors are implementing hiring freezes and layoffs,
the City of Tukwila has made a conscious decision to maintain equitable wages and benefits by
adhering to its philosophy of being at the average of comparables in the market.
This year the Consumer Price Index All Wage Eamers (CPI -W) for Seattle- Tacoma- Bremerton (first
half of calendar year 2007 -first half of calendar year 2008) came in at 4.9 CPI -W reflects the
instability of the economy over the past year. The data for the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2008 is
calculated as:
Reporting period ending in February: 5.1%
Reporting period ended in April: 3.8%
Reporting period ended in June: 6.2%
For an average of 4.9%
In a departure from a wage increase based on a percentage of the CPI -W, the Mayor is recommending
the following compensation package for the Non Represented Employees for calendar year 2009
1) A flat rate 4.5% increase to the non represented wages, effective January 1, 2009; and
Phone: 206-433 -1800 City Hall Fax: 206- 433 -1833 www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
2) Updated benefits schedule; and
3) Implementation of a longevity schedule, effective January 1, 2009
The addition of a longevity schedule brings the Non Represented employees into an area of
compensation that rewards the Non Represented employees for their institutional knowledge,
commitment and dedication to the City of Tukwila, and is more in alignment with intemal compensation
equity. The longevity schedule benefits the City by recognizing, rewarding and enhancing the retention
of our valuable City resource.
The Mayor believes this combination of base wage increase, benefits, and longevity pay, provides a fair
and equitable package to the Non Represented employees while staying within the boundaries of the
Mayor's recommended biennial budget.
Mayor Haggerton requests that the Finance Safety Committee forward the Non Represented
compensation and benefit resolution to the November 24 Council of the Whole meeting, with a
recommendation for approval. A sample of the format used for the Non Represented Salary schedule
is attached to the resolution. Attachment "A the actual wage schedule, will be updated with the
recommended 2009 Non Represented wages prior to the Council of the Whole meeting based on the
outcome of the Finance Safety meeting discussion.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have questions or need additional information regarding this
memo, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 will be in attendance at the Finance Safety Committee
meeting on November 18
Page 2
DR. n'T
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, UPDATING AND CLARIFYING THE NON
REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION AND ADOPTING THE
NON REPRESENTED SALARY SCHEDULE AND BENEFITS SUMMARY,
EJ FJCTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009.
WHEREAS, the Tukwila City Council approved Resolution No. 1537, dated
December 1, 2003, which provided that a COLA would be applied to the non
represented employee wage schedule in odd numbered calendar years; and
WHEREAS, the COLA in previous years has been based on the Consumer Price
Index, All Wage Earners (CPI -W) Seattle- Tacoma Bremerton Area Semi Annual
Average (first half of calendar year to first half of following calendar year), and
WHEREAS, the CPI -W average for the above stated period of time (first half of
2007 compared to first half 2008) is 4.9 and
WHEREAS, a percentage of the CPI -W, as stated above, has been used to make
wage adjustments in previous years; and
WHEREAS, due to the unpredictability of the economy, internal equity
considerations, and the funding within the recommended 2009 -2010 City budget, the
Mayor recommends the Council provide a flat -rate increase of 4.5% to base wage
effective January 1, 2009 for non represented employees; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the commitment and expertise that long -term
employment brings to the City, the Mayor also recommends a longevity pay plan for
the non represented employees. This plan recognizes internal equity and values the
institutional knowledge that is inherent in retaining long -term employees. In this
uncertain economy, and with the impending retirement of many of the Baby Boom
generation, retaining long -term employees becomes crucial for achieving our mission to
preserve and enhance the quality of life for the citizens in Tukwila;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI"I'Y OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Non Represented Wage Plan.
A. The 2009 wage schedule for non represented employees shall be increased by a
flat rate of 4.5
B. Employees currently above the top step of the 2009 wage schedule shall also
receive a 4.5% increase for 2009 The 4.5% shall be applied to their actual wage that is
above the control point.
C. Longevity pay will be added as described in "Attachment C."
D. Merit will continue to be eliminated from the plan at this time due to economic
conditions, as well as a desire that the wage schedule for non represented employees
C: \Documents and Settings \All Users\ Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Resolutions \^.W9 Ncn -rep salary.dcc
KG:ksn 11/21/X08
Page 1 of '7
better reflect the wages offered by those jurisdictions determined to be comparable, and
may be reconsidered as a plan element in subsequent years.
Section 2. Non- Represented Wage Schedule, Benefits Summary and Longevity Pay
Plan.
A. The non represented wage schedule, "Attachment A" hereto, shall be
approved, effective January 1, 2009.
B The non represented benefits summary, "Attachment B" shall be approved,
effective January 1, 2009.
C. The non represented longevity pay plan, "Attachment C" shall be approved,
effective January 1, 2009.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Joe Duffle, Council President
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council.
Resolution Number:
Attachments: Attachment A, Non Represented Salary Schedule and Structure 2009
Attachment B, Non Represented Employee Benefits 2009
Attachment C, Non Represented Longevity Pay Plan
C \Documents and Settings \All Users\ Desktop Kelly \MSDATA \Resolutions \2009 Non -rep salary.doc
KG:ksn 11/20/2008
Page 2 of 7
ATTACHMENT A, Page 1
Cri'Y OF TUKWILA
NON REPRESENTED SALARY SCHEDULE 2009
Classification Title
Administrative Support Technician 1
Office Technician
Office Specialist
Administrative Assistant
Program Coordinator
Management Coordinator
Management Analyst
Program Administrator
Program Manager
Administrative Manager
Assistant Director
Department Manager
Department Administrator
Department Head
Department Director
City Administrator
C \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Resolutions \2009 Non -rep salary
KG:ksn 11/20/2008
Job Title Range
Administrative Support Technician I Al2
Personnel Technician
Administrative Secretary B22
Civil Service Secretary /Examiner
Deputy City Clerk B23
Executive Secretary
Administrative Secretary I
Council Administrative Assistant
Systems Administrator C41
Personnel Assistant
City Clerk C42
Court Administrator
Police Records Manager
Legislative Analyst
Personnel Analyst
Public Works Analyst
Internal Operations Manager C43
Public Works Coordinator
Emergency Management Coordinator
Assistant City Administrator D61
Senior Engineer
Building Official
IT Manager
Maintenance Operations Manager D62
Police Commander
Deputy Community Development Director D63
Deputy Finance Director
Deputy Public Works Director
Deputy Parks Recreation Director
Assistant Fire Chief
Assistant Police Chief
City Engineer
Economic Development Administrator
Administrative Services Director
DCD Director
Finance Director
IT Director
Parks Recreation Director
Fire Chief
Police Chief
Public Works Director
City Administrator
B21
F102
Page 3 of 7
E83
E91
D72
IDBM
Rating
All
Al 2
Al 3
B21
B22
B23
11331
1832
1C41
C42
C43
1051
1052
1D61
D62
D63
1071
1D72
E81
E82
E83
E91
E92
F101
F102
2009 NonRep Salary Attachment A.As
2009
Non Represented Salary Structure (Monthly)
(Minimum)
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
3,4761 3,5851 3,694
3,7261 3,845 3,963
3,9851 4,108 4,233
4,1421 4,298 4,455
4,3901 4,555 4,720
4,6381 4,812 4,987
4,8451 5,057 5,269
5,2061 5,435 5,663
5,400 5,615 5,831
5,763 5,995 6,225
6,1441 6,390 6,637
6,4261 6,714 7,003
6,8551 7,163 7,472
6,7961 7,136 7,476
6,931 7,276 7,623
7,174 7,533 7,892
7,339 7,7401 8,143
7,702 8,1221 8,544
7,783 8,1721 8,562
8,069 8,4741 8,878
8,306 8,723 9,137
8,595 9,026 9,456
8,950 9,4001 9,849
9,310 9,7751 10,241
9,479 9,9531 10,428
Step 4
3,8021
4,0791
4,357
4,609
4,886
5,161
5,480
5,892
6,048
6,456
6,883
7,292
7,781
7,817
7,969
8,2511
8,5461
8,9641
8,9491
9,282
9,554
9,887
10,296
10,7081
10,9041
ATTACHMENT "A"
Step 5
3,911
4,197
4,481
4,767
5,052
5,336
5,693
6,121
6,265
6,687
7,128
7,580
8,091
8,1571
8,3161
8,6101
8,947
9,386
9,367
9,688
9,968
10,317
10,745
11,175
11,378
The Salary grid provides a COLA increase of 4.5% over 2008 wages for all ratings
Step 6 Step 7
6,482
6,920
7,375
7,870
8,399
8,496
8,661
8,967
9,351
9,807
9,787
10,093
10,384
10,748
11,194
11,639
11,852
10,188
10,496
10,801
11,178
11,642
12,106
12,327
11/132008
ATTACHMENT B
NON REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE BENEr1'1 S 2009
SOCIAL SECURITY (FICA): Social Security benefits shall be provided as contained in
Section 2.52.010 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC).
STATE -WIDE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS): Retirement shall be
provided as contained in Section 2.52.020 of the TIvIC.
HOLIDAYS: Holidays shall be provided as contained in Section 2.52.030 of the TMC.
Regular part-time employees shall be entitled to benefits on a pro -rata basis.
SICK LEAVE: Sick leave shall be provided as contained in Section 2.52.040 of the TMC.
Regular part -time employees shall be entitled to benefits on a pro -rata basis.
MEDICAL INSURANCE: The City shall pay 100% of the 2009 premium for regular
full-time employees and their dependents under the City of Tukwila self- insured
medical /dental plan. Premium increases above 10% per year shall result in a modified
plan document to cover the additional cost above 10 or a premium shall be
implemented for the difference, at the City's discretion. The City reserves the right to
select all medical plans and providers. Regular part -time employees shall be entitled to
benefits on a pro-rata basis. Employees who choose coverage under the Group Health
Cooperative plan shall pay the difference between the City of Tukwila plan full- family
rate and the rate charged to them by Group Health.
DENTAL INSURANCE: The City shall provide 100% of the 2009 premium for the
regular full-time employees and all dependents under the City of Tukwila self insured
medical /dental plan for dental coverage. Regular part -time employees shall be entitled
to the same benefits on a pro -rata basis.
LIFE INSURANCE: For regular full-time employees, the City shall pay the premium
for Plan C (Multiple of annual earnings) or similar group life and accidental death and
dismemberment insurance policy. Said plan shall be at 100% of annual earnings
rounded up to the next $1,000. Regular part -time employees that work at least 20 hours
per week shall be entitled to benefits on a pro -rata basis (per insurance program
requirements).
VISION /OPTICAL/HEARNG CARE: The City shall provide coverage for eye
examinations, vision, optical and hearing care to non represented regular full -time
employees and their dependents at the rate of $200 per person, to a maximum of $400
per family unit, each year. Regular part -time employees and their dependents shall be
entitled to benefits on a pro -rata basis.
DISABILITY INSURANCE: The City shall provide 100% of the premium for regular
full -time employees for a comprehensive long -term disability policy. Regular part-time
employees that work at least 20 hours per week shall be entitled to benefits on a pro
rata basis (per insurance program requirements).
HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT/VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT ASSOCIATION (HRA/VEBA): VEBA benefits shall be provided as
contained in Resolution 1445, and as amended.
VACATION: Following the 6th month of continuous employment, annual vacation
leave of 6 full days (each day is calculated at 8 hours, regardless of schedule worked)
shall be granted. Thereafter, an additional day of annual Leave shall accrue each month,
up to a total of 12 days. Three additional days of annual leave shall be granted on the
employee's anniversary date after the 3rd, 4th, and 5th years. After 6 years, the
employee shall be granted 1 day per year additional annual leave to a maximum of 24
days per year. The maximum number of accrued hours is 334, or 48 days.
C \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly \M.SDATA Resolutions \2009 Non -rep salary.doc
KG:ksn 11/20/2Ce8
Page 5 of 7
Years Vacation Years Vacation
of Service Accrual of Service Accrual
0 -1 years 12 days* 10 years 19 days
1 -2 years 12 days 11 years 20 days
3 -6 years 15 days 12 years 21 days
7 years 16 days 13 years 22 days
8 years 17 days 14 years 23 days
9 years 18 days 15 years 24 days
(maximum)
*Six full days will be granted following the sixth month of continuous
employment. (Days accrue at 8 hours, regardless of schedule worked.) Regular part
time employees shall be entitled to benefits on a pro -rata basis.
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE: An annual uniform allowance of $350 shall be granted to
the following employees: Fire Chief, Assistant Fire Chief, Police Chief, Assistant Police
Chief, Police Commander, and Records Manager.
C \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Resolutions \2004 Non -rep salary.doc
KG:ksn 11/20/2008
Page 6 of 7
ATTACHMENT C
LONGEVITY PAY PLAN FOR NON- REPRESEN'1'Ei) EMPLOYEES
The monthly longevity flat rates shall be as follows for regular full -time employees after
the completion of the number of years of full time employment with the City set forth
below. Regular part -time employees shall receive longevity on a pro -rata basis.
Completion of 5 years $75
Completion of 10 years $100
Completion of 15 years $125
Completion of 20 years $150
Completion of 25 years 5175
Completion of 30 years $200
C \Documents and Setting \All User s\ Desktop\ Kelly \1v15DATA \Resolutions \2009 Non -rep salary.doc
KG:ksn 11 /20 /20ss
Page 7 of 7
Finance Safety Committee Minutes November 18. 2008 Page 2
C. A Resolution Regarding Non Represented Employee Wages and Benefits for 2009
Staff presented recommendations for non represented wages and benefits for 2009. In a departure from a
wage increase based on a percentage of the CPI -W, the Mayor is recommending the following
compensation package for the non represented employees for 2009:
A flat rate 4.5% increase to the non represented wages, effective January 1, 2009
Updated benefits schedule
Implementation of a longevity schedule, effective January 1, 2009
Committee members requested the total cost to the City for both the proposed 4.5% increase and the
longevity proposal be provided to full Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Final 2008 Budget Amendment
Each year the Finance Department assesses the actual fmancial performance of the City compared to the
adopted budget. As part of this annual analysis, staff is proposing an amendment to the 2008 Budget.
The amendment calls for the reallocation of unspent appropriations to budgets with potential deficits.
Budgets increased are: finance, related to unbudgeted claims and judgments of $299,000; and legal,
related to unexpected legal representation, prosecutorial and other expenses of $340,000. UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
E. An Ordinance Adopting the 2009 -2010 Budget and a Resolution Adopting the 2009 -2014 Capital
Improvement Program
Staff indicated the adjustments identified during the Proposed Budget review have been completed and
the ordinance in draft form is attached to the Committee Agenda. After discussion, the Committee was in
favor of forwarding to the COW for discussion. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
F. Eden System License Proposal
Shawn Hunstock indicated that the EDEN Financial Systems application is currently limited to a small
number of users throughout the City. Some departments do not have a single user of EDEN, and a few
depatttitents have only one or two users. The purchase of a site license for EDEN will give departments
the ability to have an unlimited number of users increasing the functionality and usefulness of the
program. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
G. Proposed Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue
Staff has recently indentified an opportunity to possibly refund the 1999 bond issue and save an
estimated $326,048, over the remaining ten years of the bond. The original bond issue was $10,000,000
and approximately $6,260,000 remains outstanding. The potential impact on the proposed 2009 -210
Budget is a savings of $60,557.
This amount represents a decrease in sales taxes that would be needed to pay for debt service, and could
be used in the General Fund or elsewhere. Committee members asked clarifying questions on bond
status, and restrictions associated with the refunding. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
H. S.C.O.R.E. Interlocal Agreement
Due to time constraints, this item was removed from the agenda and will return to Committee on
December 2.
III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Next meeting: Monday, December 2 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes tty MH.
CAS NUMBER 08-152
Fund Source:
Continents
MTG. DATE
1 11/24/08
1
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
12/01/08
1
0 S
ttileeting Date
11/24/08
12/01/08
FINANCE DEPARTMENT BUDGET
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Prepared by
SH
SH
Marais ITEM NO.
Mayor's review I Council review
AAA
ITEM INFORMATION
I ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE. NOVEMBER 24, 2008
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Acquisition of site license for EDEN Financial Systems.
C.\"1'1:G( )RY Discussion Motion n Resolution 1 Ordinance n Bic Award I I Public Hearing Other
r1Its Date 11/24/08 rlltg Date 12/01/08 illtg Date dltg Date
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mtg Date _lltg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor _Adm Svcs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police PW
SP ONSOR'S There is a need for a site license for EDEN Financial Systems. A site license will allow for
SVMU.IRY unlimited users of EDEN. The benefits of a site license include the ability for each
department to manage their budgets in a timely basis, electronic routing of purchase
orders for approval, as well as the addition of other modules, such as the new HR system,
with no need to pay for additional individual user licenses.
RE\ 11 ;WI .D BY LI COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte n Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. n Parks Comm. n Planning Comm.
DA 1'E: 11/18/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve acquisition of the site license.
COMMIT-ME Unanimous approval; forward to Committee of the Whole.
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPINDITURE RJ.QUIRG.D AMOUNT BUDGETED
$32,700
ATTACHMENTS
Informational memorandum dated 11/19/08
Informational memorandum dated 11/12/08
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 11/18/08
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
To: Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 19, 2008
Subject: EDEN Site License
ISSUE
The EDEN Financial Systems application, used for purchasing, accounts payable,
payroll, travel claim and petty cash reimbursements, and financial reporting, is currently
limited to a small number of users throughout the city Some departments do not have a
single user of EDEN, and a few departments have just one or two users. The purchase of
a site license for EDEN will give us the ability to have an unlimited number of users.
BACKGROUND
EDEN is offering a discount of $7,300 on the cost of the site license if we purchase it
before year -end. The discount is being offered in light of our previous commitment to
EDEN products and our planned purchase of other modules, such as Cashiering and HR.
Funding for the purchase will come from the Finance budget. The final budget
amendment for 2008 includes moving resources into the Finance budget. This budget
amendment will fund the site license as well as the previously approved cashiering
module, also from EDEN.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is to approve the purchase of the EDEN site license. The Finance
and Safety Committee on November 18, 2008 approved forwarding this item to
Committee of the Whole on November 24 with unanimous consensus for approval
cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Mary Miotke, Infonnation Technology Director
Attachment: Memo to Finance and Safety Committee, dated 11/12/08
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
To: Mayor Haggerton
Finance Safety Committee
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 12, 2008
Subject: EDEN Site License
ISSUE
The EDEN Financial Systems application, used for purchasing, accounts payable,
payroll, travel claim and petty cash reimbursements, and financial reporting, is currently
Limited to a small number of users throughout the city. Some departments do not have a
single user of EDEN, and a few departments have just one or two users. The purchase of
a site license for EDEN will give us the ability to have an unlimited number of users
BACKGROUND
Departments currently rely on the Finance department to distribute, or post on the
intranet, infoilnation related to year -to -date expenditures. There can at times be delays in
getting this information out to departments depending on the workload within the Finance
department. This infoiniation is also at a very high level and is helpful for monitoring the
overall status of a budget, but not for answering specific questions, such as determining
what exactly was charged to a specific budget number.
The purchase of a site license for EDEN will provide the city with the following benefits:
Departments will be able to access financial information at any point in time and
will be able to drill -down to specific documents, vendors and journal entries. This
will improve the timeliness and relevance of information directors and managers'
need to administer their budgets
The Finance department will be able to implement a requisitioning process for
city purchases. This will give departments the ability to enter Purchase Orders at-
will, rather than waiting for Finance to enter them.
The above requisitioning process will also give the city the ability to route
Purchase Orders electronically rather than manually for approval. Currently,
Requests for PO's are printed in hardcopy form and routed through managers and
departments for approval. Electronic approval routing, utilizing existing
purchasing authority limits, will allow for timely processing of PO's, will save the
cost needed for staff time in routing hardcopy documents to different people, as
well as save the cost needed for printing these documents.
Finance Safern Committee EDEN Site License Page
As other modules of EDEN are implemented, such as Cashiering and Human
Resources having a site license will give us the ability to add additional users of
the system with no incremental costs for individual user licenses. This will also
save on licensing costs when online timesheets are eventually implemented.
Finally, EDEN is offering a discount of $7,300 on the cost of the site license if we
purchase it before year -end. EDEN is offering the discount in light of our previous
commitment to EDEN products and our planned purchase of other modules, such as
Cashiering and HR.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is to approve reallocation of appropriations in the Finance and
Department 20 budgets in the amount of $32,700 for the purchase of an EDEN site
license.
cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Mary Miotke, Information Technology Director
Attachment: Email and Quote from EDEN.
Finance Safety Committee Minutes November 18, 2008 Page 2
C. A Resolution Regarding Non Reoresented Employee Wages and Benefits for 2009,
Staff presented recommendations for non represented wages and benefits for 2009. In a departure from a
wage increase based on a percentage of the CPI -W, the Mayor is recommending the following
compensation package for the non represented employees for 2009:
A flat rate 4.5% increase to the non represented wages, effective January 1, 2009
Updated benefits schedule
Implementation of a longevity schedule, effective January 1, 2009
Committee members requested the total cost to the City for both the proposed 4.5% increase and the
longevity proposal be provided to full Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Final 2008 Budget Amendment
Each year the Finance Department assesses the actual financial performance of the City compared to the
adopted budget. As part of this annual analysis, staff is proposing an amendment to the 2008 Budget.
The amendment calls for the reallocation of unspent appropriations to budgets with potential deficits.
Budgets increased are: finance, related to unbudgeted claims and judgments of $299,000; and legal,
related to unexpected legal representation, prosecutorial and other expenses of $340,000. UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
E. An Ordinance Adopting the 2009 -2010 Budget and a Resolution Adopting the 2009 -2014 Capital
Improvement Program
Staff indicated the adjustments identified during the Proposed Budget review have been completed and
the ordinance in draft form is attached to the Committee Agenda. After discussion, the Committee was in
favor of forwarding to the COW for discussion. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
F. Eden System License Proposal
Shawn Hunstock indicated that the EDEN Financial Systems application is currently limited to a small
number of users throughout the City. Some depai intents do not have a single user of EDEN, and a few
depai intents have only one or two users. The purchase of a site license for EDEN will give departments
the ability to have an unlimited number of users increasing the functionality and usefulness of the
program. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
G. Proposed Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue
Staff has recently indentified an opportunity to possibly refund the 1999 bond issue and save an
estimated $326,048, over the remaining ten years of the bond. The original bond issue was $10,000,000
and approximately $6,260,000 remains outstanding. The potential impact on the proposed 2009 -210
Budget is a savings of $60,557.
