Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009.10.26 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. October 26,2009 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Tourism Promotion Area: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 22,2009. 2. 2010 TPA Budget Summary. 3. 2010 TPA Business Plan (Council packets only; copy available in City Manager's office for public review). (b) Pasco Landfill Project Update. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) Presented by Barbara Smith, Pasco Landfill Group Representative and Chuck Gruenenfelder, Washington Department of Ecology Site Manager. (c) City/County Development Standards for the Pasco Urban Growth Area: 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated October 21,2009. 2. Map of the Urban Growth Area(UGA). 3. Draft Interlocal Agreement. (d) Local Improvement District No. 146 for the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements,Phase 1: 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated October 22,2009: 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Map with Original Phasing. 4. Map with Revised Phasing. 5-. Financial Comparison of the Two Options. (e) 2010 Property Tax Levy: 1. Agenda Report from Jim Chase,Finance Manager dated October 21, 2009. 2. Tax Levy Rate History Chart. 3. Assessed Value History Chart, 4. Summary of Options. (f) PUD Easement in Heritage Park(MF#INF009-101): J. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated October 21, 2009. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. PUD Easement. 4. PUD Power Line Map. 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 7. ADJOURNMENT Workshop Meeting 2 October 26,2009 REMINDERS: 1. 4:00 p.m., Monday, October 26, Port of Benton — Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 2. 12:30 p.m.,Wednesday, October 28, 5516 N.Industrial Way—Syngenta Grand Opening Celebration. (MAYOR JOYCE OLSON and COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS) 3. 7:30 a.m., Friday, October 30, Richland City Council Chambers —Hanford Communities Governing Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON,Rep.; AL YENNEY,A lt.) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council ') October 22, 2009 I FROM: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 10/26/09 Regular Mtg.: 11/2/09 SUBJECT: Tourism Promoltion A ea I. REFERENCE(S): 1. 2010 TPA Budget Summary 2. 2010 TPA Business Plan (Council packets only; copy available in City Manager's office for public review) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/26: Presentation by Kris Watkins, President and CEO, Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau. 11/2: MOTION: I move to approve the 2010 operating budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of$810,000. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) was formed in late 2004 to generate and administer the proceeds of a"per night room assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri- Cities, imposed by the hotels themselves. B) The interlocal agreement (between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland) that created the TPA requires the annual budget from the TPA to be approved by the City Council. V. DISCUSSION: A) The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the state which, in turn, distributes it to the city in which it was collected.. The city is obligated to pass the funds to the TPA, for use in accordance with the approved budget. The proposed 2010 budget (page 26 of the plan) is generally the same as 2009; notable changes: • expenditures for"Group Markets" declines $21,000 • "Tourism Development" expense increases $9,000 • "Administrative" expenses increase $11,000, though accounting and capital expenses decline by$12,000 • "Opportunity Fund" increases by $14,000 B) Council should approve the 2010 TPA operating budget or indicate changes necessary to gain approval. 4(a) Budget g e 2009 Proposed 2010 Revenues Budget Budget Kennewick. $324,000 40% $324,000 40% Pasco $170100 I 21% ° $170,100 21 /o � Richland $315,900 39% $315,900 39% Total: $810,000 100% $810,000 100% Expenditures y Group Markets $347,971 43% $326,578 40% P� City Wide Conventions Associations Corporate & Government SMERF (social, military, I !; education, religious, fraternal) Sports f l Housing& Groups Services $57,085 7% $56,459 7% Tourism Development $166,555 20% $175,710 22/0 -, Administration $150,789 19% $161,753 20% (administrative staff, office supplies, rent, telephone j postage, equipment maintenance, etc. Opportunity Fund $46,200 6% $60,000 7.5% Accounting/Professional $33,400 4% $25,500 3% Capital Expenditures $8,000 1% $4,000 0.5% 1. w3 Total: $810,000 100% $810,000 I 100% > - 26 - AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council G October 21, 2009 TO: Gary Crutchfield, anager Workshop Mtg.: 10/26/09 FROM: Rick White, ��' Community & Economic Development Director SUBJECT: City/County Development Standards for the Pasco Urban Growth Area 1. REFERENCE(S): 1_ Map of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) 2. Draft interlocal agreement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/26: