Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013.11.12 Council Workshop PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 6:00 p.m. November 12, 2013 The Council meeting will take place on Tuesday, November 12 as City Hall will be closed Monday, November 11 in honor of Veterans Day. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR (a) 2014 Preliminary Budget Presentation (approximately 90 minutes). (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA). 2014 Preliminary Budget available for public review at the Pasco Library and on the City's webpage at www.nasco- wa.eov. (b) 2014 Property Tax Levy Report: 1. Agenda Report from Dunyele Mason, Finance Manager dated November 7, 2013. 2. Assessed Value History Chart. 3. Tax Levy Rate History Chart. 4. Summary of Options. 5. Proposed Ordinance for the 2014 Ad Valorem Tax. 6. Proposed Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity. (c) Community Survey Policy Questions: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated November 4, 2013. 2. Community Survey Questions from Prior Years. 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR (a) (b) (e) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 7. ADJOURNMENT REMINDERS: 1. 7:30 a.m., Tuesday, November 12, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce General Membership Special Breakfast. (Solutions Summit Breakfast; Washington Policy Center's Statewide Policy Conference) 2. 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 12, BF Health Department, Kennewick — Continuum of Care Task Force Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY) 3. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, November 14 — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) 4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, November 14 — Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) 5. 11:30 a.m., Friday, November 15 — Benton - Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council 4 TO: Gary Crutchfie " anager Rick Terway, A m' ve & Community Services Director t. FROM: Dunyele Mason, Financial Services Manager SUBJECT: 2014 Property Tax Levy — Report I. REFERENCE(S): II. III. 1. Assessed Value History Chart 2. Tax Levy Rate History Chart 3. Summary of Options 4. Proposed Ordinance for the 2014 Ad Valorem Tax 5. Proposed Ordinance Preserving Property Tax Levy Capacity November 7, 2013 Workshop Mtg. 11/12/13 ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/12: Discussion HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The maximum allowed levy rate, per State statute, that the city 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. From 1994 through 1999, the levy rate was reduced by not levying any of the allowable 6% increase available at that time. In November 1999, the legislature reduced the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) to $30 per vehicle. To compensate for this loss, Council elected to use most of the unused or banked levy capacity. The levy rate for 2000 taxes was set at $3.07 per $1,000 of assessed value — still well below the $3.60 maximum. In 2001, the voters approved Initiative 747, limiting the amount taxing districts could raise the property tax levy over the previous year by the lesser of 101% or the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), without voter approval. In November 2007, that initiative was challenged and ruled unconstitutional in the Washington State Supreme Court; that decision returned the limit to the lesser of 6% or IPD. Council chose not to increase the 2008 property tax levy rate by any allowable legal limit. In January 2008, the legislature placed into law those limits (suggested by I -747). The legal limit was to be the lesser of I% or IPD; this limit is still in effect today. IPD is a national inflation indicator much like the Consumer Price Index. The IPD figure to be used for the 2014 tax calculation is 1.314 %. The preliminary budget document has been prepared using an estimated property tax levy of $6,845,170 which is less than Option 1 and Option 2 as can be seen in the attached Summary of Options. Option 1 reflects an increase of $499,850 allowed by the 101% limit while Option 2 retains 100% of the 2012 levy. Option 3 shows the maximum amount the City could collect if Council chose to levy all prior property tax authority that has been preserved for future use (according to the State Department of Revenue calculations). Pasco has been holding steady and been buffered from the worst of the poor overall economic conditions that affect other parts of the country. The State of Washington's economic challenges could negatively affect 2014's outcomes if revenue sources from the state are sharply curtailed. Overall major tax revenues for 2014 are projected to hold steady with 2013 year end estimates. Pasco has been fortunate in using conservative budgeting practices which has resulted in stable fund balances to prepare the 2014 budget. Staff is projecting a $5.9 million beginning fund balance and a $5.4 million ending fund balance in the General Fund for next year. The increases 4(b) in fund balance is a planned recovery of fund balance to rebuild after using fund balance in the last couple of years to fund construction projects. Notably the 2013 budget called for a $2.3 million cash payment for the Municipal Court project. Paying cash as compared to a 20 year debt service payment for the Municipal Court project is estimated to save Pasco citizens over $1 million of interest payments. The property tax levy for 2014 will be comprised of the following two elements: 1. General Property Tax Levy 2. 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Fire Station/Library 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 $3,541,628,830 which is used to calculate the 2014 property taxes. This amount includes new construction of $82,215,933, an increase in the State assessed utilities values of ($0) and annexations of property before the cutoff date of March 31 of $138,924,844. The Franklin County Assessor's Office re- assesses all properties in the County each year. GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY Several options for setting the 2014 levy are outlined as follows: Option 1 Since the IPD of 1.314% is greater than 1 %, last year's levy would be increased by the allowed 1% ($64,925) plus 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. ■ 2013 (prior year) Total General Property Tax Levy ................. .....................