This amount represents a decrease in sales taxes that would be needed to pay for debt service, and could
be used in the General Fund or elsewhere. Committee members asked clarifying questions on bond
status, and restrictions associated with the refunding. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
FI. S.C.O.R.E. Interlocal Agreement
Due to time constraints, this item was removed from the agenda and will return to Committee on
December 2.
III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Next meeting: Monday, December 2 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes by MH
CAS NUMBER 08-153
AGENDA ITI'.M TF11.1? 2008 Proposed Budget Amendments
C.\'I'I .CORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance I Bic/ Award n Public Hearing Other
Klts Date 11/24/08 tlitg Date 12/01/08 Kits Date K'ltg Date Alts Date 11 It; Date Alts Date
SP( )NSOR Council Mayor Adm Sucs DCD Finance Fire Legal P &R Police U PW/
SPONSOR'S Attached for review are the proposed amendments to the 2008 budget.
SUMMARY
RI,\ II•:\W'ED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DA 1E: 11/18/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve amendment as submitted
CO IMITIEE Unanimous approval; forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
E\PI .NDITURI; REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$620,000 $620,000
Fund Source: REALLOCATION OF EXISTING FUNDING WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND
Con
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
1 12/01/08
1
1
OF
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Cabals
Meetinx Date 1 Prepared by 1 Mayor's review I Cor:m_zl revrew
11/24/08 1 SH
12/01/08 1 SH 1 I
1
ITEM INFORMATION
ORIGINAL AGENI)A DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2008
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
ATTACHMENTS
Informational memorandum dated 11/19/08
Informational memorandum dated 11/13/08
Authorization for Transfer of Funds 11/13/08
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting 11/18/08
ITEM No.
To:
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 19, 2008
Subject: Final 2008 Budget Amendment
Attached is a memorandum to the Finance and Safety Committee with detail on year end
adjustments to the 2008 budget. The adjustments are needed to fund expenses in Finance for
claims and judgments that were not budgeted for, as well as expenditures in the Legal
department for prosecutorial and other items that exceeded the 2008 appropriation.
The amendment had unanimous consensus at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on
November 18 to forward to Committee of the Whole on November 24 with recommendation for
approval. This item is currently scheduled for the City Council meeting on December 1
cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Attachment: Memo to Finance and Safety Committee, dated November 13, 2008
To:
General Fund 000
Expenditures*
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
Mayor Haggerton
Finance Safety Committee
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 13, 2008
Subject: Final 2008 Budget Amendment
As we near the end of 2008, we typically assess the actual financial performance versus the
adopted budget. As part of that analysis, an amendment to the 2008 budget is proposed, as
detailed below. The amendment will be reviewed at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting
on November 18 and upon recommendation by the committee, forwarded to Committee of the
Whole on November 24th, then City Council on December 1
Finance
Claims and Judgements 05.514.230 49 03 280 000
City Attorney
Contracted Prosecution Services 06 515 200.41 02 340,000
Dept. 20
Professional Services 20.513 100.41.00 (50,000)
Self- Insured Medical Dental 20 517.360.25.97 (40,000)
Repair Demolition Fund 20 531 900.49 01 (100,000)
Professional Services 20.557.302.41 00 (15,000)
Professional Services 20.559.600.41.00 (40,000)
Centennial Celebration 20.573.900 41.00 (51,000)
Emergency Generators 20.594.250.62.00 (324,000)
(620, 000)
cc Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Department: ri i ci "G e-
Under the provisions of Ordinance No. 2010, the following transfer of ficncis within the budget class is requested:
From:
To:
City of Tukwila
AUTHORIZATION FOR
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Budget Line Item Number/ BAR
000.20.513.100.41.00
000.20.517.360.25.97
000.20.531.900.49.01
000.20.557.302.41.00
000.20.559.600.41.00
000.20.573.900.41.00
000.20.594.250.62.00
Total
Budget Line Item Number/ BAR
000.05.514.230.49.03
000.06.515.200.41.02
Total
Detailed justification for transfer: Reallocate unspent appropriations to budgets with potential
deficits. Budgets increased are Finance, related to unbudgeted claims and iudgements of $299,000,
and Legal, related to unexpected legal representation, prosecutorial and other exvenses of
$340,000.
APPROVED BY THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AT A MEETING THEREOF:
the day of 20
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD:
L
Signature: wy rya, Date: r /o'
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR:
Signature: Date:
U Budget \Authorization for Transfer of Funds.doc
CO:lsn 11/13/2008
Date: /o(
Amount
50,000
40,000
100,000
15,000
40,000
51,000
324,000
620,000
Amount
280,000
340,000
620,000
Finance Safety Committee Minutes November 18. 2008 Pape 2
C. A Resolution Regarding Non Represented Employee Wages and Benefits for 2009
Staff presented recommendations for non represented wages and benefits for 2009. In a departure from a
wage increase based on a percentage of the CPI -W, the Mayor is recommending the following
compensation package for the non represented employees for 2009:
A flat rate 4.5% increase to the non represented wages, effective January 1, 2009
Updated benefits schedule
Implementation of a longevity schedule, effective January 1, 2009
Committee members requested the total cost to the City for both the proposed 4.5% increase and the
longevity proposal be provided to full Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Final 2008 Budget Amendment
Each year the Finance Department assesses the actual financial performance of the City compared to the
adopted budget. As part of this annual analysis, staff is proposing an amendment to the 2008 Budget.
The amendment calls for the reallocation of unspent appropriations to budgets with potential deficits.
Budgets increased are: finance, related to unbudgeted claims and judgments of $299,000; and legal,
related to unexpected legal representation, prosecutorial and other expenses of $340,000. UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
E. An Ordinance Adopting the 2009 -2010 Budget and a Resolution Adopting the 2009 -2014 Capital
Imnrovement Program
Staff indicated the adjustments identified during the Proposed Budget review have been completed and
the ordinance in draft form is attached to the Committee Agenda. After discussion, the Committee was in
favor of forwarding to the COW for discussion. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
F. Eden System License Proposal
Shawn Hunstock indicated that the EDEN Financial Systems application is currently limited to a small
number of users throughout the City. Some depai tnients do not have a single user of EDEN, and a few
departments have only one or two users. The purchase of a site license for EDEN will give depaituients
the ability to have an unlimited number of users increasing the functionality and usefulness of the
program. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
G. Proposed Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue
Staff has recently indentified an opportunity to possibly refund the 1999 bond issue and save an
estimated $326,048, over the remaining ten years of the bond. The original bond issue was $10,000,000
and approximately $6,260,000 remains outstanding. The potential impact on the proposed 2009 -210
Budget is a savings of $60,557.
This amount represents a decrease in sales taxes that would be needed to pay for debt service, and could
be used in the General Fund or elsewhere. Committee members asked clarifying questions on bond
status, and restrictions associated with the refunding. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
H. S.C.O.R.E. Interlocal Agreement
Due to time constraints, this item was removed from the agenda and will return to Committee on
December 2.
M. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Next meeting: Monday, December 2 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3
I) i Committee Chair Approval
Minutes MH.
Fund Source:
Comments.
MTG. DATE
11/17/08
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
12/01/08
CAS NUMBER 08-154
Acl•:ND ITEM Trl•I.l. Review of final adjustments to the 2009 -2010 proposed budget and 2009 -2014 CIP
Ga'i'l {(cony Discussion Motion Resolution Ordinance Bid Award Public Hearing Other
iItg Date 11/24/08 Altg Date Alts Date 12/01/08 Altg Date 12/01/08 Mfg Date Ails Date 11/17/08 Altg Date
'SPONSOR Council Ivla_yor n Adm Svcs n DCD Finance Fire Legal PZR Police PW
SPONSOR'S Attached for review are the final changes to the 2009 2010 proposed budget and 2009
SVMM \RY 2014 CIP.
Council reviewed the budget at four Councl meetings in October /November and conducted
the Public Hearing on November 17, 2008.
RI I1.\t'11) BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte
U Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. I Planning Comm.
DAIS.: 11/18/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADNHN. Approve final changes for adoption of the budget and CIP
COMMI1TME Unanimous approval; forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPINDITURI;. RlsOUI1u D
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Iluilals
Meeting Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review Caviled review
11/24/08 SH A -4 X-
12/01/08 SH 1 la
ITEM INFORMATION
l ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2008
AMOUNT BUDGETED
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Public Hearing at City Council meeting.
ITEMNO.
Transportation Cmte
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
ATTACHMENTS
Informational memorandum dated 11/19/08 with budget errata and CIP sheets
Attachments A, B and C
Budget Ordinance and CIP Resolution in final form
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 11/18/08
To:
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director i
Date: November 19, 2008
Subject: 2009 -2010 Budget Ordinance 2009 -2014 CIP Resolution
The draft 2009 -2010 budget ordinance and 2009 -2014 CIP resolution were reviewed at the
Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 18, 2008 The Committee unanimously
approved forwarding to Committee of the Whole on November 24 This item is scheduled for
action by City Council on December 1
The Budget Errata attachment is a correction of the one distributed to the Finance and Safety
Committee. There are no monetary changes on the revised attachment. The changes correct the
footnote annotations for some of the Department 20 budget reallocations. No other changes were
made
cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Attachment (Revised) Budget Errata
REVISED 2009-2010 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
GENERAL 000
TRANSFER IN FROM FUND 303
2009-2010 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
HOTEL / MOTEL TAX 101
ESTIMATED BEGINNING UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE
SEATAC COSTS TOTAL REVENUES
2009-2010 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
LAND ACQUISITION RECREATION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT 301
KING COUNTY OPEN SPACE GRANT - GREENBELT TRAILS
CARRYOVER - DUWAMISH GARDENS
ESTIMATED BEGINNING UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE
FACILITY REPLACEMENT 302
GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPROVEMENTS 303
2009-2010 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
WATER 401
CARRYOVER - INTERURBAN WATER REUSE
SEWER 402
SURFACE WATER 412
2009-2010 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
EQUIPMENT RENTAL 501
INSURANCE FUND 502
FIREMAN'S PENSION FUND 611
2009-2010 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
CIF
City of Tukwila
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
2009 2014
Parks and Trails
PARKS AND RECREATION
301 Fund
*Other After Six
Page PROJECT TITLE 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL Sources Years
7 Codiga Park 510 0 0 0 0 0 510 0 0
8 Hand Boat Launches 100 0 0 0 0 54 154 134 596
9 Duwamish River Bend Hill Park 504 0 0 0 0 30 534 244 2,970
10 City of Tukwila Pool 387 100 100 120 120 120 947 0 120
11 City of Tukwila Leisure Pool Addition 0 0 0 0 0 125 125 100 1,375
12 Tukwila Pond 199 339 0 0 0 250 788 206 2,750
13 Greenbelt Multipurpose Trails 63 43 43 43 43 0 235 235 0
14 Black River Trail Connector 23 0 0 0 0 83 106 89 917
15 Fort Dent Park 36 0 200 0 0 0 236 100 1,600
16 57th Ave S Park Extension 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 150
17 Parks, Recreation Open Space Plan 0 0 0 0 75 0 75 0 0
18 Ryan Hill Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500
19 Macadam Winter Garden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500
20 Southgate Park Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 83 83 66 917
21 Log House Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200
22 Wilcox River Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150
Related to Fish Habitat
23 WRIA 9 Watershed Planning 11 11 12 12 12 12 70 0 12
24 Duwamish Gardens 2,559 1,000 0 0 0 0 3,559 3,256 0
25 Riverton Creek Flap Gate Removal 50 650 0 0 0 0 700 572 0
26 Gilliam Creek Fish Barrier Removal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 675
27 Nelson Salmon Habitat Side Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 645
28 Foster Golf Course Riverbank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 434
29 Lower Gilliam Creek Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 248
Grand Total
Chances from 2008 to 2009 CIP:
New:
Hand Boat Launches
City of Tukwila Leisure Pool Addition
4,467 2,143 355 175 250 757 8,147 5,002 16,759
Park Impact Fee List Projects (project must be started within 6 years)
Deleted:
Water Spray Park, completed in 2008.
Riverton Creek Upper Watershed, originally part of TIB Phase II street improvements but stream restoration is not needed.
Southgate Creek Habitat Phase II, peak flows will be reduced with TIB high flow bypass and stabilizing slopes will not be needed.
CIP301 Nov 2009 80% 20%
*Denotes other funding sources, printed 11/20/2008
grants, mitigations, etc. 6
PROJECT: Hand Boat Launches
LINE ITEM: 301.00.594.760. PROJECT NO. 08 -PK01
Construction of boat launches which will provide access to the Green River for non motorized craft. Launches
will be constructed at Christianson Road, Codiga Park, Fort Dent Park, and the Log House Park.
DESCRIPTION:
JUSTIFICATION:
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2009 to 2014
The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan and the Shoreline Master Plan promote and encourage additional
public access to the Green River.
Codiga boat launch is scheduled for 2009 with a grant from Washington State Community Trade and Economic
Development (CTED) for $10,000.
COMMENT: Project is on the Park Impact Fee list and the goal is to start the project by 2014.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering 54 54
Land(R/W) 0
Const. Mgmt. 149 149
Construction 100 447 547
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 54 596 750
FUND SOURCES
USACE 0
Actual Grant 10 10
Proposed Grant 0
Park Impact Fees 80 44 476 600
City Oper. Revenue 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 120 140
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 54 596 750
Entire
System
_0
�z� `i rte_.
Sla �'?�e���es'"�
8
PROJECT:
DESCRIPTION:
JUSTIFICATION:
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL
(in $000's)
EXPENSES
Engineering
Construction Mgmt
Construction
TOTAL EXPENSES
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
Proposed Grant
Mitigation Actual
Park Impact Fees
City Oper. Revenue
TOTAL SOURCES
e Project Location
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
City of Tukwila Leisure Pool Addition
LINE ITEM: 301.00.594.760. PROJECT NO. 08 -PK02
Leisure Pool will expand features at the City of Tukwila Pool that may include water slides, lazy rivers and
water spray pool equipment.
Swimming pool was built in 1973 and requires new apparatus for the benefit and growth of the community.
Project is currently under review and is included in the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
Project will be dependent upon negotiating an extension of the lease with the Tukwila School District that
is due to expire in 2011.
Project is on Park Impact Fee list and goal is to start project by 2014, see previous page for pool maintenance.
Through Estimated
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
125 25
225
1,125
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 1,375
0 0 0
0 0 0
2009 to 2014
0 0
0 0
11
100
0 0 25
0 0 125
1,100
275
1,375
150
225
1,125
1,500
0
0
0
1,200
300
1,500
PROJECT: Ryan Hill Park
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
LINE ITEM: 301.00.594.760. .32 PROJECT NO. 06 -PK04
Land will need to be purchased and a neighborhood park built in this somewhat isolated northeast part
DESCRIPTION:
JUSTIFICATION: To provide a park in a neighborhood that lacks open space and recreation areas.
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT: To be determined.
COMMENT:
of the City.
The 2008 Park and Open Space Plan identified the needed land area for purchase of a park in the Ryan
Hill neighborhood as a City priority.
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Engineering 250 250
Land (R/W) 750 750
Construction 1,500 1,500
TOTAL EXPENSES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant 0
Proposed Grant 0
Mitigation Actual 0
Park Impact Fees 0
City Oper. Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500
TOTAL SOURCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 2,500
Project Location
2009 to 2014
FUNDING REDUCED
FUNDS USED IN 2008 FOR 5800 SOUTH 152ND STREET
Page PROJECT TITLE
City of Tukwila
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
for
2009 2014
FIRE IMPROVEMENTS
304 Fund
CIP *Other After Six
Grand Total
Chances from 2008 to 2009 CIP:
New:
Relocate Fire Station 51
New Aid Car for Fire Station 51
New Engine for Fire Station 54
Relocate Fire Station 52
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TOTAL Sources Years
Relocate Fire Station 51 0 0 0 0 0 833 833 666 9,167
New Aid Car for Fire Station 51 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 12 170
New Engine for Fire Station 54 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 50 688
Relocate Fire Station 52 0 0 0 0 0 295 295 236 3,250
0 0 0 0 0 1,206 1,206 964 13,274
Fire Impact Fee List Projects (project must be started within 6 years).
*Denotes other funding sources,
grants, mitigations, etc. CIP Fire 80% 20 11/20/2008
MAINT. IMPACT:
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2009 to 2014
PROJECT: Relocate Fire Station 51
LINE ITEM: PROJECT NO. 08 -BG02
DESCRIPTION: Construct 25,000 square foot Fire Station.
JUSTIFICATION: Fire Station 51 will be relocated due to expected growth. Land is donated by Tukwila South Project.
The new fire station will be 25,000 sf, including bays for ladder truck and new aid car.
STATUS: Land donation is expected in 2009.
Project is on Fire Impact Fee list and goal is to start the project by 2014. Growth is expected due to TUC
COMMENT: expansion and Tukwila South Project. Full funding is $10,000,000 over 12 years. One twelfth funding is shown in
2014, when the projects will start, with the rest of funding shown in "Beyond."
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design
Land (R/W)
Const. Mgmt.
Construction
TOTAL EXPENSES
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
Proposed Grant
Fire Impact Fees
Fire Impact Fees Expected
City Oper. Revenue
TOTAL SOURCES
Entire
System
XX
t
O 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
833 9,167 10,000
833 9,167 10,000
O 0 0
O 0 0
0 0 0
666 7,334 8,000
167 1,833 2,000
833 9,167 10,000
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2009 to 2014
PROJECT: New Aid Car for Fire Station 51
LINE ITEM: PROJECT NO. 08 -BG03
DESCRIPTION: Purchase a new aid car based on the relocation of Fire Station 51.
JUSTIFICATION: The Fire Master Plan states that a new aid car is needed at the relocated Fire Station 51 due to
anticipated growth.
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
COMMENT:
This project is on the Fire Impact Fee list and the goal is to start the project by 2014. Full funding is of
$185,000 over 12 years. One twelfth funding is shown in 2014, when the projects will start, with the rest
of funding shown in "Beyond."
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design 0
Land (R/W) 0
Const. Mgmt. 0
Construction 15 170 185
TOTAL EXPENSES 15 170 185
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant 0 0 0
Proposed Grant 0 0 0
Fire Impact Fees 0 0 0
Fire Impact Fees Expected 12 136 148
City Oper. Revenue 3 34 37
TOTAL SOURCES 15 170 185
roc
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2009 to 2014
PROJECT: New Engine for Fire Station 54
LINE ITEM: PROJECT NO. 08 -BG04
DESCRIPTION: Purchase fire engine for Station 54 to replace aerial ladder truck, when it is moved to relocated Station 51.
Moving the ladder truck to relocated Fire Station 51 puts it where it will serve the need and the taller buildings
JUSTIFICATION: located at the Tukwila Urban Center. An engine is needed to replace the ladder truck and will be the response
apparatus at Fire Station 54.
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
COMMENT:
This apparatus is listed on the Fire Impact Fee list and the goal is to start by 2014. The new fire engine is needed
due to expected growth. Full funding is $750,000 over 12 years. One twelfth funding is shown in 2014, when the
projects will start, with the rest of funding shown in "Beyond."
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
EXPENSES
Design 0 0 0
Land(R/W) 0 0 0
Const. Mgmt. 0 0 0
Construction 63 688 750
TOTAL EXPENSES 63 688 750
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant 0 0 0
Proposed Grant 0 0 0
Fire Impact Fees 0 0 0
Fire Impact Fees Expected 50 550 600
City Oper. Revenue 13 138 150
TOTAL SOURCES 63 688 750
XX
PROJECT: Relocate Fire Station 52
LINE ITEM:
DESCRIPTION: Purchase land and relocate Fire Station 52 after evaluation of need based on relocation of Fire Station 51.
JUSTIFICATION:
STATUS:
MAINT. IMPACT:
COMMENT:
FINANCIAL Through Estimated
(in $000's)
EXPENSES
Design
Land (R/W)
Const. Mgmt.
Construction
TOTAL EXPENSES
FUND SOURCES
Awarded Grant
Proposed Grant
Fire Impact Fees
Fire Impact Fees Expected
City Oper. Revenue
TOTAL SOURCES
CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY
2009 to 2014
The Fire Master Plan states that Fire Station 52 may need to be relocated to provide adequate service coverage if
Fire Station 51 is relocated.
This project is on the Fire Impact Fee List and the goal is to start the project by 2014. Full funding is
$3,545,000 over 12 years. One twelfth funding is shown in 2014, when the projects will start, with the
rest of funding shown in "Beyond."