DISCUSSION: III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Resolution 3077 established primary goals for the City for calendar years 2008- 2009. One of those goals was the formation and application of joint development standards for the unincorporated portions of the UGA. B. The City Council and Franklin County Commissioners met in a joint workshop this past February to discuss this issue. The County proposed, and the City accepted a proposal to allow staff level discussions about specific land use issues related to joint development standards. Those discussions have taken place over the past several months, and the two staffs have agreed on the matrix attached to the draft interlocal agreement (see reference 2). C. Accompanying language in the draft interlocal agreement addresses the reasoning for the development of joint standards, the processing of land use proposals, collection and use of impact fees and establishment of a deviation process. V. DISCUSSION: A. The Growth Management Act has designated cities as the primary provider of urban services. B. Urban growth boundaries are also required by the Growth Management Act and serve to identify areas that accomodate urban density growth and establish planning boundaries for the delivery of urban services in a fiscally responsible manner. C: Establishing joint development standards is required by the Comprehensive Plans of both Franklin County and the City. Joint standards are also required by the County—Wide Planning Policies adopted by Franklin County. D. It is in the public interest that joint standards be adopted to preclude the creation of substandard infrastructure and property divisions that would burden the public with unnecessary costs to correct. E. If Council is comfortable with the proposed standards and interlocal agreement, staff recommends Council seek Franklin County approval of the same. Until such an agreement is in place, development can continue to occur in a fashion contrary to the urban planning standards (and be more costly to the public to correct in the future). 4(c) C - - 1 i L t L r d� cu Q MM cu gSfiSi3 1 �3r J L �sa�r3t& Yyu� Y H l" INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AN AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED URBAN GROWTH AREA OF PASCO This agreement is made and entered into between Franklin County, hereinafter referred to as "THE COUNTY" and the City of Pasco, hereinafter referred to as "THE CITY," political subdivisions of the State of Washington, pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34. The purpose of this agreement is to establish a framework for the adoption of development standards within the Pasco Urban Growth Area. Whereas, the Washington State Legislature has provided for inter-local agreements, as set forth in Chapter 39.34 RCW; and, Whereas, the City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan to guide urban growth and development; and, Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan for the City includes an urban growth boundary as defined by the Washington State Growth Management Act and encompassing those lands determined by the Franklin County Commissioners to contain urban development and to be eventually served by the City of Pasco; and, Whereas, the County has adopted County Wide Planning Policies, a Comprehensive Plan, and the City's Comprehensive Plan for the unincorporated portions of the Pasco Urban Growth Area; and, Whereas, the City and the County have adopted development regulations consistent with their respective Plans and the State Growth Management Act and have worked jointly and cooperatively in defining joint development standards to be applied to the unincorporated portion of the Pasco Urban Growth Area(Exhibit "A"); and, Whereas, the County acknowledges that the cost to taxpayers in general and utility ratepayers particularly will be greater if the unincorporated portion of the urban growth area is permitted to develop without compliance to identified urban standards; and, Whereas, the City and County acknowledge that joint development standards provide certainty for the development industry, insure the general public does not subsidize infrastructure improvements for new private development and accommodate a portion of the costs of urban services brought about by growth within the unincorporated portion of the Pasco Urban Growth Area; and, Whereas, joint development standards prevent the installation of infrastructure that is inadequate to accommodate future urban land uses; and, Whereas, the City and the County find that it is in the best interest of present and future residents of the County and City to adopt joint development standards for the implementation of planning, zoning, infrastructure standards and similar responsibilities with respect to lands within the unincorporated portion of the Pasco Urban Growth Area; Now, Therefore in consideration of mutual benefits to be derived from this agreement, the County and the City mutually agree as follows: 1. The County will review and process land use applications and permits within the unincorporated lands of the urban growth boundaries and if such are approved, will be so contingent upon conformance with the criteria in Exhibit "A." Processing of accompanying requests for City provided facilities will be done concurrently by the City. Review processing fees shall be assigned and received by the agency with jurisdiction over the facility or project. 