$6,492,514 • 1 % increase in the levy rate based on the allowable maximum increase amount (lesser of IPD or 1 %) ................................... ............................... ........................$64,925 New Construction Values of $82,215,933 using the 2013 (prior year) rate of $1.966733/$1,000 Assessed Value ............. ............................... .......................$161,697 ■ New Annexation Values of $138,924,844 using the 2013 (prior year) rate of $1.966733/$1,000 Assessed Value ............. ............................... .......................$273,228 ■ Increase in the State Assessed Utilities of $0 using the 2013 (prior year) rate of $1.966733/$1,000 Assessed Value ................................ ............................... $0 Total Proposed 2014 Levy $6,992,364 A 2014 General Levy of $6,992,364 using the assessed value of $3,541,628,830 calculates to a levy rate of $1.97434 per $1,000 of assessed value. Under this option, the 2014 levy rate would be approximately $0.007 (three - quarters of one cent) per $1,000 more than the 2013 rate of $1.967328. Option 2: Council could choose not to assess the 1% allowed and there would be no increase from 2013 to 2014's levy except to add increased value related to new construction, annexations and the changes in the value of state assessed utilities. Under Option 2, the 2014 General Property Tax "base" levy would remain unchanged at $6,492,514. Adding new construction, annexations and state utilities, the 2014 total General Property Tax Levy would be $6,927,439. This would set the levy rate at $1.956004 per $1,000 of assessed value. The decrease in the levy rate of $0.011324 is a function of changes in the assessed value between 2013 and 2014. Option 3• Beginning in 1993 and continuing through 2013, the City has preserved its accumulated taxing capacity of $8,173,728. If the City was to levy all of the tax available in Option 3 and choose to levy all the preserved levy capacity, the general levy would increase to $8,690,390. The levy rate would calculate to $2.45378 per $1,000 of assessed value, still well below the maximum rate allowed per State statute of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value. Selecting this option would require a "super majority" vote of the Council, or five 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 capacity that has not been used and, therefore, dollars left in the pockets of the taxpayers. The purpose of RCW 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 requires a "super majority" vote of the Council. A preservation ordinance has been prepared should any unused levy capacity be available to preserve. If council enacts Option 2, then the banked (unused) levy capacity for future years would be $1,763,083 which is the highest lawful levy amount of $8,690,522 less the actual levy amount of $6,927,439. 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT SERVICE The 2014 debt service requirement for the 1999 UTGO Bonds issued for the purpose of the Library Remodel and Fire Station Relocation is $58,746 and $74,404, 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 $2,892,376,982; this will result in levy rates of approximately $0.0203 and $0.0272 respectively, or a combined levy rate of $0.0460. The 2013 levy rates were $0.0229 and $0.0290, respectively, or $0.0519 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. Council should note that the 1993 UTGO Bond for renovation of the old high school to serve as City Hall was retired in 2013, thus reducing the overall levy rate by .1488. Using Option 2, the combined levy rate for those portions of the city subject to the 1999 UTGO has declined from 2.1674 in 2013 to 2.0035 in 2014, a drop of more than 16 -cents per $1,000 (or $24 on a home valued at $150,000). 2014 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS Assessed Value (including New Construction, Annexations & Utilities) $ 3,541,628,830 OPTION 1 Prior Year Total General Property Tax Levy $ 6,492,514 1.000% 1 % or IPD - Increase in the levy rate based on the 64,925 allowable maximum increase amount (Lesser of IPD 1.314% or 1%) 1% New Construction Values of $ 82,215,933 at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 161,697 of Assessed Value Annexation Values of $ 138,924,844 at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 273,228 of Assessed Value Increase in the State Assessed Utilities $ - at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 0 of Assessed Value Levy rate of $ 1.97434 per $1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,992,364 OPTION 2 Prior Year Total General Property Tax Levy $ 6,492,514 IPD - No Increase of 1 % in the levy rate 0 New Construction Values of $ 82,215,933 161,697 at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 of Assessed Value Annexation Values of $ 138,924,844 273,228 at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 of Assessed Value Increase in the State Assessed Utilities $ at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 0 of Assessed Value Levy rate of $ 1.95600 per $1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 6,927,439 OPTION 3 Highest Lawful Levy from Previous Years $ 8,173,728 Declare substantial need and increase highest allowed by 1% 81,737 New Construction Values of $ 82,215,933 at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 161,697 of Assessed Value Annexation Values of $138,924,844 at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 273,228 of Assessed Value Increase in the State Assessed Utilities $ - at the 2013 rate of $ 1.966733 per $1,000 0 of Assessed Value Levy rate of $ 2.45378 per $1,000 of Total Assessed Value $ 8,690,390 \ \nu \Finance\A FINANCE MANAGER \BUDGET - DM \PROPERTY TAX\2014 Taxes Levied in 2013\2014 SUMMARY OF OPTIONS - DM 11/8/2013 10:42 AM 9.19.13.xisx — a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE 2014 AD VALOREM TAX LEVY, A LEVY AND FOR THE 1999 UNLIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE CITY OF PASCO IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: §1. The City Council of the City of Pasco (the population of which is greater than 10,000) has met and considered its budget for the calendar year 2014; §2. The City Council of the City of Pasco after public hearing and after duly considering all relevant evidence and testimony presented, determined that the City of Pasco requires a regular levy in the amount of $6,927,439, which does NOT include any of the allowable percentage increase in property tax revenues from the previous year, and does include amounts resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property