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Entire
System
2013 2014 BEYOND TOTAL
xx
PROJECT NO. 08 -BG05
0 0 0
45 500 545
0 0 0
250 2,750 3,000
295 3,250 3,545
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
236 2,600 2,836
59 650 709
295 3,250 3,545
GIS
Balance by Year
Carryover from 2008
Accumulated Totals
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF TUKWIL.A
TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES
2009 2014 Analysis in 000's
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals i
REVENUES (seeA -1)
General Revenues
Sales Tax 19,595 20,182 20,787 21,411 22,053 22,715 126,744
Property Taxes 12,200 12,688 13,005 13,330 13,664 14,005 78,892
Utility Taxes 4,026 4,185 4,352 4,526 4,708 4,896 26,693
Gambling Taxes 2,100 2,100 2,163 2,228 2,295 2,364 13,249
Contract Agreement SCL 1,900 1,900 1,976 2,055 2,137 2,223 12,191
Charges /Fees for Services 4,998 5,277 5,488 5,708 5,936 6,173 33,580
Transfers In Other Funds 2,305 2,397 2,493 2,593 2,696 2,804 15,288
Intergovernmental Revenue 868 887 922 959 998 1,038 5,672
Other Taxes /Miscellaneous 1,596 1,641 1,707 1,775 1,846 1,920 10,484
Subtotal 49,588 51,257 52,894 54,585 56,332 58,137 322,794
Dedicated Revenues (Capital)
Real Estate Taxes 1,000 1,000 1,040 1,040 1,080 1,080 6,240
Motor Vehicle Taxes 450 450 455 460 470 475 2,760
Investment Interest/Misc. 565 565 600 600 635 635 3,600
Property Taxes 130 130 130 130 130 130 780
Parking Taxes 140 140 140 140 140 140 840
Transfers from Golf Course 0 0 150 150 175 175 650
Subtotal 2,285 2,285 2,515 2,520 2,630 2,635 14,870
TOTAL REVENUE AVAILABLE 51,873 53,542 55,409 57,105 58,962 60,772 337,664
EXPENDITURES
Operations Maintenance: 46,427 47,981 49,900 51,896 53,972 56,131 306,308
(See Attachment B)
Debt Service 2,108 2,161 2,383 3,020 3,522 3,510 16,704
Admin /Engineering Overhead 1,125 1,170 1,785 1,856 1,930 2,007 9,873
Subtotal Available 2,213 2,230 1,341 333 (462) (876) 4,780
Capital Attachment C
Neighborhood Revitalization
Residential Streets 250 400 100 100 100 100 1,050
Parks Trails /ESA 1,809 528 212 132 207 257 3,145
Economic Development
Bridges 210 145 145 305 225 370 1,400
Commercial Streets 5,559 8,722 2,171 2,055 4,235 4,785 27,527
General Government
General Improvements 1,121 600 600 600 600 600 4,121
Facilities (3,935) 140 0 0 0 0 (3,795)
Fire Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 242 242
Subtotal Capital 5,014 10,535 3,228 3,192 5,367 6,354 33,690
(2,801) (8,305) (1,887) (2,859) (5,829) (7,230) (28,910)
32,898 0 0 0 0 0 32,898
30,097 21,792 19,905 17,046 11,217 3,988
VII
iirzorzooa
Notes:
ATTACHMENT B
City of Tukwila
General Fund Operations Maintenance Expenditures
2009 2014 Analysis in 000's
EXPENDITURES 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Totals
City Council 282 298 310 322 335 349 1,896
Mayor, Boards 2,646 2,678 2,785 2,897 3,012 3,133 17,151
Administrative Services 606 605 629 654 681 708 3,883
Finance 1,787 1,837 1,910 1,987 2,066 2,149 11,737
City Attorney 496 496 516 536 558 580 3,182
Recreation 3,545 3,646 3,792 3,944 4,101 4,265 23,293
Parks 1,019 1,053 1,095 1,139 1,184 1,232 6,722
Community Development 2,964 3,189 3,317 3,449 3,587 3,731 20,237
Municipal Court 1,150 1,189 1,237 1,286 1,337 1,391 7,590
Information Technology 1,109 1,146 1,192 1,240 1,289 1,341 7,316
Police 13,472 14,147 14,713 15,301 15,913 16,550 90,097
Fire 10,338 10,603 11,027 11,468 11,927 12,404 67,767
Public Works 4,073 4,219 4,388 4,563 4,746 4,936 26,924
Street Maintenance 2,639 2,744 2,854 2,968 3,087 3,210 17,501
Dept. 20 Miscellaneous 301 131 136 142 147 153 1,011
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 46,427 47,981 49,900 51,896 53,972 56,131 306,308
A 4% increase is anticipated for the years 2009 -2014 due to the expected increases in healthcare,
retirement rates, and general inflationary pressures. Most of the increases will be related to salaries and
benefits. Moderate cost -of- living allowances (COLAS) are projected along with the normal annual step
increases
The Rainy Day contingency and the estimated ending fund balances are not shown here as budgeted
amounts because they are, considered reserves to be used in emergencies
X
11120/2008
ATTACHMENT C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECT COSTS 2009-2014
ATTACHMENT C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECT COSTS 2009 - 2014
ATTACHMENT C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECT COSTS 2009 - 2014
ATTACHMENT C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
GENERAL GOVERNMENT PROJECT COSTS 2009 - 2014
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE CITY OF
TUKWILA FOR THE 2009 -2010 BIENNIUM; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING AN EFJ ECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the preliminary budget of the City of Tukwila for the year 2009 -2010
biennium was submitted to the City Council in a timely manner for their review; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing on the proposed budget was advertised and held on
November 17, 2008;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the document entitled "City of Tukwila 2009-
2010 Budget," incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, in accordance with
RCW 35A.34.120.
Section 2. The totals of the estimated revenues and appropriations for each separate fund
and the aggregate totals are as follows:
FUND
000 General
101 Hotel /Motel Tax
103 City Street
104 Arterial Street
105 Contingency
107 Fire Equipment Cumulative Reserve
207 Limited Tax G.O. Bonds, 1999
208 Limited Tax G.O. Bonds, 2000
209 Limited Tax G.O. Bonds, 2003
210 Limited Tax G.O. Refunding Bonds, 2003
301 Land Acquisition, Recreation Park Develpmt.
302 Facility Replacement
303 General Government Improvements
401 Water
402 Sewer
404 Water /Sewer Revenue Bonds
405 Bond Reserve
411 Foster Golf Course
412 Surface Water
501 Equipment Rental
502 Insurance Fund
503 Insurance LEOFF 1 Fund
611 Firemen's Pension
TOTAL ALL FUNDS COMBINED
EXPENDITURES
$99,497,000
3,597,148
877,000
91,553,000
892,187
767,797
1,886,000
735,000
1,531,000
1,233,000
11,272,000
7,939,000
2,276,000
15,151,301
15,862,365
1,241,435
411,000
5,137,534
11,984,134
10,324,969
13,155,217
2,282,562
1,578,000
$301,184,649
C.\ Documents and Setting \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances Budget 2009- 2010.doc
KF:ksn 11/13/2008
REVENUES
$99,497,000
3,597,148
877,000
93,553,000
892,187
767,797
1,886,000
735,000
1,531,000
1,233,000
11,272,000
7,939,000
2,276,000
15,151,301
15,862,365
1,241,435
411,000
5,137,534
11,984,134
10,324,969
13,155,217
2,282,562
1,578,000
$301,184,649
Page 1 of 2
Section 3. A complete copy of the final budget for 2009 -2010, as adopted, together with a
copy of this adopting ordinance, shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office, and a copy shall
be transmitted by the City Clerk to the Division of Municipal Corporations of the Office of the
State Auditor and to the Association of Washington Cities.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of
this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the
official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force and effect five days
after passage and publication as provided by law
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a
Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
Attachment: City of Tukwila 2009 -2010 Budget
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council.
Published:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Number
C \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Ordinances \Budget 2009- 2010.doc
KFdsn 11/14/2005
Page 2 of 2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE 2009 -2014 FINANCIAL PLANNING
MODEL AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR GENERAL
GOVERNMENT AND THE CITY'S ENTERPRISE FUNDS.
WHEREAS, when used in conjunction with the annual City budget, the Capital
Improvement Program (CII') and the Financial Planning Model for the period 2009 -2014
are resource documents to help plan directions the City will consider for the future; and
WHEREAS, the Financial Planning Model and Cll' are not permanent fixed plans,
but are rather guidelines or tools to help reflect future goals and future resources at the
time annual budgets are being planned; and
WHEREAS, the commitment of funds and resources can only be made through the
annual budget process;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the 2009 -2014 Financial Planning Model
and accompanying Capital Improvement Program, incorporated by this reference as if
fully set forth herein.
Section 2. A copy of the 2009 -2014 Financial Planning Model and accompanying
Capital Improvement Program shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office and is hereby
attached.
Section 3. The assumptions, revenues and expenditures will be reviewed and
updated annually or as necessary by the City Council.
Section 4. The detail of CIP projects will be reflected in the published Financial
Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program 2009 -2014.
PASSED BY THE CTIY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON,
at a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 2008.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
Christy O'Flaherty, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
Office of the City Attorney
DRAFT
Attachment: 2009 -2014 Capital Improvement Program
Joe Duffle, Council President
Filed with the City Clerk:
Passed by the City Council:
Resolution Number:
C \Documents and Settings \All Users Desktop Kelly \MSDATA Resolutions \Financial Planning Model CIP 2004- 2014.doc
SH:ksn 11/13/2008 Page 1 of 1
Finance Safety Committee Minutes November 18, 2008 Pane 2
C. A Resolution Regarding Non Represented Emolovee Wages and Benefits for 2009
Staff presented recommendations for non represented wages and benefits for 2009. In a departure from a
wage increase based on a percentage of the CPI -W, the Mayor is recommending the following
compensation package for the non represented employees for 2009:
A flat rate 4.5% increase to the non represented wages, effective January 1, 2009
Updated benefits schedule
Implementation of a longevity schedule, effective January 1, 2009
Committee members requested the total cost to the City for both the proposed 4.5% increase and the
longevity proposal be provided to full Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Final 2008 Budget Amendment
Each year the Finance Department assesses the actual financial performance of the City compared to the
adopted budget. As part of this annual analysis, staff is proposing an amendment to the 2008 Budget.
The amendment calls for the reallocation of unspent appropriations to budgets with potential deficits.
Budgets increased are: finance, related to unbudgeted claims and judgments of $299,000; and legal,
related to unexpected legal representation, prosecutorial and other expenses of $340,000. UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
E. An Ordinance Adopting the 2009 -2010 Budget and a Resolution Adopting the 2009 -2014 Capital
Improvement Program
Staff indicated the adjustments identified during the Proposed Budget review have been completed and
the ordinance in draft form is attached to the Committee Agenda. After discussion, the Committee was in
favor of forwarding to the COW for discussion. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
F. Eden System License Proposal
Shawn Hunstock indicated that the EDEN Financial Systems application is currently limited to a small
number of users throughout the City. Some departments do not have a single user of EDEN, and a few
departments have only one or two users. The purchase of a site license for EDEN will give departments
the ability to have an unlimited number of users increasing the functionality and usefulness of the
program. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
G. Proposed Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue
Staff has recently indentified an opportunity to possibly refund the 1999 bond issue and save an
estimated $326,048, over the remaining ten years of the bond. The original bond issue was $10,000,000
and approximately $6,260,000 remains outstanding. The potential impact on the proposed 2009 -210
Budget is a savings of $60,557.
This amount represents a decrease in sales taxes that would be needed to pay for debt service, and could
be used in the General Fund or elsewhere. Committee members asked clarifying questions on bond
status, and restrictions associated with the refunding. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
H. S.C.O.R.E. Interlocal Agreement
Due to time constraints, this item was removed from the agenda and will return to Committee on
December 2.
III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Next meeting: Monday, December 2 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3
Committee Chair Approval
Minutes ty MH.
CAS NUMBER 08-155
%Meeting Date Prepared by 1 Mayor's review 1 review
11/24/08 SH /r i
12/01/08 SH I 1 1
AG END 1 THEE Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue.
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
ITEM INFORMATION
1 ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 2008
I TEMNO.
5
C.1"i'I iC(RY Discussion Motion n Resolution n Ordinance n BzdAward 1 1 Public Hearing n Other
AItg Date 11/24/08 Mtg Date 12/01/08 Altg Date illtg Date Altg Date
Mtg Date Altg Date
Si' )NSOR Council IVlayor Adrn Svcs DCD Finance Fire (J Legal P&R n Police I I PI/
Si ON S( )It's
SUNI\IARY
The City has an opportunity to save $60,557.48 on debt service during the 2009 -2010
biennium by refunding the 1999 bond issue. The potential savings over the entire ten
years remaining on the bond issue is $326,048.68.
RI; \'II\X'ED BY COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte n Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm.
DATE: 11/18/08
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Approve refunding plan as submitted
COM\.IPITEE Unanimous approval; forward to Committee of the Whole
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
Fund Source:
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE
1 11/24/08
EXPI ?NDITURIs REQUIRED
MTG. DATE 1 ATTACHMENTS
11/24/08 Informational memorandum dated 11/19/08
Minutes from the Finance and Safety Committee meeting of 11/18/08
12/01/08
AMOUNT BUDGETED
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 19, 2008
Subject: Proposed Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue
To:
As mentioned at the Finance and Safety Committee meeting on November 18,
2008, an opportunity recently came about to refund the 1999 bond issue. Of the
original $10,000,000 issue, $6,260,000 remains outstanding. The bond issue was
used for parking lot improvements and purchase of the 6300 building as well as
the purchase of property at Tukwila Village.
The potential savings for 2009 -2010 is $60,557.48, and for the entire ten years
remaining on the bonds, the possible savings is $326,048.68.
As this is a recently emerging opportunity, and one which needs to be acted
upon before year -end to participate in the cost savings, I do not yet have bond
documents or ordinances /resolutions for Council review. I am hoping to have
drafts available by the end of this week, and if so I will make sure each Council
member receives a copy to review prior to the November 24 Committee of the
Whole meeting.
cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Attachments
Date
SAVINGS
City of Tukwila, Washington
Proposed Refunding of 1999 LTGO Bonds
Insured /BQ Scale
Prior Refunding
Debt Service Debt Service
Savings
Present Value
Annual to 12/01/2008
Savings 3.8058471%
06/01/2009 172,458.75 131,444.38 41,014.37 40,248.47
12/01/2009 172,458.75 181,444.38 8,985.63 32,028 74 8,653.I7
06/01/2010 172,458.75 130,694.38 41,764.37 39,468.08
12/01/2010 662,458.75 675,694.38 13,235.63 28,528.74 12,274.34
06/01/2011 159,718.75 121,156.88 38,561 87 35,093.35
12/01/2011 674,718.75 686,156.88 -11,438 13 27,123.74 10,214 92
06/01/2012 146,200.00 111,269.38 34,930.62 30,612.57
12/01/2012 686,200.00 691.269.38 5,069.38 29,861.24 4,359 75
06/01/2013 131,890.00 101,1 19.38 30,770.62 25,969 07
12/01/2013 701,890.00 701,119.38 770.62 31.54124 638.23
06/01/2014 116.571.25 89,1 19.38 27,451 87 22,310 99
12/01/2014 716,571.25 714,119.38 2,451.87 29.903.74 1.955.50
06/01/2015 100,221.25 76,619.38 23,601.87 18,472.26
12/01/2015 735,221.25 731.619.38 3.601 87 27,203.74 2,766 40
06/01/2016 82,600 00 63,1 10.00 19,490.00 14,689.67
12/01/2016 752,600.00 743,1 10.00 9,490.00 28,980.00 7,019 08
06/01/2017 63,840.00 48,660 00 15,180.00 11,017 90
12/01/2017 768,840.00 753,660 00 15,180.00 30,360 00 10,812.15
06/01/2018 43,747.50 33,678.75 10,068.75 7,037 68
12/01/2018 788,747.50 768,678.75 20,068 75 30, 137.50 13,765.36
06/01/2019 22,515.00 17,325.00 5,190.00 3,493.40
12/01/2019 812,515.00 787,325.00 25,190.00 30,380.00 16,638.80
8,684,442.50 8,358,393.82 326,048.68 326,048 68 266.506.77
Savings Summary
PV of savings from cash flow
Plus: Refunding funds on hand
Net PV Savings
266,506 77
4,419.37
270, 926.14
Nov 14, 2008 3:51 pm Prepared by Seattle Northwest Securities Corp JMW k:\. \Tukwila.TUKWILA- R99LT,R99LT) Page 2
Finance Safety Committee Minutes November 18. 2008 Page 2
C. A Resolution Regarding Non Represented Employee Wages and Benefits for 2009
Staff presented recommendations for non represented wages and benefits for 2009. In a departure from a
wage increase based on a percentage of the CPI -W, the Mayor is recommending the following
compensation package for the non- represented employees for 2009:
A flat rate 4.5% increase to the non represented wages, effective January 1, 2009
Updated benefits schedule
Implementation of a longevity schedule, effective January 1, 2009
Committee members requested the total cost to the City for both the proposed 4.5% increase and the
longevity proposal be provided to full Council. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
D. Final 2008 Budget Amendment
Each year the Finance Department assesses the actual financial performance of the City compared to the
adopted budget. As part of this annual analysis, staff is proposing an amendment to the 2008 Budget.
The amendment calls for the reallocation of unspent appropriations to budgets with potential deficits.
Budgets increased are: finance, related to unbudgeted claims and judgments of $299,000; and legal,
related to unexpected legal representation, prosecutorial and other expenses of $340,000. UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
E. An Ordinance Adopting the 2009 -2010 Budget and a Resolution Adopting the 2009 -2014 Capital
Improvement Program
Staff indicated the adjustments identified during the Proposed Budget review have been completed and
the ordinance in draft form is attached to the Committee Agenda. After discussion, the Committee was in
favor of forwarding to the COW for discussion. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
F. Eden Svstem License Proposal
Shawn Hunstock indicated that the EDEN Financial Systems application is currently limited to a small
number of users throughout the City. Some depai fttients do not have a single user of EDEN, and a few
departments have only one or two users. The purchase of a site license for EDEN will give departments
the ability to have an unlimited number of users increasing the functionality and usefulness of the
program. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR
DISCUSSION.
G. Proposed Refunding of 1999 Bond Issue
Staff has recently indentified an opportunity to possibly refund the 1999 bond issue and save an
estimated $326,048, over the remaining ten years of the bond. The original bond issue was $10,000,000
4
and approximately $6,260,000 remains outstanding. The potential impact on the proposed 2009 -210
Budget is a savings of $60,557.
This amount represents a decrease in sales taxes that would be needed to pay for debt service, and could
be used in the General Fund or elsewhere. Committee members asked clarifying questions on bond
status, and restrictions associated with the refunding. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL,. FORWARD TO
NOVEMBER 24 COW FOR DISCUSSION.
H. S.C.O.R.E. Interlocal Agreement
Due to time constraints, this item was removed from the agenda and will return to Committee on
December 2.
III. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Next meeting: Monday, December 2 5:00 p.m. Conference Room #3
h14Y Committee Chair Approval
Minute y MH.
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER 08-156
ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 11/24/08
AGENDA ITEMTITLE Council Goals for 2009 -10 Budget and CIP.
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Resolution Ottlinanx BidAmid PubicHam,u, Other
MtgDate 11/24/08 MtgDatel a —J -0'3 MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate MtgDate
SPONSOR C ounfii Ma or AdmSus DCD Finarxe Fire Legal P& R U Police PW
SPONSOR'S
SUMMARY
Opportunity for Councilmembers to discuss possible goals for the 2009 -10 budget and
calendar year.
REVIEWED BY Cbw Mtg. CA&P Conte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm.
DATE:
RE COMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR/ADMEN. Council President
COMMITTEE
Fund Source:
Comments:
1 MTG. DATE
MTG. DATE
11/24/08
COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
MietingDate Prepay 1 Mayor's reziew 1 C rez ezv
11/24/08 KAM vU1 .AA IA-
I 'J
1
F&S Cmte
Parks Comm
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
ATTACHMENTS
Informational Draft Goals dated 11/04/08.
Initials ITEM NO.
(_f Transportation Cmte
Planning Comm.
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Working DRAFT City Council Goats
Please turn in ANY goal additions to Kimberly no later than FRIDAY. NOVEMBER 14.
Draft Goals will be discussed at the November 24 COW and passed at the
December 1 Regular meeting.
Only a few Councilmembers submitted ideas and input for this first round of possible goals to
incorporate into the Mayor's 2009 -10 Proposed Budget.
Please submit your suggestions as soon as possible.
As we work through this process, it is important to remember that the Council goals should be:
An objective or desired outcome that is achievable by the Council.
We must have the attributes, energy and time to accomplish a goal (short and long term).
The actions we take as we try to accomplish our goals play a huge role in whether we reach
our goals or not.
Goals should be clearly defined, as well as flexible.
Consider how the goal can be attained through specific actions and examples.
Last Year's Goals (2008)
1. Seek out opportunities for Councilmembers to further their knowledge, experience and
awareness of the different cultures represented within the Tukwila community.
2. Support programs and services that provide a sense of stability, community and unity
throughout Tukwila's residential neighborhoods.
3. Work together in cooperation with nearby cities to address common problems in the Highway
99 corridor and Military Road.
4. Provide legislative support and encouragement to Tukwila residents living in rental
communities through programs that hold owners and /or property managers accountable for
providing safe places to live through the implementation of a rental licensing program.
5. Approve a developer's agreement that benefits the City and facilitates the annexation of
Tukwila South.
6. Support efforts to locate a permanent Neighborhood Resource Center in a visible location on
the Tukwila Village site.
7. Implement a system for tracking progress and resolution of citizen complaints and concerns
that are brought to Council's attention.
8. Identify specific technology needs of the Council and determine the best way to meet those
needs; including but not limited to offsite network connections that support consistent and
reliable communication.
2009 -10 Goal Suaaestions:
Carry over all 2008 Goals to 2009 -10 and adjust the goal regarding technology.
Carry over just Number 1 and Number 2 of the 2008 Goals (listed above).
Carry over 2008 Goals Numbers 5 and 6 regarding Tukwila South and Tukwila Village.
Draft and completion of Council Standard Operating Procedures. Review and update
procedures on a regular basis.
Support implementation of City endorsed programs, such as the Walk Roll Plan, through
policy related decisions not associated with direct program funding.
Ensure a commitment to continue increasing human services funding in relation to the cost of
living.
2009 -10 Working DRAFT Council Goals November 4, 2008 2
Upcoming Meetings Events
NOVEMBER DECEMBER 2008
24th (Monday) 25th (Tuesday) 26th (Wednesday) 27th (Thursday) 28th (Friday) 29th (Saturday)
Community Transportation COPCAB, Highway 99
Affairs Parks Cmte, 6:30 PM Thanksgiving Day Trash Pickup
Cmte, 5:00 PM (CR 45) g g y
5: 00 PM (CR #1) City offices closed City offices closed Day
9:00 10:00 AM
(CR #3) For location
call Donna at
City Council C Court 206 -242 -5556
Executive
ri
Session, t
6 :30 PM
City Council
Committee of
the Whole Mtg.,
7:00 PM
(Council
Chambers)
1st (Monday) 2nd (Tuesday) 3rd (Wednesday) 4th (Thursday) 5th (Friday) 6th (Saturday)
Utilities Cmte, Chamber of Sister City Equity Diversity Human Services
5:00 PM Commerce Cmte, Commission, Providers, Breakfast
(CR 41) Gov't. 5:30 PM 5 :15 PM 11:30 AM with Santa
Community (CR #3 ((CR 43
Communi ty 9:00 to 1 1:00 11i
Affairs Cmte., Center)
Civil Service Tukwila
12 :00 NOON
Commission, (Chamber Community
5:00 PM Office) Center
(CR #3) Court
!r0
City Council Arts
Regular Mtg., Commission, Holiday Tr ee Pancake
7:00 PM 5:00 PM Lighting breakfast and
(Council (Community Celebration holiday
Chambers) Center entertainment.