2. `The County and the City acknowledge that unusual circumstances in a particular development proposal may justify a deviation from the standards set forth in this agreement. Deviations may be considered by the agency with jurisdiction over the facility in question upon written request of the developer or applicant. In considering a deviation, the City and County will each prepare a written recommendation concerning the request and the following factors will be considered: a. Does the permit or development approval create or exacerbate an identified public problem; b. Is the permit or development approval appropriately conditioned as to address the identified public problem; c. Is the applicant bearing a portion of the solution to the public problem in a quantity that is proportional to the extent (size, density, consistency with, surrounding and planned improvements...) of the development; and d. Will the deviation if approved, result in developer avoidance of public infrastructure costs appropriately attributed to the development proposal. 3. Traffic impact fees matching existing Pasco fees will be established within 30 days of this agreement and kept current for unincorporated areas within the Pasco UGA. These fees will be used for projects that accommodate traffic improvements caused by growth within the Pasco urban growth area. A joint County/City staff committee will be established to recommend allocations of those fees for projects within the Pasco Urban Growth Area identified in the City of Pasco and/or Franklin County Capital Improvement Program, and which were included in the calculation of those fees. Interlocal Agreement—Joint Development Standards for the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Pasco Page 2 4. Park impact fees matching existing Pasco fees will be established within 30 days of this agreement and kept current for unincorporated areas within the Pasco UGA. These fees will be collected and reserved from development occurring within the Pasco Urban Growth Area until January 1, 2013. At that time, the accumulated fund would be transferred to the City of Pasco for use wholly within the Erwen Park property for capital improvements as identified in the City's CIP. After January 1, 2013, park fees would be collected in the same manner, and a joint County/City staff committee would recommend allocation of fees for projects within the Pasco Urban Growth Area identified in the City of Pasco and/or the Franklin County Capital Improvement Program, and which were included in the calculation of those fees. FRANKLIN COUNTY: Date: By: By: Commissioner Commissioner By: Commissioner Attest: Approved as to Form: CITY OF PASCO: Date: By: Joyce Olson, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form: Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Interlocal Agreement—Joint Development Standards for the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area of Pasco Page 3 m c 0 m U lJ U u U U U U U CO ` O O O O O O O O 00 L L L L L L M ai a) � W of D 1 O E m � N •�.N � Y C Q) C � 0 41 L m + u LO y _ y y Y U U U V U U u U U r_ m co L O O O O O p 4-1 4-1 O O L C L L L L L L L C m Q) a) QJ a) a) Qj a) Q) L m a, 3 v V) N Q) C Lq m m O > to y u U U U U U u u 3 4-1 O O O O O O O O fl Z3 •� C m L L L L L L L (a Q ? a) a) N a) a1 a) a) a) U I y h0 O @ hD t+ C C C C > = Q) Q) •C L V7 L v1 J } ? © } O 0 © Z @ O O p C L Y i O m > i m 00 aJ +' C V) O O O a) -0 O a) Q Q 4 a E m v m 3 v v O v a� O * o O 3 m U (D V v? +� N — O Ln 4- C lD L L L L L t .+O V U u U u U U U O O O O O O O U O Q � >co Q _ U N N N N N N N CV V' _ > N _� E a) C 3 L- vOi d a a vOi a vOi a vOi a N a m Q. OL O I 41 cv U m U m U co U m U m U m U O = d �n s � d Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q L cn y,i Q. 00 V oo m oo m oo rn oo m oo rn 00 m 00 m 't -V)- a Ul en -a a) ^ c c 4-1 o 00 a 0 � * _ a) CD m U O 41 - N E m w 3 3 3 0 � 3 �o QJ 4 00 Q CD O N lD lD 00 00 N i d" lD M lD d" M M m N ,c c m aJ Q V' C d O a) .t +' M Ol 3 a00 Do w 0 °� w � -LO-n.v O Q * x * C w o 41 00 O Cf a O y L 'C i M -0 +, i 6 `n O m m u 3 c= Zu � v c= _5 ¢ w E- aa) am - a AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 22, 2009 TO: Gary Crutchfiel y anager Regular Mtg.: 10/26/09 FROM: Rick White ?i Community &Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Local Improvement District (LID) No. 146 for the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements—Phase 1. I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Map with ORIGINAL phasing 3. Map with REVISED phasing 4. Financial comparison of the two options II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/26: DISCUSSION: III. FISCAL IMPACT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2007/2008 allocations of approximately $297,000, CDBG 2010 allocations of approximately $140,000 and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) CDBG funding of approximately $153,000. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Following a public outreach effort in 2006, the City approved the Kurtzman Park Action Plan in early 2007. The Plan was developed as a result of neighborhood input and established a priority system for neighborhood improvements including infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lights and in some cases utilities), increased Code Enforcement efforts and an increased Police presence. City Council established neighborhood action programs, definition of appropriate neighborhood improvements and improvement of neighborhood infrastructure while minimizing financial effects on low income households as Council Goals for 2008/2009. B. Two neighborhood meetings were conducted in June and July this year to explore the level of neighborhood interest in an LID for neighborhood infrastructure in Phase I. Of the 14 residents attending, almost all were interested in moving forward with the LID process —reserving any commitment until more formal cost estimates from the preliminary assessment roll were established. C. At the September 8, 2009 Council Meeting, Council considered testimony for and against the LID. Several citizens owning property on Sycamore Avenue north of Alton Street testified in opposition to the LID.. In response to this testimony, staff has developed a revised phasing and financing approach to the Kurtzman Neighborhood Improvement LID that removes Sycamore Avenue north of Alton Street. This would allow the remainder of the LID to go forward in the highest priority areas identified in the Kurtzman Park Action Plan. The priority area was based on the density of housing, the ability to finish installing sidewalk where curbing exists and on the direct walking route to the school, park and youth center located southeast of Wehe and Lewis. 4(d) A. In both options, the city would apply 1/3 of the estimated construction cost from previously allocated CDBG funds and CDBG — ARRA stimulus money of $153,000 to the LID. In the original boundaries — this reduces the cost to the LID by $352,000 or about 58%. In the revised boundaries, this reduces the cost by $296,000 or about 69% (see Reference 4). B. Both options leave allocated CDBG finds to cover the expected amount of LID assistance that may be requested. A portion of the allocated CDBG funds will also remain to apply towards the next phase of the neighborhood improvement plan — this amount depends on the option chosen and on the amount of LID assistance actually provided. C. Staff has prepared an initial estimate for each parcel that includes potential total costs of the LID process and also includes additional CDBG area-wide contributions. For comparison, the most common and lowest assessment has dropped in the original boundaries from $6,663 to $4,252; and in the revised boundaries that same figure has dropped to $3,423. D. Over the next three years, it is expected that a combination of additional CDBG funds from existing and future allotments and LID strategies could complete the remaining infrastructure improvements for Phases II and III; however it is not likely that future phases of the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood LID will enjoy the contribution of federal stimulus dollars; nor is it likely that the bidding climate will remain as favorable as it currently is. E. Neighborhood improvement in areas lacking or experiencing decay of infrastructure is a Council goal for 2008/09. The use of CDBG and ARRA monies reduces the overall costs of the LID and minimizes the impact of improving neighborhood infrastructure on low income households. P LM Ae 7 °~°� •i la'" tom` eel 4 �.I� ,711 y, �` {. `:. �,.!'.4;�; `•-' '9,': �r' + � ��'- "f' ." _ , r lr •� �` t _ _ s r � yy h 6 F.. I x�• � !fr �i��:E5i• S r :1 lb r •i . • .K ,__�.,_-. 1•' � �::��wrr..� �.,�.a[. a`.7 _- �•+• _ _.. _ 4, Legend Priority Improvement Areas Kurtzman Area 1 Pamela 1� Missing Sidewalk K—.—Area 2 Parcels Original Phasing iChurches Kur —A-3Parcels Reference #2 Fbuses LEWIS ST PM e j • • l s � • J • s i • a i • I • NA ST - a a w KALISPELL CT U � � J BUTTE ST — BUTTE CT i "A" ST Improvements pending through LID 145 L--_ . H I--1 I--•II I I k I II � 4 ! Legend FricnTy lmyrovement Areas M Kurtzman Amal Parcels Remised easing 1 � Missing Sldevnik gin Kurtzman Area 2 Parcels iChurches Kurtzman Area 3 Parcels Reference #3 LEWIS ST e Ph $3 �r) I •52 000 u • ST t - • j • -- • 1 � I • • NA ST S _ - w • -- Q i 'Q • KALISPELL CT •` c w • � a BUTTE ST ---3T— — BUTTE CT ^� 1 "A" ST Improvements pending through LID 145 REFERENCE # 4 ORIGINAL PHASING (Includes Sycamore north of Alton Street) $60500 Estimated construction costs $19900 CDBG area-wide assistance at 1/3 of the construction costs $1535000 CDBG-ARRA stimulus funding $253,000 Remaining construction costs to assign to the LID, approximately 42% of the estimated construction cost REVISED PHASING (Removes Sycamore north of Alton Street) $4313000 Estimated construction costs $1433000 CDBG area-wide assistance at 1/3 of the construction