6:30 to 8:00 PM
Tukwila Community Children can sit
Center on Santa's lap
Finance r (professional
Safety Cmte, Tr as photo available
5:00 PM x for an
(CR #3) =5yi additional fee).
Cost of
Enjoy live holiday breakfast:
music, refreshments, 55.00 at the
lights and the arrival of door (seating is
Santa Claus! Children limited).
can sit on Santa's lap
and have their photo
taken (fee for photo).
Guests are encouraged
to bring a can offood
to benefit the Tukwila
Food Pantry.
For more information
call 206 768 -2822.
3' City Council Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting: 2nd 4th Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
City Council Regular Meeting: 1st 3rd Mon., 7:00 PM, Council Chambers at City Hall.
Community Affairs Parks Committee: 2nd 4th Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3. Agenda items for 11/24/08 meeting:
(A) Impact fee ordinances for Fire and Parks. (B) Contract extension for Commercial Development Solutions
COPCAB (Community Oriented Policing Citizens Adv. Board): 4th Wed., 6:30 PM, Conf Rm #5. Phi Huynh (206 -433- 7175).
Finance Safety Committee: 1st 3rd Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room #3.
Highway 99 Action Committee: 2nd Tues., 7:00 PM, Tukwila Community Center. Contact ChiefDave Haynes at 206 -933 -1812.
Human Services Providers: Quarterly, 11:30 AM, TCC (2008 3/21, 6/20, 9/19, and 12/5). Contact Stacy Hansen at 206 -433 -7181.
Transportation Committee: 2nd 4th Tues., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 41. Agenda items for 11/25/08 meeting: (A) Tukwila Intl.
Blvd. Phase II HI bid award. (B) Tukwila Urban Center Access Project (Klickitat) Supplemental Agreement 42. (C) Turnover of
street improvements by Charter Homes. (D) Walk and Roll Plan ordinance.
Utilities Committee: 1st 3rd Mon., 5:00 PM, Conf. Room 41.
Court Busy Court and/or Jury Calendar (noted to alert employees and citizens of potential parking difficulty).
Tentative Agenda Schedule
MONTH MEETING 1- MEETING 2 MEETING 3 MEETING 4
REGULAR C.O.W. REGULAR C.O.W.
November 3 10 17 24
11th Veterans Day
(City offices closed) See agenda packet
cover sheet for this
27th
Thanksgiving Day week's agenda
offices closed) (November 2008
(Cifi e o the
j i
ff Committee of the
28 Day after Whole Meeting)
Thanksgiving
(City offices closed)
December 1 8 15 22
25th Special Presentation: Special Presentation: Special Presentation
Christmas Day Introduction of new M.A.DD. award for Recycler of the
(City offices closed) employee Officer Matt Ludwig Year
Unfinished Business: Certificates of
29th of the Sound Transit street appreciation to
Fifth Monday vacation ordinance Russell Bradley
month —no Council and Henry Marvin
meeting scheduled Increase fees for Building
and Planning
Interlocal agreement to
provide tourism and
marketing services to the
City of Des Moines
Resolution re non-
represented employees'
wage schedule
Eden System licensing
proposal
Refunding bond issued
1999
Final 2008 budget
amendment
Ordinance adopting the
2009 -2010 budget
Resolution adopting the
2009 -2014 Capital
Improvement Program
Ordinance to amend the
Capital Facilities Element
of the Comp Plan to add
"Fire" to the list of uses
funded, to reference the
Fire and Parks Master
Plans, and to add level
of- service goals for Fire
and Parks services
Ordinance adopting 2008
Fire Master Plan with
inclusion of Mayor's
response specifying
phased implementation;
establishing level -of-
service goals
Impact fees
14:
Ica 7'
ry l� Z of Tukwila Z G Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Q~`
f\ add 2 Finance Department Shawn Hunstock, Director
N
1908
To: Mayor Haggerton
Committee of the Whole
From: Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Date: November 20, 2008
Subject: Bond Refunding Documents
Attached you will find a Preliminary Offering Statement and draft ordinance prepared by
the bond counsel, Foster Pepper, for refunding of the 1999 series bonds. Unfortunately,
these items were not available when the agenda was prepared for Committee of the
Whole on November 24 The ordinance will be in final form for consideration by Council
at the December 1 meeting.
The bonds will be priced on December 1st at market rates in effect on that date. At that
time a final determination will be made regarding the cost savings to the city for future
debt service payments. This information will be presented at the City Council meeting
that night prior to taking action on the bond refunding.
cc: Rhonda Berry, City Administrator
Attachments
Draft Ordinance
Preliminary Offering Statement
DRAFT DATED 11/21/08
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Tukwila, Washington,
relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of
$[6,510,000] par value of Limited Tax General Obligation
Refunding Bonds, 2008, of the City for general City purposes to
provide funds with which to pay the cost of advance refunding a
portion of the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation
Bonds, 1999, and paying the administrative costs of such refunding
and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; fixing the date,
foam, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds;
establishing a bond fund; providing for and authorizing the purchase
of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds
herein authorized and for the use and application of the money
derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an
agreement with U.S. Bank National Association of Seattle,
Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and
redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; providing for
the purchase of bond insurance; and approving the sale and providing
for the delivery of the bonds to Seattle Northwest Securities
Corporation of Seattle, Washington.
Adopted on December 1, 2008
This document prepared by:
Foster Pepper PLLC
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 447 -4400
50952195 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Definitions. 2
Section 2. Debt Capacity 3
Section 3. Authorization of Bonds 3
Section 4. Description of Bonds. 4
Section 5. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. 4
Section 6. Payment of Bonds. 5
Section 7. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds 5
Section 8. Failure to Redeem Bonds 5
Section 9. Pledge of Taxes. 5
Section 10. Form and Execution of Bonds 6
Section 11. Bond Registrar 6
Section 12. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds 7
Section 13. Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax- Exempt Obligations." 7
Section 14. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds 7
Section 15. Bond Fund 8
Section 16. Refunding of Refunded Bonds 8
Section 17. Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds 10
Section 18. City Findings with Respect to Refunding 10
Section 19. Approval of Bond Purchase Contract. 10
Section 20. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final 10
Section 21. Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. 11
Section 22. Bond Insurance 13
Section 23. Severability. 13
Section 24. Effective Date. 14
ii
50952195-1
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Tukwila, Washington,
relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of
$[6,510,000] par value of Limited Tax General Obligation
Refunding Bonds, 2008. of the City for general City purposes to
provide funds with which to pay the cost of advance refunding a
portion of the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation
Bonds, 1999, and paying the administrative costs of such refunding
and the costs of issuance and sale of such bonds; fixing the date,
form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds;
establishing a bond fund; providing for and authorizing the purchase
of certain obligations out of the proceeds of the sale of the bonds
herein authorized and for the use and application of the money
derived from those investments; authorizing the execution of an
agreement with U.S. Bank National Association of Seattle,
Washington, as refunding trustee; providing for the call, payment and
redemption of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; providing for
the purchase of bond insurance; and approving the sale and providing
for the delivery of the bonds to Seattle Northwest Securities
Corporation of Seattle, Washington.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1884 (the "Refunded Bond Ordinance the City
of Tukwila, Washington (the "City issued and sold its $10,000,000 par value Limited Tax
General Obligation Bonds, 1999 (the "1999 Bonds for the purpose of providing funds with which
to pay and redeem the City's outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Anticipation Note.
1998 (City Hall), and to pay a part of the cost of acquiring property for and constructing a City
office and resource facility, parking area and other developments in connection with the Tukwila
Village Program, and by that ordinance reserved the right to redeem the 1999 Bonds maturing on
or after December 1, 2010, prior to their maturity at any time on or after December 1, 2009, at a
price of par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for redemption; and
WHEREAS, there are presently outstanding $6,260,000 par value of 1999 Bonds
maturing on December 1 of each of the years 2010 through 2016 (inclusive), and 2019. and
bearing various interest rates from 5.20% to 5.70% (the "Refunded Bonds and
WHEREAS, after due consideration, it appears to the City Council that the Refunded
Bonds may be refunded by the issuance and sale of the limited tax general obligation refunding
bonds authorized herein (the "Bonds so that a substantial savings will be effected by the
difference between the principal and interest cost over the life of the Bonds and the principal and
interest cost over the life of the Refunded Bonds but for such refunding, which refunding will be
effected by carrying out the Refunding Plan, as defined below; and
1
;09 1
WHEREAS, to effect that refunding in the manner that will be most advantageous to the
City, it is found necessary and advisable that certain Acquired Obligations (defined below)
bearing interest and maturing at such time or times as necessary to accomplish the refunding as
aforesaid be purchased out of a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interests of the City to issue and
sell the Bonds to pay part of the cost of advance refunding the Refunded Bonds and to pay the
administrative costs of such refunding and the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, Seattle Northwest Securities Corporation has offered to purchase the Bonds
authorized herein under the terrus and conditions set forth in this ordinance in the form of a bond
purchase contract; and
r i t
[WHEREAS, has made a commitment to issue an
insurance policy (the "Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy insuring the payment when due of
the principal of and interest on the Bonds as provided therein. and the City Council deems that
the purchase of the Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy is in the best interest of the City;]
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of the City of Tukwila,
Washington, do ordain as follows:
Section 1. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the
following meanings:
"Acquired Obligations" means those United States Treasury Certificates of Indebtedness..
Notes, and Bonds -State and Local Government Series and other direct, noncallable obligations
of the United States of America purchased to accomplish the refunding of the Refunded Bonds
as authorized by this ordinance.
"Bond Fund" means the Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bond Fund, 2008,
created by this ordinance for the payment of the Bonds.
["Bond Insurer" means
"Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Bond Registrar
containing the name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount
and number of Bonds held by each owner.
"Bond Registrar" means the Fiscal Agent.
"Bonds" means the $[6,510,000] par value Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding
Bonds, 2008, of the City issued pursuant to and for the purposes provided in this ordinance.
"City" means the City of Tukwila, Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Washington.
"Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and
applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
"DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York.
2
?0952195 1
"Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy" means the financial guaranty insurance policy
issued by Ambac Assurance insuring the pay7ment when due of the principal of and interest on
the Bonds as provided therein.
"Fiscal Agent" means the fiscal agent of the State of Washington, as the same may be
designated by the State from time to time.
"Letter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated
October 18, 1999, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time.
"Refunded Bonds" means all of the outstanding Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds,
1999, of the City maturing in the years 2010 through 2016, inclusive, and in 2019, issued
pursuant to Ordinance No. 1884, the refunding of which has been provided for by this ordinance.
"Refunding Plan" means:
(i) the deposit of a sufficient amount of the proceeds of the Bonds
with the Refunding Trustee for the purchase of the Acquired Obligations;
(ii) the payment of the interest on the Refunded Bonds when due up to
and including December 1, 2009, and the call, payment, and redemption on
December 1, 2009, of all of the outstanding Refunded Bonds at a price of par; and
(iii) the payment of the costs of issuing the Bonds and the costs of
carrying out the foregoing elements of the Refunding Plan.
"Refunding Trust Agreement" means a Refunding Trust Agreement between the City and
the Refunding Trustee substantially in the form of that which is on file with the City Clerk and by
this reference incorporated herein.
"Refunding Trustee" means U.S. Bank National Association of Seattle, Washington,
serving as trustee or escrow agent or any successor trustee or escrow agent.
Section 2. Debt Capacity. The assessed valuation of the taxable property within the
City as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for City purposes for the calendar year 2008
is $4,437,340,786, and the City has outstanding generat_indebtedness evidenced by limited tax
general obligation bonds in the principal amount of K20,843,000] incurred within the limit of up
to 1' /2% of the value of the taxable property within'the City pe'niitted for general municipal
purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein, no outstanding unlimited tax general
obligation bonds issued pursuant to a vote of the qualified voters of the City, and the amount of
indebtedness for which bonds are authorized herein to be issued is $[6,510,000].
Section 3. Authorization of Bonds. The City shall borrow money on the credit of
the City and issue negotiable limited tax general obligation bonds evidencing that indebtedness
in the amount of $[6,510,000] for general City purposes to provide the funds to advance refund
the Refunded Bonds by carrying out the Refunding Plan. The general indebtedness to be
incurred shall be within the limit of up to 1 V2% of the value of the taxable property within the
City permitted for general municipal purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein.
3
509521951
Section 4. Description of Bonds. The Bonds shall be called Limited Tax General
Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2008. The Bonds shall be dated the date of their initial delivery;
shall be in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a single maturity;
shall be numbered separately in the manner and with any additional designation as the Bond
Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification; shall bear interest (computed on the
basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months) payable semiannually on each June 1 and
December 1, commencing June 1, 2009 to the maturity or earlier redemption of the Bonds; and
shall mature on December 1 in years and amounts and bear interest at the rates per annum as
follows:
Maturity Interest Maturity Interest
Years Amounts Rates Years Amounts Rates
2009 2015
2010 2016
2011 2017
2012 2018
2013 2019
2014
Section 5. Registration and Transfer of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued only in
registered faun as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records
maintained by the Bond Registrar (the "Bond Register"). The Bond Register shall contain the
name and mailing address of the owner of each Bond and the principal amount and number of
each of the Bonds held by each owner.
Bonds surrendered to the Bond Registrar may be exchanged for Bonds in any authorized
denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity.
Bonds may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to
the Bond Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the owner or transferee.
The Bond Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer any Bond during the 15 days
preceding any principal payment or redemption date.
The Bonds initially shall be registered in the name of Cede Co., as the nominee of
DTC. The Bonds so registered shall be held in fully immobilized form by DTC as depository in
accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations. Neither the City nor the Bond
Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to DTC participants or the persons for whom
they act as nominees with respect to the Bonds regarding accuracy of any records maintained by
DTC or DTC participants of any amount in respect of principal of or interest on the Bonds, or
any notice which is permitted or required to be given to registered owners hereunder (except
such notice as is required to be given by the Bond Registrar to DTC).
For as long as any Bonds are held in fully immobilized form, DTC, its nominee or its
successor depository shall be deemed to be the registered owner for all purposes hereunder and
all references to registered owners, bondowners, bondholders or the like shall mean DTC or its
nominee and shall not mean the owners of any beneficial interests in the Bonds. Registered
ownership of such Bonds, or any portions thereof, may not thereafter be transferred except: (i) to
any successor of DTC or its nominee, if that successor shall be qualified under any applicable
4
laws to provide the services proposed to be provided by it; (ii) to any substitute depository
appointed by the City or such substitute depository's successor; or (iii) to any person if the
Bonds are no longer held in immobilized form.
Upon the resignation of DTC or its successor (or any substitute depository or its
successor) from its functions as depository, or a determination by the City that it no longer
wishes to continue the system of book entry transfers through DTC or its successor (or any
substitute depository or its successor), the City may appoint a substitute depository. Any such
substitute depository shall be qualified under any applicable laws to provide the services
proposed to be provided by it.
If (i) DTC or its successor (or substitute depository or its successor) resigns from its
functions as depository, and no substitute depository can be obtained, or (ii) the City determines
that the Bonds are to be in certificated form, the ownership of Bonds may be transferred to any
person as provided herein and the Bonds no longer shall be held in fully immobilized form.
Section 6. Payment of Bonds. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be
payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Bonds shall be paid by
checks or drafts of the Bond Registrar mailed on the interest parment date to the registered
owners at the addresses appearing on the Bond Register on the 15` day of the month preceding
the interest payment date or, if requested in writing by a registered owner of $1,000,000 or more
in principal amount of Bonds prior to the applicable record date, by wire transfer on the interest
payment date. Principal of the Bonds shall be payable upon presentation and surrender of the
Bonds by the registered owners to the Bond Registrar. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for as
long as the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, payment of principal of and
interest on the Bonds shall be made in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations.
Section 7. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. The
Bonds shall be issued without the right or option of the City to redeem the Bonds prior to their
stated maturity dates.
The City reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open
market at any time at any price plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. All Bonds
purchased under this section shall be cancelled.
Section 8. Failure to Redeem Bonds. If any Bond is not redeemed when properly
presented at its maturity, the City shall be obligated to pay interest on that Bond at the same rate
provided in the Bond from and after its maturity until that Bond, both principal and interest, is
paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund and
the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the Registered Owner of
each of those unpaid Bonds.
Section 9. Pledge of Taxes. For as long as any of the Bonds are outstanding. the
City irrevocably pledges to include in its budget and levy taxes annually within the constitutional
and statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City on all of
the taxable property within the City in an amount sufficient, together with other money legally
available and to be used therefor, to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, and
the full faith, credit and resources of the City are pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and
collection of those taxes and the prompt payment of that principal and interest.
5
50952195 1
Section 10. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be printed on good
bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law and shall be
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in
facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or
printed thereon.
Only Bonds bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following forin, manually
signed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the
benefits of this ordinance:
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Tukwila,
Washington, Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds,
2008, described in the Bond Ordinance.
WASHINGTON STATE FISCAL AGENT
Bond Registrar
By
Authorized Signer
The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the
Bonds so authenticated have been duly executed. authenticated and delivered and are entitled to the
benefits of this ordinance.
If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Bonds ceases to be an officer of
the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bonds bearing his or her facsimile signature are
authenticated or delivered by the Bond Registrar or issued by the City, those Bonds nevertheless
may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall
be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City
authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person
who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds,
although he or she did not hold the required office on the date of issuance of the Bonds.
Section 11. Bond Registrar. The Bond Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at its
principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds,
which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Bond Registrar is authorized, on
behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with
the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds
and to carry out all of the Bond Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and City
Ordinance No. 1338 establishing a system of registration for the City's bonds and obligations.
The Bond Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Bond
Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Bonds. The Bond Registrar may become the
owner of Bonds with the same rights it would have if it were not the Bond Registrar and. to the
extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to
act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the
rights of Bond owners.
6
50953195 I
Section 12. Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Bonds. The City
covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Bonds from being
included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor
make or permit any use of proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of
the Bonds at any time during the term of the Bonds which will cause interest on the Bonds to be
included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City also covenants that it will, to
the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Code is applicable to the Bonds,
take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement
in connection with the Bonds, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the
City has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of
any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Bonds
from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Section 13. Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations." The
City has determined and certifies that (a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" within the
meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (b) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax exempt
obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in
such calculation) which the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that
the City controls, that derives its authority. to issue tax- exempt obligations from the City. or that
issues tax exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which
the Bonds are issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (c) the amount of tax exempt obligations,
including the Bonds, designated by the City as "qualified tax exempt obligations" for the
purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Bonds are
issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The City designates the Bonds as "qualified tax exempt
obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
Section 14. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding
bonds pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington or use money available from any other
lawful source to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Bonds, or any portion thereof
included in a refunding or defeasance plan, and to redeem and retire, refund or defease all such
then outstanding Bonds (hereinafter collectively called the "defeased Bonds and to pay the
costs of the refunding or defeasance. If money and/or direct obligations of the United States of
America maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts (together with money, if
necessary) sufficient to redeem and retire, refund or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance
with their terms are set aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that
redemption, retirement or defeasance of defeased Bonds (hereinafter called the "trust account
then all right and interest of the owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance
and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and
become void. The owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the
principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds from the trust account. The City shall include in
the refunding or defeasance plan such provisions as the City deems necessary for the random
selection of any defeased Bonds that constitute less than all of a particular maturity of the Bonds,
for notice of the defeasance to be given to the owners of the defeased Bonds and to such other
persons as the City shall determine, and for any required replacement of Bond certificates for
defeased Bonds. The defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding, and the City may
apply any money in any other fund or account established for the payment or redemption of the
defeased Bonds to any lawful purposes as it shall determine.
7
Sov >,�es i
If the Bonds are registered in the name of DTC or its nominee, notice of any defeasance
of Bonds shall be given to DTC in the manner prescribed in the Letter of Representations for
notices of redemption of Bonds.
Notwithstanding anything in this section to the contrary, if the principal of and/or interest
due on the Bonds is paid by the Bond Insurer pursuant to the Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy,
the Bonds shall remain outstanding for all purposes, not be defeased or otherwise satisfied and not
be considered paid by the City, and all covenants, agreements and other obligations of the City to
the registered owners of the Bonds shall continue to exist and run to the benefit of the bond Insurer,
and the Bond Insurer shall be subrogated to the rights of the registered owners.
Section 15. Bond Fund. The Bond Fund is created and established in the office of the
City Finance Director as a special fund designated the Limited Tax General Obligation Bond
Fund, 2008 (the "Bond Fund for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Bonds.
Accrued interest on the Bonds, if any, received from the sale and delivery of those Bonds shall
be paid into the Fund. All taxes collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and
interest on the Bonds shall be deposited in the Bond Fund.
Section 16. Refunding of Refunded Bonds.
A. Appointment of Refunding Trustee. U.S. Bank National Association of Seattle.
Washington, is appointed Refunding Trustee.
B. Use of Bond Proceeds; Acquisition of Acquired Obligations. All of the proceeds
of the sale of the Bonds, exclusive of the accrued interest thereon (if any) which shall be paid
into the Bond Fund, shall be deposited immediately upon the receipt thereof with the Refunding
Trustee and used to discharge the obligations of the City relating to the Refunded Bonds under
Ordinance No. 1884 by providing for the payment of the amounts required to be paid by the
Refunding Plan. To the extent practicable, such obligations shall be discharged fully by the
Refunding Trustee's simultaneous purchase of the Acquired Obligations, bearing such interest
and maturing as to principal and interest in such amounts and at such times so as to provide,
together with a beginning cash balance, if necessary, for the payment of the amount required to
be paid by the Refunding Plan. The Acquired Obligations are listed and more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached to the Refunding Trust Agreement between the City and the
Refunding Trustee, but are subject to substitution as set forth below. Any Bond proceeds or
other money deposited with the Refunding Trustee not needed to purchase the Acquired
Obligations and provide a beginning cash balance, if any, and pay the costs of issuance of the
Bonds shall be returned to the City at the time of delivery of the Bonds to the initial purchaser
thereof and deposited in the Bond Fund to pay interest on the Bonds on the first interest payment
date.
C. Substitution of Acquired Obligations. Prior to the purchase of any Acquired
Obligations by the Refunding Trustee, the City reserves the right to substitute other direct,
noncallable obligations of the United States of America ("Substitute Obligations for any of the
Acquired Obligations and to use any savings created thereby for any lawful City purpose if,
(a) in the opinion of Foster Pepper PLLC, the City's bond counsel, the interest on the Bonds and
the Refunded Bonds will remain excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes
under Sections 103, 148, and 149(d) of the Code, and (b) such substitution shall not impair the
8
50952195 I
timely payment of the amounts required to be paid by the Refunding Plan, as verified by a
nationally recognized independent certified public accounting firm.
After the purchase of the Acquired Obligations by the Refunding Trustee, the City
reserves the right to substitute therefor cash or Substitute Obligations subject to the conditions
that such money or securities held by the Refunding Trustee shall be sufficient to carry out the
Refunding Plan, that such substitution will not cause the Bonds and the Refunded Bonds to be
arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and regulations thereunder in
effect on the date of such substitution and applicable to obligations issued on the issue date of the
Bonds, and that the City obtain, at its expense: (i) a verification by a nationally recognized
independent certified public accounting firm acceptable to the Refunding Trustee confinuing that
the payments of principal of and interest on the substitute securities, if paid when due, and any
other money held by the Refunding Trustee will be sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan;
and (ii) an opinion from Foster Pepper PLLC, bond counsel to the City, its successor, or other
nationally recognized bond counsel to the City, to the effect that the disposition and substitution
or purchase of such securities, under the statutes, rules, and regulations then in force and
applicable to the Bonds, will not cause the interest on the Bonds or the Refunded Bonds to be
included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and that such disposition and
substitution or purchase is in compliance with the statutes and regulations applicable to the
Bonds. Any surplus money resulting from the sale, transfer, other disposition, or redemption of
the Acquired Obligations and the substitutions therefor shall be released from the trust estate and
transferred to the City to be used for any lawful City purpose.
D. Administration of Refunding Plan. The Refunding Trustee is authorized and
directed to purchase the Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and to make the
payments required to be made by the Refunding Plan from the Acquired Obligations (or
substitute obligations) and money deposited with the Refunding Trustee pursuant to this
ordinance. All Acquired Obligations (or substitute obligations) and the money deposited with
the Refunding Trustee and any income therefrom shall be held irrevocably, invested and applied
in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 1884, this ordinance, chapter 39.53 RC■
and other applicable statutes of the State of Washington and the Refunding Trust Agreement.
All necessary and proper fees, compensation, and expenses of the Refunding Trustee for the
Bonds and all other costs incidental to the setting up of the escrow to accomplish the refunding
of the Refunded Bonds and costs related to the issuance and delivery of the Bonds, including
bond printing, verification fees, bond insurance premium, bond counsel's fees, and other related
expenses, shall be paid out of the proceeds of the Bonds.
E. Authorization for Refunding Trust Agreement. To carry out the Refunding Plan
provided for by this ordinance, the Mayor or the Finance Director of the City is authorized and
directed to execute and deliver to the Refunding Trustee a Refunding Trust Agreement
substantially in the form on file with the City Clerk and by this reference made a part hereof
setting forth the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the Refunding Trustee in connection
with the payment, redemption, and retirement of the Refunded Bonds as provided herein and
stating that the provisions for payment of the fees, compensation, and expenses of such
Refunding Trustee set forth therein are satisfactory to it. Prior to executing the Refunding Trust
Agreement, the Mayor or Finance Director of the City is authorized to make such changes
therein that do not change the substance and purpose thereof or that assure that the escrow
provided therein and the Bonds are in compliance with the requirements of federal law governing
the exclusion of interest on the Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
9
50952195 1
Section .17. Call for Redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The City calls for
redemption on December 1, 2009, all of the outstanding Refunded Bonds at a price of par plus
accrued interest. Such call for redemption shall be irrevocable after the delivery of the Bonds to
the initial purchaser thereof. The date on which the Refunded Bonds are herein called for
redemption is the first date on which those bonds may be called. The proper City officials are
authorized and directed to give or cause to be given such notices as required, at the times and in
the manner required, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1884 in order to effect the redemption prior to
their maturity of the Refunded Bonds.
Section 18. City Findings with Respect to Refunding. The City Council of the City
finds and determines that the issuance and sale of the Bonds at this time will effect a savings to
the City and is in the best interest of the City and its taxpayers and in the public interest. In
making such finding and deteiniination, the City Council has given consideration to the fixed
maturities of the Bonds and the Refunded Bonds, the costs of issuance of the Bonds and the
known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Bonds
and other money of the City, if any, used in the Refunding Plan pending payment and
redemption of the Refunded Bonds.
The City Council further finds and determines that the money to be deposited with the
Refunding Trustee for the Refunded Bonds in accordance with Section 16 of this ordinance will
discharge and satisfy the obligations of the City under Ordinance No. 1884 with respect to the
Refunded Bonds, and the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants, and agreements of the City therein
made or provided for as to the Refunded Bonds, and that the Refunded Bonds shall no longer be
deemed to be outstanding under such ordinance immediately upon the deposit of such money
with the Refunding Trustee.
Section 19. Approval of \ond Purchase Contract2 Seattle Northwest Securities
Corporation of Seattle, Washington, leas presented a pureliiase contract (the "Bond Purchase
Contract to the City offering to purchase the Bonds under the terms and conditions provided in
the Bond Purchase Contract, which written Bond Purchase Contract is on file with the City Clerk
and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council finds that the purchase price
offered is acceptable to the City and that entering into the Bond Purchase Contract is in the
City's best interest. The City therefore approves the Bond Purchase Contract, accepts the offer
contained therein, and authorizes its execution by City officials.
The Bonds will be printed at City expense and will be delivered to the purchaser in
accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, with the approving legal opinion of Foster Pepper
PLLC, municipal bond counsel of Seattle, Washington, regarding the Bonds.
The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the i ce
prompt delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser and for the proper application and use of the f l\
proceeds of the sale thereof. All prior actions taken by the City consistent with the provisions of
this ordinance are ratified, confirmed and approved.
Section 20. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The CitY Council has
been provided with copies of a preliminary official statement dated November 2098 (the
"Preliminary Official Statement prepared in connection with the sale of the Bonds and'hereby
ratifies and approves the distribution of that preliminary official statement and the official
statement by the Bond purchaser. For the sole purpose of the Bond purchaser's compliance with
10
50452, 95 1
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') Rule 15c2- 12(b)(1), the City
"deems final" that Preliminary Official Statement as of its date, except for the omission of
information as to offering prices, interest rates, selling compensation, aggregate principal
amount, principal amount per maturity, maturity dates, options of redemption, delivery dates,
ratings and other tennis of the Bonds dependent on such matters.
Section 21. Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. To meet the
requirements of SEC Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5) (the "Rule as applicable to a participating
underwriter for the Bonds, the City makes the following written undertaking (the "Undertaking
for the benefit of holders of the Bonds:
(a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Material
Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a
designated agent:
(i) To each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository
designated by the SEC in accordance with the Rule "NRMSIR and to a state information
depository, if any, established in the State of Washington (the "SID annual financial
information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds
and described in subsection (b) of this section "annual financial information
(ii) To each NRMSIR or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
"MSRB and to the SID, timely notice of the occurrence of any of the following events with
respect to the Bonds, if material:
(1) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(2) non payment related defaults;
(3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial
difficulties;
(4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial
difficulties;
(5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(6) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax exempt status of the
Bonds;
(7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds;
(8) Bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds);
(9) defeasances;
(10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds;
and
(11) rating changes; and
(iii) To each NRMSIR or to the MSRB, and to the SID, timely notice of a
failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or before the date
specified in subsection (b) of this section.
11
50952195 1
(b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual
financial information that the City undertakes to provide in subsection (a) of this section:
(i) Shall consist of annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in
the financial statements) in accordance with applicable generally accepted accounting principles
applicable to governmental units in Washington State, as such principles may be changed from
time to time and in conformity with state law and regulations pertaining to cities, which
statements shall not be audited, except, however, that if and when audited financial statements
are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided; (ii) authorized, issued and
outstanding balance of general obligation debt of the City; (iii) the assessed value of the property
within the City subject to ad valorem taxation; and (iv) ad valorem tax levy rates and amounts
and percentage of taxes collected;
(ii) Shall be provided to each NRMSIR and the SID, not later than the last day
of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending
December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law,
commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, 2008; and
(iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents and may be
incorporated by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the
SID, or, if the document incorporated by reference is a "final official statement" with respect to
other obligations of the City, that has been filed with the MSRB.
(c) Amendment of Undertaking. The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the
primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker,
dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID
or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by the Rule.
Te City will give notice to each NRMSIR or the MSRB, and the SID, of the substance (or
provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for
the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be
provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will
include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be
provided.
(d) Beneficiaries. The Undertaking evidenced by this section shall inure to the
benefit of the City and any holder of Bonds, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any
rights in any other person.
(e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall
terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under
this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply
with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as
confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other counsel familiar with
federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such
termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID.
(f) Remedy for Failure to Comely with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the
City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due
12
50952195 1
diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated
person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The
sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary,
including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City
or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking.
(g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance
Director of the City (or such other officer of the City who may in the future perform the duties of
that office) or his or her designee is authorized and directed in his or her discretion to take such
further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out the Undertaking of
the City in respect of the Bonds set forth in this section and in accordance with the Rule,
including, without limitation, the following actions:
(i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be
provided;
(ii) Determining whether any event specified in subsection a has occurred,
assessing its materiality with respect to the Bonds, and, if material, preparing and disseminating
notice of its occurrence;
(iii) Deteiniining whether any person other than the City is an "obligated
person" within the meaning of the Rule with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such
person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of material events
for that person in accordance with the Rule;
(iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants,
including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in
carrying out the Undertaking; and
(v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking.
(h) Centralized Dissemination Agent. To the extent authorized by the SEC, the City
may satisfy the Undertaking by transmitting the required filings using
http: //www.disclosureusa.org (or such other centralized dissemination agent as may be approved
by the SEC).
Section 22. Bond Insurance[. The City is authorized to purchase from the Bond
Insurer the Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy insuring the prompt payment of the principal of
and interest on the Bonds and agrees to the conditions for obtaining that policy, including the
payment of the premium therefor. Any notice required to be given to the Bond Insurer shall be
sent by certified or registered mail to .1
[INSERT APPROPRIATE INSURANCE LANGUAGE WHEN AVAILABLE]
Section 23. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or
phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional for any reason by a court to competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of
this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation.
13
5952195 1
Section 24. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published
in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in force five days following its
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at
a regular open public meeting thereof, this first day of December, 2008.
Mayor
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
City Clerk
AP ROVVD S TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
14
50952195.1
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Tukwila, Washington (the "City"), hereby
certify as follows:
1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance is a full, true and correct
copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting thereof on December 1, 2008, as that
ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; and the Ordinance will be in full force and
effect five days after publication in the City's official newspaper as provided by law; and
2. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting
and a majority of those members present voted in the proper manner for the passage of the
Ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of December,
2008.
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
City Clerk
50952 195 1
PRFI_l \.ITNARY OFFTCIAI. STATEMENT DATE} 200S
$6,510,000*
City of Tukwila, Washington
Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds 2008
L
3 c DATED: Date of Initial Delivery DUE: December 1, as shown below
Y v.
MOODY'S RATING Applied for; see "Ratings" herein.
BANK QUALIFIED —The City of Tukwila, Washington (the "City has designated the Bonds as "qualified tax- exempt
obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3)(B) of the Code relating to the deductibility of interest expense by
certain financial institutions. See "Tax Exemption" herein for a discussion of this designation.
BOOK -ENTRY ONLY —The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds in denominations of $5,000, or integral multiples
thereof, and will be registered in the name of Cede Co., as bond owner and nominee for The Depository Trust
o Company "DTC DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Purchasers will not receive certificates
P representing their interest in the Bonds purchased.
o f
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS— Interest on the Bonds will be payable semiannually on each June 1 and
5
December 1, commencing on June 1, 2009, to maturity or earlier redemption. Principal of and interest on the Bonds will
be payable by the fiscal agency of the State of Washington, currently The Bank of New York Mellon (the "Bond
Registrar as further described herein. For so long as the Bonds remain in a "book -entry only" transfer system, the
fiscal agent will make such payments only to DTC, which in turn is obligated to remit such principal and interest to its
i= Participants for subsequent disbursement to Beneficial Owners of the Bonds as further described herein in
Appendix B— Book -Entry Transfer System.
MATURITY SCHEDULE—
Due Interest Price or Due Interest Price or
Dec.1 Amount* Rate Yield CUSIP Dec.1 Amount* Rate Yield CUSIP
2009 50,000 2015 655,000
2010 545,000 2016 680,000
3 2011 565,000 2017 705,000
a 2012 580,000 2018 735,000
u 2013 600,000 2019 770,000
2014 625,000
NO OPTIONAL REDEMPTION —The Bonds are not subject to optional redemption prior to their stated maturities.
v J
SECURITY —The Bonds are limited tax genera] obligations of the City. The City has covenanted and agreed irrevocably that
L-..- :1) it will include in its annual budget and levy taxes annually, within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations
provided by law without a vote of the electors of the Cihj, upon all the taxable property in the City in amounts sufficient,
together with all other money legally available and to be used therefor, to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds
when due. The full faith, credit and resources of the City have been pledged irrevocably for the annual levy and
collection of such taxes and the prompt payment of such principal and interest. The City's ability to raise taxes is subject
to certain limitations as described herein. The Bonds do not constitute a debt or indebtedness of the State of
Washington, or any political subdivision thereof other than the City.
TAX EXEMPTION In the opinion of Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, Washington "Bond Counsel under existing federal law and
assuming compliance by the Cihj with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code that
g must be satisfied subsequent to the issue date of the Bonds, interest on the Bonds is excluded from Qross income for federal income
tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals. However,
while interest on the Bonds also is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to
corporations, interest on the Bonds received by corporations is taken into account in the computation of adjusted current earnings
_for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, interest on the Bonds received by certain S corporations may
E r be subject to tax, and interest on the Bonds received by foreign corporations with United States branches may be subject to a foreign
branch profits tax. Receipt of interest on the Bonds may have other federal tax consequences for certain taxpayers. See the captions
"Tax Exemption" and "Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences."
DELIVERY The Bonds are offered for sale to the original purchaser subject to the final approving legal opinion of Bond
t Counsel. It is expected that the Bonds will be available for delivery to the Bond Registrar on behalf of DTC by Fast
Automated Securities Transfer, on or about December 16, 2008.
Preliminary, subject to change.
This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not n summary of the issue. Investors must read the entire Official Statement to
obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision.
III
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Phone: (206) 433 -1800
Fax: (206) 433 -1833
www.ci.tukwila.wa.us
Mayor and City Council
Jim Haggerton, Mayor December 31, 2011
Joe Duffie, Council President December 31, 2009
Verna Griffin, Councilmember December 31, 2009
Joan Hernandez, Councilmember December 31, 2011
Kathy Hougardy, Councilmember December 31, 2011
Pam Linder, Councilmember December 31, 2009
De'Sean Quinn, Councilmember December 31, 2009
Dennis Robertson, Councilmember December 31, 2011
Certain Appointed Officials
Rhonda Berry City Administrator
Shawn Hunstock Finance Director
Viki Jessop Administrative Services Director
Christy O'Flaherty City Clerk
Bond Counsel
Foster Pepper PLLC
Seattle, Washington
(206) 447 -4400
Bond Registrar
The Bank of New York Mellon
New York, New York
1- 800 438 -5473
(1) The City's website is not part of this Official Statement, and investors should not rely on information presented
in the City's website in determining whether to purchase the Bonds. This inactive textual reference to the City's
website is not a hyperlink and does not incorporate the City's website by reference.
This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell the Bonds in any jurisdiction in which or to a person to whom it is
unlawful to make such an offer. No dealer, salesperson or other person has been authorized by the City or the Underwriter to
give any information or to make any representations, other than those contained herein, in connection with the offering of the
Bonds and, if given or made, such information or representations must not be relied upon. The information and expressions of
opinion herein are subject to change without notice, and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor any sale made
hereunder will, under any circumstances, create an implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Cite since the
date hereof.
The Underwriter has provided the following sentence for inclusion in this Official Statement. The Underwriter has reviewed the
information in this Official Statement in accordance with, and as part of, its responsibilihj to investors under the federal
securities laws as applied to the facts and circumstances of this transaction, but the Underwriter does not guarantee the accuracy
or completeness of such information.
This Preliminary Official Statement will be "deemed final" by the Cihj, pursuant to Rule 15c2 -12 promulgated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except for information which is permitted to
be excluded from this Preliminary Official Statement under said Rule 15c2 -12.
In connection with this offering, the Underwriter may over -allot or effect transactions that stabilize or maintain the market price
of the Bonds at levels above those which might otherwise prevail in the open market. Such stabilizing, if commenced, may be
discontinued at any time.
The CUS1P numbers are included on the front cover of this Official Statement for convenience of the holders and potential
holders of the Bonds. No assurance can be given that the CUSIP numbers for the Bonds will remain the same after the date of
issuance and delivenj of the Bonds.
Table of Contents
Page
Description of the Bonds 1
Authorization for Issuance 1
Principal Amount, Date, Interest Rates and Maturities 1
No Optional Redemption 1
Open Market Purchase 1
Bond Registrar and Registration Features 1
Book -Entry Bonds 1
Purpose and Use of Proceeds 2
Purpose
Refunding Procedure 2
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds 3
Verification of Mathematical Calculations 3
Security for the Bonds 3
General 3
Bonded Indebtedness 3
Summary of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Requirements 5
Net Direct and Overlapping Debt 6
Debt Payment Record 6
Future Financings 6
Taxing Authority 7
Authorized Property Tax Levies 7
Regular Property Tax Limitations 7
Overlapping Taxing Districts 9
Assessed Value 9
Tax Collection Procedure 9
2008 Major Property Taxpayers 11
Authorized Investments 11
Local Government Investment Pool 11
Authorized Investments for Bond Proceeds 12
Comparative General Fund Balance Sheet (Years Ending December 31) 14
The City 15
City Administration 15
Labor Relations 15
Pension System 16
Other Post Employment Benefits 17
Basis of Accounting 17
Budgetary Policies 18
Risk Management 18
Auditing of City Finances 19
Demographic Information 19
Initiative and Referendum 22
State Initiatives 22
Tax Exemption 23
Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences 24
Rating 24
Continuing Disclosure 24
Legal and Underwriting 26
Approval of Counsel 26
Litigation 76
Conflicts of Interest 26
Underwriting 26
Concluding Statement 26
Form of Opinion of Bond Counsel Appendix A
Book -Entry Transfer System Appendix B
2007 Audited Financial Statements Appendix C
ii
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
$6,510,000*
City of Tukwila, Washington
Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds, 2008
The City of Tukwila, Washington (the "City a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and
by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "State furnishes this Official Statement in connection
with the offering of $6,510,000* aggregate principal amount of the above referenced bonds (the "Bonds This
Official Statement provides information concerning the City and the Bonds.
Description of the Bonds
Authorization for Issuance
The Bonds are issued pursuant to Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance passed by the City Council (the
"Council on 2008, and under the authority of chapters 35A.40, 39.36, 39.44, 39.46 and 39.53
Revised Code of Washington "RCW The Bonds may be issued without a vote of the electors of the City.
Principal Amount, Date, Interest Rates and Maturities
The Bonds will be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $6,510,000 and will be dated and bear interest
from their date of initial delivery to the Underwriter. The Bonds will mature on the dates and in the principal
amounts and will bear interest (payable semiannually on each June 1 and December 1, commencing June 1,
2009) until the maturity or earlier redemption of the Bonds at the rates set forth on the inside cover of this
Official Statement. Interest on the Bonds will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year consisting of twelve
30 -day months. Principal of and interest on the Bonds will be payable by the fiscal agency of the State of
Washington in New York, New York, currently The Bank of New York Mellon (the "Bond Registrar
No Optional Redemption
The Bonds are not subject to redemption prior to their scheduled maturities.
Open Market Purchase
The City reserves the right and option to purchase any or all of the Bonds in the open market at any time at
any price acceptable to the City. All Bonds so purchased shall be canceled.
Bond Registrar and Registration Features
The Bonds will be issued as fully registered bonds and, when issued, will be registered in the name of Cede
Co. as Bond Owner and as nominee for DTC. DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual
purchases and sales of the Bonds may be made in book -entry form only in minimum denominations of $5,000
within a single maturity and integral multiples thereof. Purchasers "Beneficial Owners will not receive
certificates representing their interest in the Bonds.
Principal of and interest on the Bonds will be payable by the Bond Registrar (or such other fiscal agency or
agencies as the State or the City may from time to time designate). So long as Cede Co. is the registered
owner of the Bonds, principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable by wire transfer by the Bond Registrar
to DTC, which in turn is obligated to remit such principal and interest to its Participants for subsequent
disbursement to the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds, as further described herein in Appendix B.
Book -Entry Bonds
DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. The ownership of one fully registered Bond for each
maturity of the Bonds, as set forth on the cover of this Official Statement, each in the aggregate principal
Preliminary, subject to change.
amount of such maturity, will be registered in the name of Cede Co., as nominee for DTC. See Appendix B
attached hereto for additional information.
Procedure in the Event of Revisions of Book -Entry Transfer System. If DTC resigns as the securities depository and
the City is unable to retain a qualified successor to DTC, or the City has determined that it is in the best
interest of the City not to continue the book -entry system of transfer or that interests of the Beneficial Owners
of the Bonds might be affected adversely if the book -entry system of transfer is continued, the City will
execute, authenticate and deliver at no cost to the Beneficial Owners of the Bonds or their nominees Bonds in
fully registered form, in the denomination of $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a maturity. In the
event the Bonds are transferred by the City to fully registered form, the Bonds may be payable by the Bond
Registrar. Thereafter, the principal of the Bonds will be payable upon due presentment and surrender thereof
at the principal office of the Bond Registrar; interest on the Bonds will be payable by check or draft mailed on
the interest payment date to the owners of the Bonds at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the 15th
day of the month next preceding the interest payment date, and the Bonds will be transferable as provided in
the Ordinance (defined below).
Purpose and Use of Proceeds
Purpose
The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used to (i) refund a portion of the City's outstanding debt to
obtain the benefit of savings in annual and total debt service requirements and (ii) pay costs of issuance of the
Bonds.