cost $1533000 CDBG-ARRA stimulus funding $1359000 Remaining construction costs to assign to the LID, approximately 31% of the estimated construction cost AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council DATE: 10/21/09 WORKSHOP: 10/26/09 TO: Gary Crutchfi*Ain Manger REGULAR: 11/16/09 Rick Terway, •ative & Community Services Director 4 FROM.: Jim r 'ha . �-finance Manager SUBJECT: 2010 property Tax Levy I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Tax Levy Rate History Chart 2. Assessed Value History Chart 3. Summary of Options II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/26/09 Discussion 11/16/09 Public Hearing Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No , providing for the 2010 Ad Valorem Tax Levy, a levy for the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds and the 2002 Unlimited,Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds. Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , preserving property tax levy capacity for fiscal years after 2010 in accordance with state lava. III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The maximum allowed levy rate, per state statute, that the City of Pasco can levy per $1,000 of assessed value is $3.60. The last time Pasco's levy rate was near that number was in 1994. In 2001 the voters approved Initiative 747, limiting the amount taxing districts can raise the property tax levy over the previous year by the lesser of 1% or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), without a vote of the people. That initiative was challenged and ruled unconstitutional in the Washington State Supreme Court in November 2007. The legislature however placed those limits (suggested by I-747) into law in January 2008. The IPD figure to be used for the 2010 tax calculation is a negative number (-0.848%). Since the IPD, a national inflation indicator; is negative number, the property tax levy, not including new construction, annexations and increases in the state utilities assessment, is actually reduced from last year by $48,654 to $5,688,900 (2009 General Fund levy of$5,737,554 times 99.152%). The preliminary budget document has been prepared using an estimated property tax levy of $5,850,000. Several options are available to set the 2010 Property Tax Levy. Pasco has been affected by the poor overall economic conditions of the entire country and has seen a serious decline in sales tax revenues. Increased utility tax revenues have helped to offset some of the sales tax decline but overall taxes for 2009 are projected to reflect a decrease of about $1 million. Pasco has been fortunate in that our prior budgeting practices included conservative budgeting in several areas which has consistent fund balances to prepare the 2010 budget. Staff is projecting a$6 million beginning fund balance in the General Fund for next year. The property tax levy for 2010 will be comprised of the following three elements: 4(e) 1. General Property Tax Levy. 2. 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Fire Station/Library Bonds Debt Service. 3. 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding (1993) Bonds Debt Service. The City is required to certify property tax levies with the county by November 30 of each year. IV. DISCUSSION: The Franklin County Assessor has provided a preliminary assessed valuation of$2,916,387,590 which is used to calculate 2010 taxes. This amount includes new construction of$58,565,500. There were $4,798,800 in annexations of property before the cutoff date of March 31St. There was no increase in the State Assessed Utility values. The Franklin County Assessor's Office now re-assesses all properties in the county each year. GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY Following are several options to setting the 2010 levy. Option 1.: Since the IPD is negative (-0.848), last year's levy would reduce by $48,654 and adds the value of new construction, new annexations and any increases in State Assessed Utility values at last year's rate and adding those numbers to last year's total levy. 2010 Total General Property Tax Levy $5,738,336 -0.848%reduction in the levy rate based on the allowable maximum increase amount (lesser of IPD or 1%) -48,654 New Construction Values of$58,565,500 using the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 117,378 New Annexation Values of$4,798,800 using the 2008 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 9,618 Increase in the State Assessed Utilities of$0 using the 2008 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 0 $5,816,678 A 2010 General Levy of$5,816,678 using the assessed value of$2,916,387,590 calculates to a levy rate of$1.9948 per $1,000 of assessed value. The 2010 levy rate would be 1 cent less than the 2008 rate of$2.00422. Option 2: By declaring substantial need, and passing an ordinance stating such, the Council could increase the levy up to the 1% limit ($64,685) and include new construction, annexations and the change in the state assessed utilities. This would set the levy rate at $2.03334 per $1,000 of assessed value. Using this option the 2010 General Property Tax Levy would