Refunding Procedure
If interest rates are favorable, the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds will be used to refund $6,260,000 of the
City's Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 1999 maturing on December 1 in years 2010 through 2016 and
2019 (the "Refunded Bonds The proceeds of the Bonds allocated to the refunding of the Refunded Bonds
will be escrowed to the call date for the Refunded Bonds (December 1, 2009) at which time they will be called
at a price of par plus accrued interest.
From the proceeds of the Bonds, the City will purchase certain direct non callable United States Government
Obligations "Government Obligations These Government Obligations will be deposited in the custody of
U.S. Bank National Association, or such other duly appointed successor(s) "Refunding Trustee The
maturing principal of the Government Obligations, interest earned thereon, and necessary cash balance, if any,
will provide payment of:
(a) Interest on the Refunded Bonds up to and including December 1, 2009;
(b) On December 1, 2009, the redemption price (par) of the Refunded Bonds;
The Government Obligations, interest earned thereon, and necessary cash balance, if any, will irrevocably be
pledged to and held in trust for the benefit of the owners of the Refunded Bonds by the Refunding Trustee,
pursuant to an escrow deposit agreement to be executed by the City and the Refunding Trustee.
Information on the Refunded Bonds is as follows:
Refunded Bonds
Maturity Years Principal Interest CUSIP
(Dec. 1) Amounts Rates Numbers
2010 490,000 5.200% 899052DF8
2011 515,000 5.250 899052DG6
2012 540,000 5.300 899052DH4
2013 570,000 5.375 899052DJ0
2014 600,000 5.450 899052DK7
2015 635,000 5.550 899052DM3
2016 670,000 5.600 899052DN1
2019* 2,240,000 5.700 899052DL5
*Term Bond.
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds
The proceeds from the Bonds will be applied as follows:
Sources of Funds
Par Amount 6,510,000
Net Premium /(Discount)
Total Sources of Funds S
Uses of Funds
Escrow Requirements
Costs of Issuance (2)
Total Uses of Funds S
(1) Preliminary, subject to change.
(2) Includes bond counsel fee, rating fee, [bond insurance premium,] underwriter's discount, and other costs associated
with the issuance of the Bonds.
Verification of Mathematical Calculations
Grant Thornton LLP, a firm of independent public accountants, will deliver on or before the delivery date of
the Bonds, its verification report indicating that it has verified, in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the mathematical accuracy of (a) the
mathematical computations of the adequacy of the cash and the maturing principal of and interest on the
Government Obligations, to pay, when due, the interest on and redemption price of the Refunded Bonds and
(b) the mathematical computations of yield used by Bond Counsel to support its opinion that interest on the
Bonds will be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes.
Security for the Bonds
General
The Bonds are limited tax general obligation bonds of the City. The City, as authorized by law and the
Ordinance, has irrevocably pledged that it will make annual levies of taxes, within the constitutional and
statutory tax limitations provided by law without a vote of the electors of the City, upon all of the property in
the City subject to taxation in amounts sufficient together with other money legally available and to be used
therefore, to pay such principal and interest as the same shall become due. The City's imposition of regular
property taxes is subject to various limitations (see "Taxing Authority Regular Property Tax Limitations"
herein).
Subject to applicable laws, the City may apply other funds available to make payments with respect to the
Bonds and thereby reduce the amount of future tax levies for such purpose.
The Bonds do not constitute a debt or indebtedness of the State or any political subdivision thereof other than
the City.
Bonded Indebtedness
As prescribed by State statutes, the unlimited tax general obligation indebtedness permitted for cities, subject to
a 60 percent majority vote of registered voters, is limited to 2.5 percent of assessed value for general purposes, 2.5
percent for utilities and 2.5 percent for open space /park facilities. Within the 2.5 percent of assessed value for
general purposes, the City may, without a vote of the electors, incur general obligation indebtedness (such as the
Bonds) in an amount not to exceed 1.5 percent of assessed value. Additionally, within the 2.5 percent of
assessed value for general purposes, the City may, also without a vote of the electors, enter into leases if the
total principal component of the lease payments, together with the other nonvoted general obligation
indebtedness of the City, does not exceed 1.5 percent of assessed value. The combination of unlimited tax and
3
limited tax general obligation debt for general purposes, including leases, cannot exceed 2.5 percent of
assessed value and for all purposes cannot exceed 7.5 percent of assessed value.
Without a vote of the electorate, the City may incur debt as follows:
(1) Pursuant to an ordinance specifying the amount and object of the expenditure of the proceeds,
the City Council may borrow money for corporate purposes and issue bonds and notes within
the constitutional and statutory limitations on indebtedness.
(2) The City may execute conditional sales contracts for the purchase of real or personal property.
(3) The City may execute leases with or without an option to purchase.
Computation of Debt Capacity
2008 Collection Year Regular Assessed Value 4,437,340,786
Nonvoted Debt Capacity
1.5% of Assessed Value 66,560,111
Less: Outstanding Nonvoted Debt (1) (14,333,000)
Less: The Bonds (2) (6,510,000)
Remaining Nonvoted Debt Capacity 8 45.717.111
Voted and Nonvoted Debt Capacity
2.5% of Assessed Value 110,933,519
Less: Outstanding Nonvoted Debt (1) (14,333,000)
Less: The Bonds (2) (6,510,000)
Less: Outstanding Voted Debt 0
Total Remaining Voted and Nonvoted Debt Capacity S 90.090.519
(1) Includes limited tax general obligation bonds; excludes the Refunded Bonds.
(2) Preliminary, subject to change.
Source: City of Tukwila.
Outstanding Debt
Long Term Borrowing
General Obligations: Non -voted
Date of Date of Amount Amount
Limited Tax General Obligations Issue Maturity Issued Outstanding
LTGO 1999 10/15/99 12/01/09 0) 10,000,000 465,000
LTGO 2000 09/15/00 12/01/15 2,551,600 1,428,000
LTGO 2003A 09/25/03 12/01/23 9,850,000 9,850,000
LTGO 2003T (Taxable) 09/25/03 12/01/09 2,200,000 70,000
LTGO 2003B 11/05/03 12/01/14 4,195,000 2,520,000
The Bonds (this issue) 12/16/08 12/01/19 6.510,000 6,510,000 (3)
LTGO Bond Total 8 35.306.600 8 20.843.000
(1) Valley Communications Center Development Authority issued special obligation bonds on September 15, 2000 in the
total aggregate principal amount of 812,758,000 of which the City is responsible for 20 percent of the debt service.
(2) The Date of Maturity reflects the redemption of the Refunded Bonds. The December 1, 2009 principal payment
remains after this refunding.
(3) Preliminary, subject to change.
4
Summary of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Requirements (1)
Cal. Outstanding LTGO Bonds (2) The Bonds (3) Total Debt
Years Principal Interest Principal Interest Service
2009 1,500,000 638,560 50,000 262,889 2,451,448
2010 1,089,000 570,990 545,000 261,389 2,466,379
2011 1,133,000 524,315 565,000 242,314 2,464,629
2012 1,182,000 475,740 580,000 222,539 2,460,279
2013 1,240,000 425,053 600,000 202,239 2,467,291
2014 1,286,000 367,978 625,000 178,239 2,457,216
2015 858,000 308,320 655,000 153,239 1,974,559
2016 650,000 269,610 680,000 126,220 1,725,830
2017 675,000 242,635 705,000 97,320 1,719,955
2018 705,000 213,948 735,000 67,358 1,721,305
2019 735,000 183,280 770,000 34,650 1,722,930
2020 765,000 150,573 0 0 915,573
2021 800,000 116,148 0 0 916,148
2022 840,000 79,748 0 0 919,748
2023 875,000 40,688 0 0 915,688
Total 14,333,000 4,607,582 6,510,000 1,848,394 27,298,976
(1) Totals may not foot due to rounding.
(2) Principal and interest payments outstanding as of December 16, 2008; excludes the Refunded Bonds.
(3) Preliminary, subject to change; assumed interest rates range from 3.00% to 4.50
5
Summary of Overlapping Debt
(As of December 1, 2008)
Estimated
2008 Assessed Percent Outstanding Overlapping
Overlapping Taxing Districts Value Overlap GO Debt Debt
School District No. 406 2,666,893,369 99.92% 33,335,000 33,307,893
School District No. 401 14,680,786,703 30.31 321,630,799 97,497,189
School District No. 403 16,296,912,864 6.47 212,550,000 13,745,041
Hospital District No. 1 36,870,805,357 4.53 41,270,000 1,867,826
Rural Library District 208,324,650,275 2.14 66,845,000 1,427,947
King County 340,995,439,577 1.31 1,110,099,513 14,487,623
Port of Seattle 340,995,439,577 1.31 378,065,000 4,934,029
School District No. 1 122,454,516,435 0.46 399,626,780 1,848,718
Total S 169.116.266
Source: King County Assessor and Treasurer and individual taxing districts.
Net Direct and Overlapping Debt
The following tables present information regarding the City's direct debt (including the Bonds) and the
estimated portion of the debt of overlapping taxing districts allocated to the City's residents.
Regular Assessed Value (2008 Collection Year) 4,437,340,786
Estimated 2008 Population 18,080
Debt Information
Direct Debt* 20,843,000
Estimated Net Overlapping Debt (as previously detailed herein) 169.116.266
Total Net Direct and Overlapping Debt S 189.959.266
Includes the Bonds and limited tax general obligation bonds; excludes the Refunded Bonds.
Bonded Debt Ratios
Direct Debt to Assessed Value 0.47%
Direct and Overlapping Debt
to Assessed Value 4.28%
Per Capita Assessed Value 245,428
Per Capita Direct Debt 1,153
Per Capita Total Direct and Net Overlapping Debt S 10,507
Debt Payment Record
The City has promptly met all debt service payments on outstanding obligations. No refunding bonds have
been issued to prevent an impending default.
Future Financings
Other than the Bonds, the City has no authorized but unissued bonds outstanding. The City plans to issue
limited tax general obligation bonds in 2010 in the estimated amount of $2.8 million for arterial road
improvements. In addition, the City is a participant in the South Correctional Entity Facility Development
Authority "SCORE which plans to issue approximately $80 million in limited tax general obligation bonds
to build a jail. SCORE will either issue bonds in 2010 or issue bond anticipation notes in 2010 and subsequent
bonds in 2012. The City will be responsible for eight percent of the debt payment.
6
Taxing Authority
Authorized Property Tax Levies
The following provides a general description of the City's taxing authority and limitations thereon, the method
of determining the assessed value of real and personal property, tax collection procedures, and tax collection
information.
Cities are authorized to impose (1) a regular levy (up to $3.60/$1,000 of assessed value Tess any regular levy
made by a library district and /or a fire protection district within the city) and (2) excess levies (unlimited as to
rate or amount). The City's regular levy for the 2008 collection year is 52.56911/$1,000. The regular levy is
imposed without a vote of the people for general purposes, including payment of debt service on the Bonds,
and is subject to (imitations (see "General Property Taxes Regular Property Tax Limitations" herein). Excess
levies are imposed, upon voter approval, to pay debt service on unlimited tax general obligation bonds, or for
any other City purpose if limited to one year. An excess levy also may be imposed without a vote to prevent
the impairment of a contract (RCW 84.52.052).
Authorized Property Taxes. The City is authorized to levy both "regular" property taxes and "excess" property
taxes.
(1) Regular Property Taxes. Regular property taxes are subject to constitutional and statutory limitations
as to rates and amounts and commonly are imposed by taxing districts for general municipal
purposes, including the payment of debt service on limited tax general obligation indebtedness, such
as the Bonds. Changes in such laws could alter the impact of other interrelated tax limitations on the
City. Regular property taxes do not require voter approval except as described below.
(2) Excess Property Taxes. Excess property taxes are not subject to limitation as to rates or amounts but
must be authorized by a 60 percent approving popular vote, as provided in Article VII, Section 2, of
the State Constitution and RCW 84.52.052. To be valid, such popular vote must have a minimum
voter turnout of 40 percent of the number who voted at the last City general election, except that one
year excess tax levies also are valid if the turnout is less than 40 percent and the measure receives a
number of affirmative votes equal to or greater than 24 percent of the number who voted at the last
City general election. Excess levies may be imposed without a popular vote when necessary to
prevent impairment of the obligations of contracts.
Regular Property Tax Limitations
Regular property tax levies are subject to rate limitations and amount limitations and to the uniformity
requirement of Article VII, Section 1 of the State Constitution, which specifies that a taxing district must levy
the same rate on similarly classified property throughout the district. Aggregate property taxes vary within
the county because of its different overlapping taxing districts. In the event that the maximum permissible
levy varies within the City, the lowest permissible rate for any part of the City would be applied to the entire
City.
Maximum Rate Limitation. Title 84 RCW authorizes the imposition of regular tax levies to various statutory
maximums (see "Overlapping Taxing Districts" herein).
The One Percent Aggregate Regular Levy Limitation. Article VII, Section 2 of the Washington Constitution limits
aggregate regular property tax levies by the State and all taxing districts, except port districts and public utility
districts, to one percent of the true and fair value of property. RCW 84.52.050 provides the same limitation by
statute.
S5.90/$1,000 Aggregate Regular Levy Limitation. Within the one percent limitation described above,
RCW 84.52.043(2) imposes an aggregate limitation on regular tax levies by all taxing districts, other than the
State, of $5.90/$1,000 of assessed v alue, except levies for any port or public utility district; excess levies
authorized in Article VII, Section 2 of the State Constitution; and certain levies for acquiring conservation
futures, for emergency medical services or care, and to finance affordable housing.
Uniformity Requirement. Article VII, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution requires that property taxes be
levied at a uniform rate upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of a taxing district levying
7
such taxes. It is possible because of different overlapping taxing districts in different areas of the City that the
maximum permissible levy might vary within the City. In that event, to comply with the constitutional
requirement for uniformity of taxation, the lowest permissible rate for any part of the City would be applied to
the entire City.
Prioritization of Levies. RCW 84.52.010 provides that if aggregate levies certified by all taxing districts exceed
the aggregate levy limitations described above, levies certified by junior taxing districts are reduced or
eliminated in order to bring the aggregate levy into .compliance with the statutory maximum prescribed by
RCW 04.52.050 and 84.52.043. RCW 84.52.043 defines "junior taxing districts" as all taxing districts other than
the state, counties, road districts, cities, towns, port districts, and public utility districts.
The tax levy for unlimited tax general obligation bonds is a special excess levy approved by the voters, and as
such, is not subject to the limitations on regular levies described above.
The Levy Limitation. The regular property tax increase limitation (chapter 84.55 RCW) limits the total dollar
amount of regular property taxes collected by an individual local taxing district such as the City to the amount
of such taxes levied in the highest of the three most recent years multiplied by a limit factor, plus an
adjustment to account for taxes on new construction, annexations, improvements and State assessed property
at the previous year's rate. The limit factor is the lesser of 101 percent of the highest levy in the three previous
years (excluding new construction, improvements, and State- assessed property) or 100 percent plus inflation,
unless a greater amount is approved by a simple majority of the voters. With a supermajority vote of the
Council, the limit factor is a flat 101 percent.
RCW 84.55.092 allows the property tax levy to be set at the amount that would be allowed if the tax levy for
taxes due in each year since 1986 had been set at the full amount allowed under Chapter 84.55 RCW. This is
sometimes referred to as "banked" levy capacity. The City does not have any banked levy capacity
With a majority vote of its electors, a taxing district may levy, within the rate limitations described above,
more than what otherwise would be allowed by the tax increase limitation indefinitely or for a limited period
or to satisfy a limited purpose, as allowed by RCW 84.55.050. This is known as a "levy lid lift." A newly
created taxing district can initiate its levy at the maximum permitted statutory levy rate, unless that rate would
exceed any of the limitations described above.
Since the regular property tax increase limitation applies to the total dollar amount levied rather than to levy
rates, increases in the assessed value of all property in the taxing district (excluding new construction,
improvements and State assessed property) which exceed the rate of growth in taxes allowed by the limit
factor result in decreased regular tax levy rates, unless voters authorize a higher levy or the taxing district uses
banked levy capacity. Decreases in the assessed value of all property in the taxing district (including new
construction, improvements and State assessed property) or increases in such assessed value that are less than
the rate of growth in taxes imposed, among other events, may result in increased regular tax levy rates.
Special excess levies approved by a 60 percent majority of the voters and meeting minimum voter turnout
requirements are not subject to the rate or amount limitations on regular levies described above.
8
Overlapping Taxing Districts
The overlapping taxing districts within the City have the statutory power to levy regular property taxes at the
following rates subject to the limitations provided by chapter 84.55 RCW, and levy excess voter approved
property taxes. For purposes of demonstration, representative levy rates for "levy code 2340" of King County
(the "County as well as the statutory levy authority of each type of potential overlapping district, are listed
below. Levy code 2340 is wholly within the City, but it does not include all of the property within the City; as
a result, additional taxing districts, not listed below, levy taxes within the City.
Total Representative Total Statutory
Levy Rates Levy Authority
Per $1,000 of Per $1,000 of
Assessed Value Assessed Value
King County 1.20770 $1.80
County (Road Levy) n/a 2.25
Library District 0.41836 0.50
Fire Protection District n/a 1.50
Port of Seattle 0.22359 0.45
The City 2.56911 3.10 (3)(4)
Hospital District No. 1 0.50854 0.75
State Schools 2.13233 3.60 (5)
School District No. 403 2.62654 n/a (b)
Emergency Medical Services 0.30000
Flood Zone 0.10000
Ferry District 0.05500
Total rate for King County levy code 2340: 10.14117
(1) King County levy code 2340 is included within the incorporated portion of King County and therefore does not have a
road levy; likewise, it does not contain a fire protection district.
(2) Pursuant to RCW 84.52.043(1), a county may increase its levy from $1.80 per $1,000 to a rate not to exceed $2.475 per
$1,000 for general county purposes if (i) the total levies for both the county and any road district within the county do
not exceed $4.05 per $1,000 and (ii) no other taxing district has its levy reduced as a result of the increased county levy.
(3) RCW 41.16.060. $0.225 of the total $3.60 can be used for pension funding purposes, if required; otherwise this tax may
be levied and used for any other municipal purpose.
(4) The City's levy authority of $3.60 per $1,000 is impacted due to its annexation to the King County Rural Library
District. The Library District has the authority to levy up to $0.50 per $1,000 thereby reducing the City's levy authority
to $3.10 per $1,000.
(5) RCW 84.52.043(1). The levy by the State shall not exceed $3.60 per $1,000 assessed value adjusted to the State
equalized value in accordance with the indicated ratio fixed by the State Department of Revenue to be used
exclusively for the support of the common schools.
(6) Washington school districts do not have nonvoted regular levy authority.
Source: King County Assessor's Office.
Assessed Value
The County Assessor, or equivalent thereof "Assessor determines the value of all real and personal
property throughout the County that is subject to ad valorem taxation, except certain utility properties which
are valued by the State Department of Revenue. The Assessor is an elected official whose duties and methods
of determining value are prescribed and controlled by statute and by detailed regulations promulgated by the
State Department of Revenue.
For tax purposes, the assessed value of property is 100 percent of its market value. Three approaches may be
used to determine real property value: market data, replacement cost and income generating capacity. In
King County, all property is subject to an annual property valuation and an on -site revaluation every six years.
The property is listed by the Assessor on a roll at its current assessed value and the roll is filed in the
Assessor's office. The Assessor's determinations are subject to revisions by the County Board of Equalization
and, for certain property, subject to further revisions by the State Board of Tax Appeals.
Tax Collection Procedure
Property taxes are levied in specific amounts and the rate for all taxes levied for all taxing districts in the
County is determined, calculated and fixed by the Assessor based upon the assessed value of the property
9
within the various taxing districts. The Assessor extends the taxes to be Levied within each taxing district on a
tax roll that contains the total amount of taxes to be so levied and collected. By January 15 of each year, the tax
roll is delivered to the County Treasurer, or equivalent thereof, who creates a tax account for each taxpayer
and is responsible for the collection of taxes due to each account. All such taxes are due and payable on April
30 of each year, but if the amount due from a taxpayer exceeds $50, one -half may be paid then and the balance
no later than October 31 of that year. Delinquent taxes are subject to interest at the rate of 12 percent per year
computed on a monthly basis from the date of delinquency until paid. In addition, a penalty of three percent
is assessed on June 1st of the year in which the tax was due and eight percent on December 1st of the year due.
Al] collections of interest on delinquent taxes are credited to the County's current expense fund. The method
of giving notice of payment of taxes due, the accounting for the money collected, the division of the taxes
among the various taxing districts, notices of delinquency, and collection procedures are covered by detailed
statutes. The lien on property taxes is prior to all other liens or encumbrances of any kind on real or personal
property subject to taxation. By law the County Treasurer may not commence foreclosure of a tax lien on real
property until three years have passed since the first delinquency. The State's courts have not decided
whether the Homestead Law (chapter 6.13 RCW) may give the occupying homeowner a right to retain the first
$125,000 of proceeds of the forced sale of the family residence or other "homestead" property for delinquent
general property taxes. (See Algona v. Sharp, 30 Wn. App. 837, 638 P.2d 627 (1982), holding the homestead
right superior to the improvement district assessments.) The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Washington has held that the Homestead Exemption applies to the lien for property taxes, while the
State Attorney General has taken the position that it does not.
Tax Collection Record
Regular Tax Collection
Collection Assessed Ad Valorem Ad Valorem Year As of
Year Valuationo Levy Rate Tax Lew of Levy
2008 4,437,340,786 2.56911 11,406,135 (2) (2)
2007 3,931,150,961 2.84033 11,138,233 98.7% 99.5%
2006 3,610,529,967 3.03706 10,952,602 98.8 99.8
2005 3,440,958,505 3.11712 10,669,344 98.7 100.0
2004 3,373,231,785 3.10754 10,430,585 98.6 100.0
2003 3,478,611,208 2.91064 9,975,198 97.9 100.0
(1) Assessed value is based upon 100 percent of estimated actual valuation. The preliminary assessed value for
collection year 2009 is $5,149,272,398.
(2) In process of collection.
NOTE: Taxes are due and payable on April 30 of each year of the levy. The entire tax or first half must be paid on or
before April 30, otherwise the total amount becomes delinquent on May 1. The second half of the tax is payable
on or before October 31, becoming delinquent November 1.
Source: King County Assessor's and Treasurer's Offices.
10
2008 Major Property Taxpayers
Percent of
2008 Collection Year City's
Taxpayer Tvpe of Business Assessed Valuation Total A.V.
The Boeing Company Aerospace S 523,137,982 11.79%
Westfield Shopping Center Shopping center 117,384,365 2.65
KIR Tukwila 050 LLC Commercial properties 96,063,800 2.16
La Pianta LP Commercial properties 85,320,368 1.92
Rreef America Reit II Corp. Commercial properties 63,451,550 1.43
Heitman Commercial properties 57,055,700 1.29
Sterling Realty Organization Commercial properties 35,693,100 0.80
Walton CWWA Southcenter Commercial properties 31,782,500 0.72
TTA /E Property Tax Department Investment property 31,162,700 0.70
Anne Arundel Apartments Apartments 29,944,400 0.67
Subtotal Ten of the City's Largest Taxpayers 1,070,996,465 24.14
All Other City Taxpayers 3,366,344,321 75.86
Total City Taxpayers S 4.437.340.786 100.00%
Sources: King Counhij Assessor's Office.
Authorized Investments
Chapter 35.39 RCW limits the investment by cities and towns of its inactive funds or other funds in excess of
current needs to the following authorized investments: United States bonds; United States certificates of
indebtedness; bonds or warrants of the State and any local government in the State; its own bonds or warrants
of a local improvement district which are within the protection of the local improvement guaranty fund law;
and any other investment authorized by law for any other taxing district or the State Treasurer. Under chapter
43.84 RCW, the State Treasurer may invest in non negotiable certificates of deposit in designated qualified
public depositories; in obligations of the U.S. government, its agencies and wholly owned corporations; in
bankers' acceptances; in commercial paper; in the obligations of the federal home loan bank, federal national
mortgage association and other government corporations subject to statutory provisions and may enter into
repurchase agreements. Utility revenue bonds and warrants of any city and bonds or warrants of a local
improvement district are also eligible investments (RCW 35.39.030).
Money available for investment may be invested on an individual fund basis or may, unless otherwise
restricted by law, be commingled within one common investment portfolio. All income derived from such
investment may be either apportioned to and used by the various participating funds or for the benefit of the
general government in accordance with city ordinances or resolutions. Funds derived from the sale of bonds
or other instruments of indebtedness will be invested or used in such manner as the authorizing ordinances,
resolutions or bond covenants may lawfully prescribe.
Local Government Investment Pool
The State Treasurer's Office administers the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool (the
"LGIP a fund that invests money on behalf of more than 350 cities, counties and special taxing districts. In
its management of LGIP, the State Treasurer is required to adhere, at all times, to the principles appropriate for
the prudent investment of public finds. These are, in priority order, (i) the safety of principal; (ii) the assurance
of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow demands; and (iii) to attain the highest possible yield within the
constraints of the first two goals. Historically, the LGIP has had sufficient liquidity to meet all cash flow
demands.
The LGIP, authorized by chapter 43.250 RCW, is a voluntary pool which provides its participants the
opportunity to benefit from the economies of scale inherent in pooling. It is also intended to offer participants
increased safety of principal and the ability to achieve a higher investment yield than would otherwise be
available to them. The pool is restricted to investments with maturities of one year or less, and the average life
typically is less than 90 days. Investments permitted under the pool's guidelines include U.S. government and
11
agency securities, bankers' acceptances, high quality commercial paper, repurchase and reverse repurchase
agreements, motor vehicle fund warrants, and certificates of deposit issued by qualified Washington State
depositories.
As of December 31, 2007, the City's investment portfolio, at fair value, totaled $32,416,780 of which 520,540,726
was invested in the LGIP and the remaining of which was invested in various U.S. government securities.
Authorized Investments for Bond Proceeds
In addition to the eligible investments discussed above, bond proceeds may also be invested in mutual funds
with portfolios consisting of U.S. government and guaranteed agency securities with average maturities of less
than four years; municipal securities rated in one of the four highest categories; and money market funds
consisting of the same, so long as municipal securities held in the fund(s) are in one of the two highest rating
categories of a nationally recognized rating agency. Bond proceeds may also be invested in shares of money
market funds with portfolios of securities otherwise authorized by law for investment by local governments
(RCW 39.59.030).
12
Comparative General Fund Statement
of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
(Years Ending December 31)
Audited
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Revenues
Taxes 31,660,507 29,250,083 5 26,852,064 28,886,770 27,525,877
Licenses and permits 1,827,709 1,273,228 1,002,683 808,821 785,823
Intergovernmental 2,562,870 2,962,522 2,334,340 1,757,235 1,873,139
Charges for services 2,024,892 2,345,931 2,649,678 2,919,115 1,796,946
Fines and forfeits 266,188 221,097 116,737 147,137 245,585
Investment income 488,252 423,820 250,609 132,078 31,083
Miscellaneous 643,538 420,518 438,264 547,977 442,115
Total Revenues 39,473,956 36,897,199 33,644,375 35,199,133 32,700,568
Expenditures
Current:
General government 7,034,602 6,882,596 6,136,540 5,982,594 5,892,912
Public safety 21,038,810 20,352,873 18,859,476 18,012,473 16,964,726
Physical environment 1,946,806 1,895,390 624,041 661,203 682,922
Transportation 2,039,304 2,086,394 1,442,309 1,151,872 1,013,399
Economic environment 2,961,588 2,819,421 2,632,575 2,826,030 2,769,883
Mental and physical health 4,204 3,683 0 0 0
Culture and recreation 3,938,779 3,689,560 3,274,273 3,089,080 2,879,441
Debt service 0 1,034 0 0 0
Capital outlay 268,479 388,326 215,696 344,606 114,731
Total Expenditures 39,232,572 38,119,300 33,184,910 32,067,858 30,318,014
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over (under) expenditures 241,384 (1,222,101) 459,465 3,131,275 2,382,554
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Transfers in 1,966,349 1,993,581 0 0 1,260,000
Transfers out (397,260) (499,940) (585,000) (900,000) (175,358)
Sale of capital assets 100 (530,869) 0 0 0
Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 1,569,189 962,772 (585,000) (900,000) 1,084,642
Net change in fund balances 1,810,573 (259,329) (125,535) 2,231,275 3,467,196
Fund balance beginning of year 8,706,465 8,965,794 9,091,329 6,860,054 3,392,858
Fund Balance End of Year 10,517,038 8,706,465 S 8,965,794 S 9,091,329 6,860,054
Source: Cihj of Tukwila.
13
Comparative General Fund Balance Sheet
(Years Ending December 31)
Audited
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 5,524,756 217,714 95,273 85,823 203,114
Deposit with fiscal agent /trustee 0 25,351 6,771 9,750 25,295
Investments 3,465,024 7,669,051 6,410,284 6,817,048 3,195,708
Receivables:
Taxes 3,386,463 2,732,013 2,430,481 2,838,192 3,138,853
Customer accounts 153,932 99,224 134,987 114,389 39,117
Interest on investments 49,261 56,386 48,084 41,837 0
Interfund loans receivable 0 0 544,440 544,440 600,000
Due from other governments 134.221 177,375 163.685 254.711 770.516
Total Assets S 12,713,658 S 10,977,114 S 9.834.005 S 10.706.190 S 7.972,603
Liabilities and Fund Balances
Liabilities:
Accounts payable 24,266 23,149 S 9,262 546,354 52,808
Accrued wages 64 benefits 1,049,077 1,038,180 0 0 0
Due to other governmental units 13,074 97,335 66,763 114,956 125,859
Revenues collected in advance 101,143 103,140 75,200 82,166 87,874
Other current liabilities 399,635 379,625 279,866 387,937 269,172
Deferred revenues 609,065 629.220 437.120 483,448 576.836
Total Liabilities 2,196,260 2,270,649 868,211 1.614.861 1.112.549
Fund balances:
Reserved for:
Irnprest funds 12,650 13,250 13,250 13,250 13,000
Loans receivable 0 0 544,440 544,440 600,000
Unreserved, designated for:
Unknown contingent liabilities 3,763,990 2,539,443 2,816,822 2,816,822 2,816,822
Unreserved, undesignated
General fund 6,740,398 6.153,772 5591,282 5.716.817 3.430.232
Total Fund Balances 10517,038 8,706,465 8,965,794 9.091,329 6,860.054
Total Liabilities and Fund Balances S 12,713,298 S 10.977.114 S 9.834.005 S 10.706,190 5 7.972.603
Source: Cihj of Tukwila.
14
The City
The City, a non- charter code city of the State, was incorporated on June 29, 1908, and has a Mayor- Council
form of government. Qualified electors elect the Mayor and seven council members at large. The Mayor
appoints the City Administrator (with the majority approval of the City Council) to provide administrative
direction to the City.
The City Council is the legislative authority of the City and establishes City policy. The Mayor and City
Administrator work together to implement such policy. The qualified electors of the City elect council
members to staggered four -year terms. If a council member is appointed to fill a vacancy on the City Council,
the council member serves for the unexpired portion of the vacated term.
Member Position Term Expires
Jim Haggerton Mayor 12/31/2011
Joe Duffie Council President 12/31/2009
Verna Griffin Councilmember 12/31/2009
Joan Hernandez Councilmember 12/31/2011
Kathy Hougardy Councilmember 12/31/2011
Pam Linder Councilmember 12/31/2009
De'Sean Quinn Councilmember 12/31/2009
Dennis Robertson Councilmember 12/31/2011
City Administration
Rhonda Berry, City Administrator. Ms. Berry has been with the City since 1990 and became the City
Administrator in 2004. Prior to joining the City, Ms. Berry worked for the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
the IBM Corporation for 12 years. Ms. Berry holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business Education and a Masters of
Business Administration.
Ms. Berry has been involved in a wide variety of civic activities that include volunteer work in schools in both
the cities of Seattle and Tukwila, as well as with the Junior Achievement program. Ms. Berry has served on the
Board of Directors for the Southeast Seattle Senior Foundation; the University Preparatory Academy and
Seattle Academy of Arts and Sciences Board of Trustees; the Board of Directors for Emerald City Outreach
Ministries; and the Executive Committee of the Tukwila Community Schools Collaboration. She is currently
on the Board of the Committee to End Homelessness and is on the United Way Community Building
Committee.
Shawn Hunstock, CPA, Finance Director. Mr. Hunstock is responsible for all financial aspects of the City.
Mr. Hunstock has been employed by the City as Finance Director since September 2008. Prior to joining the
City, Mr. Hunstock was the Assistant Finance Director at the City of Auburn, Washington. Mr. Hunstock's
previous experience- includes over 13 years of public sector financial management in state and Local
government, as well as higher education and public accounting experience.
Labor Relations
The City currently has 336 full -time and 123 part -time or seasonal employees. The majority of City employees
who are eligible under State law to be represented by a labor organization are employed under provisions of
negotiated contracts with seven bargaining units. The City considers its relationship with the bargaining units
as excellent.
No. of
Bare_ ainine Unit Employees Expiration Date
Teamsters 156 December 31, 2008
IAFF (Firefighters) 60 December 31, 2008
Police Guild 61 December 31, 2010
United Steelworkers 13 December 31, 2008
15
r
Pension System
Public Employees' Retirement System "PERS Substantially all of the City's full -time and qualifying part -time
employees, other than those covered under union plans, participate in PERS. This is a statewide local
government retirement system administered by the Washington State Department of Retirement Systems,
under cost sharing, multiple employer defined benefit public employee retirement plans. The PERS system
includes three plans.
Participants who joined the system by September 30, 1977, are PERS Plan I members. Those joining thereafter
are enrolled in PERS Plan II. A third plan, entitled PERS Plan III, provides members with a defined benefit
plan similar to PERS Plan II and the opportunity to invest their retirement contributions in a defined
contribution plan.
PERS Plan I members are eligible for retirement at any age after 30 years of service, at age 60 with five years of
service, or at age 55 with 25 years of service. The annual pension is two percent of the average final
compensation per year of service, capped at 60 percent. The average final compensation is based on the
greatest compensation earned during any 24 eligible consecutive compensation months.
PERS Plan II members may retire at age 65 with five years of service or at 55 with 20 years of service. The
annual pension is two percent of the average final compensation per year of service. PERS Plan II retirements
prior to 65 are actuarially reduced. On July 1 of each year following the first full year of retirement service, the
benefit will be adjusted by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index "CPI of Seattle, capped at
three percent annually.
PERS Plan III is structured as a dual benefit program that will provide members with the following benefits:
A defined benefit allowance similar to PERS Plan II calculated as one percent of the average final
compensation per year of service (versus a two percent formula) and funded entirely by employer
contributions.
A defined contribution account consisting of member contributions plus the full investment return
on those contributions.
Each biennium, the State Pension Funding Council adopts PERS Plan 1 employer contribution rates and PERS
Plan II employer and employee contribution rates. Employee contribution rates for PERS Plan I are
established by statute at six percent and do not vary from year to year. The employer and employee
contribution rates for PERS Plan II are set by the director of the Department of Retirement Systems, based on
recommendations by the Office of the State Actuary, to continue to fully fund PERS Plan II. Unlike PERS
Plan II, which has a single contribution rate, with PERS Plan III, the employee chooses how much to contribute
from one to six contribution rate options. Once an option ha been selected, the contribution rate choice is
irrevocable unless the employee changes employers.
All employers are required to contribute at the level established by State law. The methods used to determine
the contribution requirements are established under State statute in accordance with chapters 41.40 and 41.26
RCW.
For the year ended December 31, 2007, the City's contribution of $702,317, or 6.13 percent of covered payroll,
represents its full liability under the system, except that future rates may be adjusted to meet system needs.
Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System "LEOFF LEOFF is a cost sharing multiple
employer defined benefit pension plan. Membership in the plan includes all full -time, fully compensated local
law enforcement officers, and fire fighters. The LEOFF system includes two plans.
Participants who joined the system by September 30, 1977, are LEOFF Plan I members. Those joining
thereafter are enrolled in LEOFF Plan II. Retirement benefits are financed from employee and employer
contributions, investment earnings, and State contributions. Retirement benefits in both LEOFF Plan I and
LEOFF Plan II are vested after completion of five years of eligible service.
16
LEOFF Plan I members are eligible to retire with five years of service at age 50. The service retirement benefit
is dependent upon the final average salary and service credit years at retirement.
LEOFF Plan II members are eligible to retire at the age of 50 with 20 years of service or at 53 with five years of
service. Retirement benefits prior to age 53 are actuarially reduced at a rate of three percent per year. The
benefit is two percent of the final average salary per year of service. The final average salary is determined as
the 60 highest paid consecutive service months. There is no limit on the number of service credit years, which
may be included in the benefit calculation.
LEOFF Plan I employer and employee contribution rates are established by statute, and the State is responsible
for the balance of the funding at rates set by the Pension Funding Council to fully amortize the total costs of
the plan. Employer and employee rates for LEOFF Plan II are set by the director of the Department of
Retirement Systems, based on recommendations by the Office of the State Actuary, to continue to fully fund
the plan. LEOFF Plan II employers and employees are required to contribute at the level required by State
law. The methods used to determine the contribution rates are established under State statute in accordance
with chapters 41.26 and 41.45 RCW.
For the year ending December 31, 2007, the City's contribution to LEOFF I of 0.16 percent and to LEOFF II of
5.35 percent of covered payroll totaled $548,848, representing its full liability under the system, except that
future rates may be adjusted to meet the system needs.
Historical trend information regarding all of these plans is presented in Washington State's Department of
Retirement Systems' annual financial report. A copy of this report may be obtained at:
Department of Retirement Systems
Point Plaza West
1025 East Union Street
P.O. Box 48380
Olympia, WA 98504 -8380
Internet Address: www.drs.wa.gov
According to information provided by the Office of State Actuary, the LEOFF System currently has no
unfunded actuarial accrued liability.
Other Post Employment Benefits
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board "GASB has issued a new standard concerning Accounting
and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post- Employment Benefits Other than Pensions (GASB 45). In
addition to pensions, many State and local governmental employers provide other post employment benefits
"OPEB as a part of total compensation to attract and retain the services of qualified employees. OPEB
includes post employment health care as well as other forms of post employment benefits when provided
separately from a pension plan. The new standard provides for the measurement, recognition and display of
OPEB expenses /expenditures, related liabilities (assets), note disclosures, and, if applicable, required
supplementary information in the financial reports.
The City provides post employment benefits in accordance with State statute to all LEOFF retirees. The City
provides medical insurance and reimburses for all validated claims for medical, dental and hospitalization
costs incurred by retirees. Currently, 39 retirees meet those eligibility requirements. Expenditures for post
retirement health care benefits are recognized as retirees report claims. During 2007, expenditures of $542,868
were recognized for post retirement health care. This represents a $26,967 increase from 2006.
Basis of Accounting
The City's financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
"GAAP as applied to governmental units and are regulated by the State Auditor's Office. The accounts of
the City are organized on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate
accounting entity. Each fund is accounted for with a separate set self balancing accounts that comprise its
assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures or expenses as appropriate. The City's resources are
17
allocated to and accounted for in individual funds depending on what they are to be spent and how they are
controlled.
All governmental funds are presented using the flow of current financial resources focus. This means that
generally only current assets and current liabilities are included on their balance sheets. Governmental fund
operating statements focus on measuring changes in financial position, rather than net income. They present
increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in
spendable resources. The reported fund balance is considered a measure of "available expendable resources."
Budgetary Policies
The City budgets its funds in accordance with chapter 35A.33 RCW. Annual appropriated budgets are
adopted for the general, special revenue, debt service, and capital projects funds on the modified accrual basis
of accounting and include fund balances. For governmental funds, there are no differences between the
budgetary basis and GAAP.
The Council annually adopts a budget by ordinance establishing appropriations for City funds, and during the
year may authorize supplemental appropriations. Administrative and legal budgetary control is established at
the fund level, i.e., expenditures for a fund may not exceed the total appropriation amount. The Mayor may
authorize transfers of appropriations within a fund or use of a fund balance, however any amendments that
increase the total for the fund must be approved by Council ordinance.
Risk Management
The City is a member of the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). Utilizing Chapter 48.62 RCW
(self- insurance regulation) and Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), nine cities originally formed
WCIA on January 1, 1981. WCIA was created for the purpose of providing a pooling mechanism for jointly
purchasing insurance, jointly self- insuring, and /or jointly contracting for risk management services. WCIA
currently has a total of 121 members.
New members initially contract for a three -year term, and thereafter automatically renew on an annual basis.
A one -year withdrawal notice is required before membership can be terminated. Termination does not relieve
a former member from its unresolved loss history incurred during membership.
WCIA is governed by a Board of Directors, which is comprised of one designated representative from each
member. The Board elects an Executive Committee and appoints a Treasurer to provide general policy
direction for the organization. The WCIA Executive Director reports to the Executive Committee and is
responsible for conducting the day to day operations of the WCIA.
Liability coverage is written on an occurrence basis without deductibles. Coverage includes general,
automobile, public officials' errors or omissions, stop -gap, and employee benefits liability. Limits are
$3 million per occurrence self insured layer, and $12 million per occurrence in the re- insured excess layer. The
excess layer is insured by the purchase of reinsurance and is subject to aggregate limits. Total limits are $15
million per occurrence subject to aggregate sublimits in the excess Layers. The Board of Directors determines
the limits and terms of coverage annually.
Insurance coverage for property, automobile physical damage, fidelity, inland marine, and boiler and
machinery are purchased on a group basis. Insurance coverage for underground storage tanks are purchased
under a separate policy. Various deductibles apply by type of coverage. Property insurance and auto physical
damage coverage are self funded from the members' deductible to $500,000, for all perils other than flood and
earthquake, and insured above that amount by the purchase of reinsurance.
In -house services include risk management consultation, loss control field services, claims and litigation
administration, and loss analyses. WCIA contracts for claims investigation consultants for personnel issues
and land use problems, insurance brokerage, and Lobbyist services.
WCIA is fully funded by its members who make annual assessments on a prospectively rated basis, as
determined by an outside, independent actuary. The assessment covers loss, loss adjustment, and
18
administrative expenses. As outlined in the interlocal, «CIA retains the right to additionally assess the
membership for any funding shortfall.
An investment committee, using investment brokers, produces additional revenue by investment of WCIA's
assets in financial instruments which comply with all State guidelines. These revenues directly offset portions
of the membership's annual assessment.
Auditing of City Finances
Accounting systems and budgetary controls are prescribed by the Office of the State Auditor in accordance
with RCW 43.09.200 and RCW 43.09.230. State statutes require audits for cities to be conducted by the Office
of the State Auditor. The City complies with the systems and controls prescribed by the Office of the State
Auditor and establishes procedures and records which reasonably assure safeguarding of assets and the
reliability of financial reporting.
The State Auditor is required to examine the affairs of cities at least once every two years. The City is audited
annually. The examination must include, among other things, the financial condition and resources of the
City, whether the laws and constitution of the State are being complied with, and the methods and accuracy of
the accounts and reports of the City. Reports of the auditor's examinations are required to be filed in the office
of the State Auditor and in the finance department of the City.
The financial statements of the City for the year ended December 31, 2007, attached as Appendix C, are
incorporated by reference to this Official Statement.
Demographic Information
The City is located in King County, Washington, in the Green River valley,
approximately 12 miles south of downtown Seattle and 17 miles north of Tacoma, at
the intersection of Interstate Highways 5 and 405. The City is adjacent to the western
city limits of Renton and the eastern city limits of SeaTac and is one mile east of the
Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. The City encompasses nine square miles and
has an estimated 2008 population of 18,080.
The City was primarily a residential community until completion of an interstate King County
Washington
highway interchange in the late 1960s, when it began to develop as a major south
King County industrial and commercial center. This growth began with the
construction of Westfield Southcenter Shoppingtown, a shopping mall, Andover
Industrial Park, Gateway Industrial Parks and Parkway Plaza, all within the City
limits.
Historical population growth of the City and the County are shown below.
Population
Historical population for the City and County are as follows:
Population
City of King
Year Tukwila County
2008 18,080 1,884,200
2007 18,000 1,861,300
2006 17,930 1,835,300
2005 17,110 1,808,300
2004 17,240 1,788,300
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management.