be $5,930,017. This option would need a supermajority vote of the Council, or 5 affirmative votes. Option 3:. The City has preserved taxing capacity for a number of years (totaling $730,114). If the City were to levy all of the tax available in Option 2 and also choose to levy all the preserved levy capacity, the General Levy would increase to $6,660,131. The levy rate would calculate to $2.28369 per $1,000 of assessed value, still well below the maximum rate allowed per state statute ($3.60). Selecting this option would also need a supermajority vote of the Council, or 5 affirmative votes. PRESERVING FUTURE LEVY CAPACITY Preserved levy capacity, also referred to as "banked" levy capacity, is NOT money that has been put into a bank account. It is merely dollars that have not been levied and, therefore, left in the pockets of the taxpayers. The purpose of RCN 84.55.092 allowing a governmental entity to preserve future levy capacity is to "remove the incentive for a taxing district to maintain its tax levy at the maximum level permitted under this chapter, and to protect the future levy capacity of a taxing district that reduces its tax levy below the level that it otherwise could impose under this chapter, by removing the adverse consequences to future levy capacities resulting from such levy reductions." This simply means if the tax is not needed. a City does not have to set the levy at the maximum amount. The City can reserve that resource for future use. Preserving any unused levy capacity also requires a supermajority vote. ,If any unused levy capacity is available to preserve, a preservation ordinance has been prepared. 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE The 2010 debt service requirement for the 1999 UTGO Bonds issued for the purpose of the Library Remodel and Fire Station Relocation is $68,051 and $86,199, respectively. Staff recommends the 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond tax levy be set at those amounts. The two numbers are not combined because they appeared on the official ballot separately when voted upon. The county assessor's office requires we set these levies separately. The estimated assessed value for properties subject to the tax is $2,500,000,000; this will result in levy rates of approximately $0.027 and $0.034, respectively, or a combined levy rate of $0.061. The 2009 levy rates were $0.0271 and $0.0344, respectively, or $0.0615 combined. The schedule of payments calls for principal payments of$100,000 each year. This will result in decreased levy rates for the remaining payment schedule as the interest portion declines. The final payment for these bonds occurs in December 2019, 2002 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS The 2002 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds were issued to refund the 1993 General Obligation Bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates available and save the taxpayer's money. The debt service requirements in 2010 for the 2002 UTGO Refunding Bonds is $380,00 and staff recommends the 2002 Unlimited General Obligation Refunding Bonds tax levy rate be set at that dollar amount. The assessed value for properties subject to the tax is $2,250,000,000. This equates to a levy rate of approximately $0.17 per$1,000 of assessed value. This is the same approximate rate as the 2009 levy rate of$0.1691. Unlike the 1999 Bonds, the principal payment amounts will increase over the remaining life of these bonds but the interest portion will decrease keeping the annual payments at approximately $380,000. The final payment for these bonds occurs in December 2013. i. LO O O CL r r > N 6 I C) N p 00 �- o cn w o W Z < F- 0 > o W t� o US W a. to O J D C N x _ Cl) Lc) LL Q O O }. J 0 N O W W O O Z O O p W N W � OO p a- N V o cli (n 6. O a � o N O O O O O O O O O 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 O O O o o O O o 0 N O 00 Co I N O 00 w M M N N N N N r r {9} {f} 6e.* {9} {!} 61!} ff} E19- 64-)- O r O N 4 j I O CD N I i co O O , N I � O I � N i (i to O N LO O N d? i o CD t/} j I� N M s O O N N O O N E r O O N Ln O LO O Ln Co LO O Ef? tR- to!)- Eft 61} Ef} suo!II!8 2010 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS A.V. $ 2,916,387,590 OPTION 1:1 2009 Total General Property Tax Levy $ 5,738,336 -0..848% IPD - reduction in the levy rate based on the allowable (48,654) maximum increase abount (lesser of IPD or I% New Construction Values of$58,565,500 at the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 117,378 Annexation Values of$4,798,800 at the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 9,618 Increase in the State Assessed Utilities of$0 at the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 0 Levy rate of$1.9948 per $1,000 of assessed value $ 5,816,678 OPTION 2: 2009 Total General Property Tax Levy $ 5,738,336 Declare substantial need and increase last year's rate up to 1% 64,685 Would require supermajority vote of Council New Construction Values of$58,565,500 at the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 117,378 Annexation Values of$4,798,800 at the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 9,618 