19
King County
The County is located on Puget Sound in Washington and covers more than 2,200 square miles. The County is
the largest metropolitan county in the State in terms of population, number of cities, and employment, with
more than one quarter of the State's population.
Income. Historic personal income and per capita income levels for the County and the State are shown below:
King County and State of Washington
Total Personal and Per Capita Income
King County State of Washington
Total Personal Per Capita Total Personal Per Capita
Year Income (in thousands) Income Income (in thousands) Income
2007 N/A N/A $261,415,126 $40,414
2006 596,579,228 552,655 243,597,024 38,212
2005 88,065,435 48,789 224,736,003 35,838
2004 87,407,884 49,533 218,431,726 35,289
2003 79,199,166 44,704 202,942,123 33,166
2002 77,940,608 44,153 197,451,578 32,573
(1) Preliminary estimate.
Source: U.S. Deportment of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Taxable Retail Sales. Taxable retail sales reflect only those sales subject to retail sales tax. Historic taxable retail
sales for the City and the County are shown below:
Taxable Retail Sales
City of
Tukwila King County
2008 1,004,674,512 22,761,952,403
2007 2,189,941,072 47,766,338,769
2006 2,045,733,563 43,993,478,514
2005 2,045,733,563 40,498,328,830
2004 1,917,878,233 37,253,103,540
2003 1,844,654,350 35,156,210,451
(1) Through second quarter only.
Source: Washington State Department of Revenue.
Building Permits. The number and valuation of new single family and multi family residential building permits
in the County are listed below:
King County
Residential Building Permits
New Single Family Units New Multi Family Units Total
Year Units Valuation Units Valuation Valuation
2008 1,805 532,651,518 4,636 702,490,004 1,235,141,522
2007 5,206 1,506,180,957 10,212 1,246,804,898 2,752,985,855
2006 5,770 1,622,174,594 8,305 1,023,922,267 2,646,096,861
2005 6,331 1,741,241,527 5,703 556,297,096 2,297,538,623
2004 6,947 1,684,139,845 4,998 451,908,793 2,136,048,638
(1) Data through June 2008 only.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, July 2008.
20
Employment. Total employment within the City in 2007 is estimated at 42,368. The top 10 employers within
the City include the following:
City of Tukwila
2007 Major Employers
Employer Type of Business Employees
The Boeing Company Aerospace 8,043
Group Health Cooperative Data center /lab /pharmacy 1,100
King County Metro Transit operating base 664
Carlyle, Inc. Wire /cable connectors 447
Red Dot Corporation Heater /air conditioning equipment 444
Macy's Department store 400
Group Health Cooperative Health care administration 376
Boeing's Employee Credit Union Credit union 376
JC Penney Company Department store 375
Nordstrom, Inc. Department store 334
Source: City of Tukwila.
State -wide employment figures (rounded) for major employers located primarily within the central Puget
Sound region (King, Pierce and Snohomish counties) include the following:
Central Puget Sound Region (1)
Major Employers
Employer Type of Business Employees
The Boeing Company Aerospace and defense manufacturer 71,353
Microsoft Corp. Software and internet technologies 33,053
University of Washington Major public research university 24,443
Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. Retail super center 16,597
Naval Base Kitsap Fleet of the U.S. Navy 15,268
Providence Health Services Comprehensive healthcare 14,838
King County Government Local county government 12,678
Fred Meyer Stores Multi- department stores 11,800
City of Seattle Local city government 9,798
Alaska Air Group Holding company for Alaska and Horizon airlines 8,030
(1) Central Puget Sound Region includes King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
Source: Puget Sound Business Journal's Book of Lists 2008.
21
Civilian Labor Force data is based on household surveys of residents. North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) data are estimates based on surveys of employers and benchmarked based on covered
employment as reported by all employers.
King County
Nonagricultural Wage Salary Workers
and Labor Force and Employment Data
Annual Average
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Civilian Labor Force 1,081,980 1,070,870 1,047,740 1,012,940 994,800
Total Employment 1,042,730 1,031,700 1,005,240 965,940 943,420
Total Unemployment 39,250 39,170 42,500 47,000 51,380
Percent of Labor Force 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.6 5.2
**NAICS INDUSTRY 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
Total Nonfarm 1,215,667 1,198,392 1,176,683 1,143,675 1,119,167
Total Private 1,049,500 1,035,483 1,014,800 982,475 957,008
Goods Producing 189,100 188,125 183,108 170,850 163,667
Natural Resources and Mining 700 675 658 658 825
Construction 76,067 74,467 70,075 62,808 58,992
Manufacturing 112,317 113,000 112,367 106,900 103,392
Services Providing 1,026,583 1,010,258 993,583 973,300 955,950
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 224,667 224,125 224,283 222,858 222,700
Information 77,550 75,642 72,500 69,283 67,717
Financial Activities 76,850 76,908 77,567 76,467 77,242
Professional and Business Services 195,233 189,917 182,233 173,225 163,708
Educational and Health Services 130,150 127,300 124,717 122,750 118,142
Leisure and Hospitality 114,100 111,617 108,575 106,092 103,783
Other Services 41,833 41,842 41,808 41,392 40,533
Government 166,133 162,917 161,892 161,208 162,150
Federal Government 20,900 21,317 21,375 21,800 22,525
State Government 56,283 54,575 54,417 54,167 54,208
Local Government 88,933 87,042 86,117 85,225 85,442
Workers in Labor /Management Disputes 0 0 8 850 83
(1) Data through June 2008.
Source: Washington State Employment Security Department.
Initiative and Referendum
State Initiatives
Under the State Constitution, the voters of the State have the ability to initiate legislation and require the
Legislature to refer legislation to the voters through the powers of initiative and referendum, respectively. The
initiative power in Washington may not be used to amend the State Constitution. Initiatives and referenda are
submitted to the voters upon receipt of a petition signed by at least eight percent (initiative) and four percent
(referenda) of the number of voters registered and voting for the office of Governor at the preceding regular
gubernatorial election. Any law approved in this manner by a majority of the voters may not be amended or
repealed by the Legislature within a period of two years following enactment, except by a vote of two- thirds of
all the members elected to each house of the Legislature. After two years, the law is subject to amendment or
repeal by the Legislature in the same manner as other laws.
Current and Future Initiative Legislation. Tax and fee initiative measures have been and may be filed from time
to time. It cannot be predicted whether any such initiatives might gain sufficient signatures to qualify for
submission to the Legislature and /or the voters or, if submitted, whether they ultimately would be approved.
22
Tax Exemption
Exclusion from Gross Income. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under existing federal law and assuming
compliance by the City with applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code that must be satisfied subsequent to the issue date of the Bonds, interest on the Bonds is excluded
from gross income for federal income tax purposes and is not an item of tax preference for purposes of the
alternative minimum tax applicable to individuals.
Continuing Requirements. The City is required to comply with certain requirements of the Code after the date
of issuance of the Bonds in order to maintain the exclusion of the interest on the Bonds from gross income for
federal income tax purposes, including, without limitation, requirements concerning the qualified use of
proceeds of the Bonds and the facilities financed or refinanced with those proceeds, limitations on investing
gross proceeds of the Bonds in higher yielding investments in certain circumstances, and the requirement to
comply with the arbitrage rebate requirements to the extent applicable to the Bonds. The City has covenanted
in the Ordinance to comply with those requirements, but if the City fails to comply with those requirements,
interest on the Bonds could become taxable retroactive to the date of issuance of the Bonds. Bond Counsel has
not undertaken and does not undertake to monitor the City's compliance with such requirements.
Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. While interest on the Bonds also is not an item of tax preference for
purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations, under Section 55 of the Code, tax exempt
interest, including interest on the Bonds, received by corporations is taken into account in the computation of
adjusted current earnings for purposes of the alternative minimum tax applicable to corporations (as defined
for federal income tax purposes). Under the Code, alternative minimum taxable income of a corporation will
be increased by 75 percent of the excess of the corporation's adjusted current earnings (including any tax
exempt interest) over the corporation's alternative minimum taxable income determined without regard to
such increase. A corporation's alternative minimum taxable income, so computed, that is in excess of an
exemption of $40,000, which exemption will be reduced (but not below zero) by 25 percent of the amount by
which the corporation's alternative minimum taxable income exceeds $150,000, is then subject to a 20 percent
minimum tax.
A small business corporation is exempt from the corporate alternative minimum tax for any taxable year
beginning after December 31, 1997, if its average annual gross receipts during the three taxable -year period
beginning after December 31, 1993, did not exceed $5,000,000, and its average annual gross receipts during
each successive three taxable -year period thereafter ending before the relevant taxable year did not exceed $7.5
million.
Tax on Certain Passive Investment Income of S Corporations. Under Section 1375 of the Code, certain excess net
passive investment income, including interest on the Bonds, received by an S corporation (a corporation
treated as a partnership for most federal tax purposes) that has Subchapter C earnings and profits at the close
of the taxable year may be subject to federal income taxation at the highest rate applicable to corporations if
more than 25 percent of the gross receipts of such S corporation is passive investment income.
Foreign Branch Profits Tax. Interest on the Bonds may be subject to the foreign branch profits tax imposed by
Section 884 of the Code when the Bonds are owned by, and effectively connected with a trade or business of, a
United States branch of a foreign corporation.
Possible Consequences of Tax Compliance Audit. The Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS has established a
general audit program to determine whether issuers of tax exempt obligations, such as the Bonds, are in
compliance with requirements of the Code that must be satisfied in order for interest on those obligations to
be, and continue to be, excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Bond Counsel cannot
predict whether the IRS would commence an audit of the Bonds. Depending on all the facts and
circumstances and the type of audit involved, it is possible that commencement of an audit of the Bonds could
adversely affect the market value and liquidity of the Bonds until the audit is concluded, regardless of its
ultimate outcome.
23
Certain Other Federal Tax Consequences
Bonds are "Qualified Tax Exempt Obligations" for Financial Institutions. Section 265 of the Code provides that
100 percent of any interest expense incurred by banks and other financial institutions for interest allocable to
tax exempt obligations acquired after August 7, 1986, will be disallowed as a tax deduction. However, if the
tax exempt obligations are obligations other than private activity bonds, issued by a governmental unit that,
together with all entities subordinate to it, does not reasonably anticipate issuing more than $10,000,000 of tax
exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such
calculation) in the calendar year in which the bonds are issued and are designated by the governmental unit
as "qualified tax exempt obligations," only 20 percent of any interest expense deduction allocable to those
obligations will be disallowed.
The City is a governmental unit that, together with all subordinate entities, reasonably anticipates issuing less
than $10,000,000 of tax exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not
required to be included in such calculation) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued and has
designated the Bonds as "qualified tax exempt obligations" for purposes of the 80 percent financial institution
interest expense deduction. Therefore, only 20 percent of the interest expense of a financial institution
allocable to the Bonds is deductible for federal income tax purposes.
Reduction of Loss Reserve Deductions for Property and Casualty Insurance Companies. Under Section 832 of the
Code, interest on the Bonds received by property and casualty insurance companies tivil] reduce tax deductions
for Toss reserves otherwise available to such companies by an amount equal to 15 percent of tax exempt
interest received during the taxable year.
Effect on Certain Social Security and Retirement Benefits. Section 86 of the Code requires recipients of certain
Social Security and certain Railroad Retirement benefits to take receipts or accruals of interest on the Bonds
into account in determining gross income.
Other Possible Federal Tax Consequences. Receipt of interest on the Bonds may have other federal tax
consequences as to which prospective purchasers of the Bonds may wish to consult their own tax advisors.
Rating
As noted on the cover page of this Official Statement, the City will apply for a rating for the Bonds from
IVIoody's Investors Service. When and if obtained, the rating will reflect only the views of the rating agency
and an explanation of the significance of the rating may be obtained from the rating agency. There is no
assurance that the rating, once obtained, will be retained for any given period of time or that the rating will not
be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by the rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so
warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of the rating will be likely to have an adverse effect on
the market price of the Bonds.
Continuing Disclosure
Basic Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Material Events. To meet the requirements
of United States Securities and Exchange Commission "SEC Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5) (the "Rule as applicable to
a participating underwriter for the Bonds, the City will undertake (the "Undertaking for the benefit of
holders of the Bonds to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent, to each
nationally recognized municipal securities information repository designated by the SEC in accordance with
the Rule "NRMSIR and to a state information depository, if any, established in the State of Washington (the
"SID annual financial information and operating data of the type included in this Official Statement as
generally described below "annual financial information and to each NRMSIR or the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board "MSRB and to the SID, timely notice of the occurrence of any of the following events
with respect to the Bonds, if material: (i) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (ii) non payment
related defaults; (iii) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (iv)
unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (v) substitution of credit or
liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (vi) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax exempt
24
status of the Bonds; (vii) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds; (viii) Bond calls (other than scheduled
mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds); (ix) defeasances; (x) release, substitution, or sale of property securing
repayment of the Bonds; and (xi) rating changes. The City also will provide to each NRMSIR or to the MSRB,
and to the SID, timely notice of a failure by the City to provide required annual financial information on or
before the date specified below.
Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City
undertakes to provide will consist of
(i) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles promulgated by the Government Accounting
Standards Boards, as such principles may be changed from time to time and as permitted by State
law which statements need not be audited, except that if and when audited financial statements
are otherwise prepared and available to the City they will be provided;
(ii) a statement of authorized, issued and outstanding balance of general obligation debt;
(iii) the assessed value of property within the City subject to ad valorem taxation; and
(iv) ad valorem tax levy rates and amounts and percentage of taxes collected.
Such annual financial information will be provided to each NRMSIR and the SID not later than the last day of
the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, the fiscal year ending December 31), as
such fiscal year may be changed as required by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending
December 31, 2008.
The annual financial information may be provided in a single or multiple document, and may be incorporated
by reference to other documents that have been filed with each NRMSIR and the SID, or, if the document
incorporated by reference is a "final official statement" with respect to other obligations of the City, one that
has been filed with the MSRB.
Amendment of Undertaking. The Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds
without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating
underwriter, rating agency, NRMSIR, the SID or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner
permitted by the Rule.
The City will give notice to each NIRMSIR or the MSRB, and the SID, of the substance (or provide a copy) of
any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the
amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the notice also will include a
narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided.
Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under the Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal
defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under the Undertaking will terminate if those
provisions of the Rule which require the City to comply with the Undertaking become legally inapplicable in
respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel or other
counsel familiar with federal securities laws delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such
termination to each NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID.
Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. If the City or any other obligated person fails to comply with
the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected as soon
as practicable after the City learns of that failure. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply
with the Undertaking will constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a
Bond will be to take such actions as that holder deems necessary, including seeking an order of specific
performance from an appropriate court, to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with the
Undertaking.
Centralized Dissemination Agent. To the extent authorized by the SEC, the City may satisfy the Undertaking by
transmitting the required filings using http: /www.disclosureusa.org (or such other centralized dissemination
agent as may be provided by the SEC).
25
Prior Continuing Disclosure Undertakings of the City. The City is required to file its annual financial information
by the end of the ninth month following the fiscal year end; the City failed to do so for the fiscal years ended
December 31 for the years 2004 through 2007. The City filed its annual financial information for the fiscal
years ended December 31 for the years 2004 through 2007 on November 19, 2008. The City has provided
notice of its failure to file its annual financial information by the required deadline. The City has otherwise
complied with the provisions of its various continuing disclosure undertakings. The failure of the City in any
respect to comply with the terms related to continuing disclosure undertaking under the Bond Ordinance or
with the terms of any other commitment for ongoing disclosure under the Rule shall not constitute an Event of
Default under the Bond Ordinance.
Legal and Underwriting
Approval of Counsel
Legal matters incident to the authorization, issuance and sale of Bonds by the City are subject to the approving
legal opinion of Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, Washington, Bond Counsel. The form of the opinion of Bond
Counsel with respect to the Bonds is attached as Appendix A. The opinion of Bond Counsel is given based on
factual representations made to Bond Counsel, and under existing law, as of the date of initial delivery of the
Bonds, and Bond Counsel assumes no obligation to revise or supplement its opinion to reflect any facts or
circumstances that may thereafter come to its attention, or any changes in law that may thereafter occur. The
opinion of Bond Counsel is an expression of its professional judgment on the matters expressly addressed in
its opinion and does not constitute a guarantee of result.
Litigation
The City, in the normal course of its activities, is involved in various claims and litigation. There is no
controversy or litigation pending or, to the best knowledge of the City, threatened, which will affect the
issuance and delivery of the Bonds, the levy and collection of taxes and other revenues to pay the principal
and interest thereon, the proceedings and authority under which the Bonds are issued, or the validity of the
Bonds.
Conflicts of Interest
All or a portion of the fees of the Underwriter and Bond Counsel are contingent upon the issuance and sale of
the Bonds. In addition, Bond Counsel from time to time serves as counsel to the Underwriter with respect to
bonds issued by issuers other than the City. None of the Members of the Commission or other officers of the
City have any conflict of interest in the issuance of the Bonds that is prohibited by applicable law.
Underwriting
The Bonds are being purchased by Seattle Northwest Securities Corporation, the Underwriter. The purchase
contract provides that the Underwriter will purchase all of the Bonds, if any are purchased, at a price of
percent of the par value of the Bonds. The Bonds will be reoffered at an average price of percent of the
par value of the Bonds. After the initial public offering, the public offering prices may be varied from time to
time.
Concluding Statement
All estimates, assumptions, statistical information and other statements contained herein, while taken from
sources considered reliable, are not guaranteed by the Underwriter or the City. So far as any statement herein
includes matters of opinion, or estimates of future expenses and income, whether or not expressly so stated,
they are intended merely as such and not as representations of fact.
The information contained herein should not be construed as representing all conditions affecting the City or
the Bonds. Additional information may be obtained from the City. The statements relating to the Bond
Ordinance are in summarized form, and in all respects are subject to and qualified in their entirety by express
reference to the provisions of such document in its complete form.
26
The agreements of the City are set forth in such documents, and the information assembled herein is not to be
construed as a contract with the Owners of the Bonds. Information with respect to the City set forth in this
Official Statement has been supplied by the City, and the Underwriter has relied on the City with respect to
the accuracy and sufficiency of such information.
27
Appendix A
Form of Opinion of Bond Counsel
Appendix B
Book -Entry Transfer System
THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY
SAMPLE OFFERING DOCUMENT LANGUAGE
DESCRIBING BOOK ENTRY -ONLY ISSUANCE
(Prepared by DTC-- bracketed material may apply only to certain issues)
1. The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, NY, will act as securities depository
for the securities (the "Securities The Securities will be issued as fully- registered securities registered in
the name of Cede Co. (DTC's partnership nominee) or such other name as may be requested by an
authorized representative of DTC. One fully- registered Security certificate will be issued for [each issue
of] the Securities, [each] in the aggregate principal amount of such issue, and will be deposited with DTC.
[If, however, the aggregate principal amount of [any] issue exceeds $500 million, one certificate will be
issued with respect to each $500 million of principal amount, and an additional certificate will be issued
with respect to any remaining principal amount of such issue.]
2. DTC, the world's largest securities depository, is a limited- purpose trust company
organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New
York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the
meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code, and a "clearing agency" registered pursuant to the
provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing
for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non -U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and
money market instruments (from over 100 countries) that DTC's participants "Direct Participants
deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post -trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and
other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book -entry transfers
and pledges between Direct Participants' accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of
securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non -U.S. securities brokers and dealers,
banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Depository Trust Clearing Corporation "DTCC DTCC is the holding company for
DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are
registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC
system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non -U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks,
trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a
Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly "Indirect Participants DTC has Standard Poor's
highest rating: AAA. The DTC Rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com and www.dtc.org.
3. Purchases of Securities under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct
Participants, which will receive a credit for the Securities on DTC's records. The ownership interest of
each actual purchaser of each Security "Beneficial Owner is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and
Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their
purchase. Beneficial Owners are, however, expected to receive written confirmations providing details of
the transaction, as well as periodic statements of their holdings, from the Direct or Indirect Participant
through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the
Securities are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting
on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their
ownership interests in Securities, except in the event that use of the book -entry system for the Securities is
discontinued.
4. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Securities deposited by Direct Participants with DTC
are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede Co., or such other name as may be
requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of Securities with DTC and their
registration in the name of Cede Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial
ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Securities; DTC's records reflect
only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Securities are credited, which may or
may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for
keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers.
5. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants, by Direct
Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial
Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory
requirements as may be in effect from time to time. [Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish to take
certain steps to augment the transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the
Securities, such as redemptions, tenders, defaults, and proposed amendments to the Security documents.
For example, Beneficial Owners of Securities may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the
Securities for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the
alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the registrar and
request that copies of notices be provided directly to them.]
[6. Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Securities within an issue are
being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct
Participant in such issue to be redeemed.]
7. Neither DTC nor Cede Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with
respect to Securities unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's MMI Procedures.
Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an Omnibus Proxy to Issuer as soon as possible after the record
date. The Omnibus Proxy assigns Cede Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to
whose accounts Securities are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the Omnibus
Proxy).
8. Redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments on the Securities will be made
to Cede Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC.
DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and corresponding
detail information from Issuer or Agent, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings
shown on DTC's records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing
instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in
bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of
DTC, Agent, or Issuer, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time
to time. Payment of redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments to Cede Co. (or such
other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of Issuer
or Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and
disbursement of such payments to the Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect
Participants.
[9. A Beneficial Owner shall give notice to elect to have its Securities purchased or tendered,
through its Participant, to [Tender /Remarketing] Agent, and shall effect delivery of such Securities by
causing the Direct Participant to transfer the Participant's interest in the Securities, on DTC's records, to
[Tender /Remarketing] Agent. The requirement for physical delivery of Securities in connection with an
optional tender or a mandatory purchase will be deemed satisfied when the ownership rights in the
Securities are transferred by Direct Participants on DTC's records and followed by a book -entry credit of
tendered Securities to [Tender /Remarketing] Agent's DTC account.]
10. DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Securities at
any time by giving reasonable notice to Issuer or Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event that a
successor depository is not obtained, Security certificates are required to be printed and delivered.
11. Issuer may decide to discontinue use of the system of book -entry -only transfers through
DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event, Security certificates will be printed and
delivered to DTC.
12. The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book -entry system has been
obtained from sources that Issuer believes to be reliable, but Issuer takes no responsibility for the
accuracy thereof.
[03 /08]
Appendix C
2007 Audited Financial Statements