Levy rate of$2.0333 per $1,000 of assessed value $ 5,930,017 OPTION 3: 2009 Total General Property Tax Levy $ 5,738,336 Declare substantial need and increase last year's rate up to 1% 64,685 Would require supermajority vote of Council New Construction Values of$58,565,500 at the 2009 Tate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 117,378 Annexation Values of$4,798,800 at the 2009 rate of$2.00422/$1,000 Assessed Value 9,618 Levy previous preserved capacity 730,114 Would require supermajority vote of Council Levy rate of$2.28369 per$1,000 of assessed value $ 6,660,131 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 21, 2009 TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Workshop Mtg.: 10/26/09 Rick White, Dire Regular Mtg.: 11/2/09 Community &Economic Development FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: PUD Easement in Heritage Park (MF# INFO09-101) I. REFERENCE(S): I. Vicinity Map 2. PUD Easement 3. PUD Power Line Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 10/26: Discussion: 11/2: MOTION: I move to authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to sign the document granting the Franklin County PUD an easement across a portion,of Heritage Park for electrical power lines. I1Q. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The PUD power lines serving Heritage Park and many of the homes located to the south of the park need to be rebuilt. Due to the difficulty of building through the back yards of several residential lots the PUD is seeking an easement along the southerly 10 feet of Heritage Park. B) The proposed 10 foot easement would extend from the center of Road 44 easterly for a distance of 410 feet, terminating adjacent to the city's power feed and irrigation time clock serving the park. C) The proposed easement will not impact public use of the park. 4(f) - 1 • � e- 4 � . _ . � i ;mod T► � wcM • dcL ld 4 Y 41"Y _ r PW 1 r .a I , 1 t PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF FRANKLIN COUNTY Post Office Box 2407 Pasco, Washington 99302 RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT THE GRANTORS CITY OF PASCO, a Municipal Corporation for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby grant(s)to PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 of Franklin County, Washington, a municipal corporation, and to its successors or assigns, the right to enter upon the lands of Grantor(s) situated in the County of Franklin, State of Washington, and more particularly described as follows: A 10-foot wide underground powerline easement, of which is more particularly described as follows: The south 10 feet of the west 410 feet of the south '/2 of the NW 1/4 of the SW '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 26, Township 9N, Range 29E, WM, in Franklin County, Washington. Parcel ID No.: 119-512-304 and to construct, operate and maintain under and upon the above described lands and the streets, roads, or highways abutting the said lands electrical facilities and other utility facilities, including but not limited to fiber optics and telecommunications facilities with all convenient or necessary appurtenances (including, but not limited to, transformers), and to cut and trim trees and shrubbery that may interfere with or threaten to endanger the operation and maintenance of said line or system. The grantor(s) agree(s) that all facilities installed under and upon the above described lands at the grantee's expense shall remain the property of the grantee, and that the grantee shall have the right of ingress and egress over the adjacent lands of the grantor(s) for the purpose of exercising all rights hereby granted. All rights hereunder shall cease when the grantee, its successors or assigns, abandons or removes said line or system. Grantee shall not be liable for any damages caused to Grantor's property by actions reasonably taken by Grantee in the exercise of the rights herein granted. Dated this day of 2009. (Gary Crutchfield) (Debbie Clark) STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss., ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CORPORATION County of Franklin ) On this day of 2009, 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Gary Crutchfield and Debbie Clark personally appeared before me, and said individuals acknowledged that they signed this instrument and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the City Manager and Clerk, respectively of CITY OF PASCO, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned in the instrument. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF: I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal the day and year in this certificate above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Pasco My appointment expires CN co co 0 1-01b I Id I M� CD,v M O I Q�i L I t9 0 U NCO a M W) cro s L-0/b ii Y I9 w J i N °08 LL) �i o� a N i I—® tb09 / 1°Olt ci 1 l N� �uw �O�O�O�O�O�U-AL8P�FOSN� CO CD C N M O co u2 S ~ v- �J 0\Q z� LL a N Qi � M N ico 96 0CN U 6Z9 ¢ £69 909 6006 �'M° �a o �� /CO- = —� a pal osnos Nnosn:-s r- vnosnos ° • CO d f O M, rn o O !` C14"q d Y, c' Z66 ti06 JZ8 968 V09 9Z-9 6 / of Jo