and any increases in the value of state - assessed property, and amounts authorized by law as a result of any annexations that have occurred and refunds made, in order to discharge the expected expenses and obligations of the district. RCW 84.55.120 requires a specific statement regarding the amount of any increase in regular property tax from the previous year. The actual general levy amount from the previous year (2013) was $6,492,514. The City Council of the City of Pasco hereby authorizes the following increase in the regular property tax levy to be collected in the 2014 tax year. The dollar amount of the increase over the actual levy amount from the previous year shall be $0 (ZERO) which is a percentage INCREASE of 0% (ZERO PERCENT) from the previous year. This increase is exclusive of additional revenue resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements, newly constructed wind turbines to property, any increase in the value of state assessed property, and any additional amounts resulting from any annexations that have occurred and refunds made. The property tax from new construction to be included in the actual levy is calculated to be $161,697. This number is the result of the amount of new construction and improvements to property of $82,215,933, provided by the Franklin County Assessor's Office, multiplied by the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of $1.966733 per $1,000 of that value. The property tax from annexation to be included in the actual levy is calculated to be $273,228. This number is the result and Annexation property values of $138,924,844 provided by the Franklin County Assessor's Office, multiplied by the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of $1.966733 per $1,000 of that value There were no additional amounts resulting from state assessed utilities as that valuation decreased from the prior year. §3. A tax for the following sums of money which includes new construction and annexations to defray the expense and liabilities of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby levied for the purposes specified against all taxable property in the City for the fiscal year 2014: General Expense, including Councilmanic Bond Debt Service $6,927,439 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Library Remodel 58,746 1999 Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bond/Fire Station 74,404 $7,060,589 §4. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Pasco, on this 18th day of November, 2013. City of Pasco: Matt Watkins, Mayor Attest: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Approved As To Form: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PRESERVING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY CAPACITY IN THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER 2013 IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. WHEREAS, to provide the property tax revenues required by the general operating budget of the City for fiscal year 2014, City Council of the City of Pasco levied property taxes on all taxable property in the City for collection in fiscal year 2014 in the total amount of $6,927,439, which dollar amount is the sum of (a) $6,492,514 is the amount of property taxes levied by the City in fiscal year 2013, plus (b) $0 of the allowable increase of the lesser of 1 % or the Implicit Price Deflator (1.314 %), (c) $161,697 which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of 1.966733 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, plus (d) $273,228 relating to property annexed into the City during fiscal year 2013, and (e) $0, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of 1.966733 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from no increase in value of State- assessed utility property in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City desires to preserve in accordance with State law (including but not limited to Chapter 84.55 RCW) the capacity of the City to levy property taxes in future fiscal years after 2013, calculated as if the City in fiscal year 2013 had levied the full amount allowed by state law upon a finding of substantial need therefore; and WHEREAS, upon a finding of substantial need and based upon limit factors of the lesser of 101% or IPD (1.314 %) for the previous year and limit factors of 101% or 106% and IPD for previous years as provided by RCW 84.55.0101 and $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value by RCW 84.52.043 and 41.16.060, the City would be permitted to levy property taxes for fiscal year 2014 in a total amount of $8,690,390 (the "full amount allowed by law "), which dollar amount is the sum of (a) $8,173,728 (the actual highest lawful levy as of 2013), plus (b) $161,697, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of $1.966733 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from the addition of new construction and improvements to property in the City, plus (c) $273,228 which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of $1.966733 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from property annexed into the City during fiscal year, and (d) $0, which is the amount of additional taxes at the 2013 (prior year) levy rate of $1.966733 cents per $1,000 of assessed value resulting from no increase in value of State assessed utility; and WHEREAS, the full amount allowed by law for fiscal year 2014 of $8,690,390 is $1,762,951 greater than the actual property tax levy of the City for fiscal year 2014 of $6,927,439 and such excess represents the unused 2014 property tax levy capacity that the City desires to preserve for future fiscal years after 2013; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City finds and determines that there is substantial need for the City to preserve, for future fiscal years after 2013, the capacity to levy property taxes on all taxable property in the City in the amount of $1,762,951, which is equal to the unused levy capacity of the City for fiscal year 2014. This substantial need includes, without limitation, the anticipated future requirements for additional property tax revenues that will be needed for the construction and/or maintenance of roads, streets, bridges and other transportation facilities of the City; to satisfy anticipated and unanticipated new regulatory requirements applicable to the City; to provide for potential excess costs of capital facilities; and generally to meet other substantial future financial requirements of the City. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. ADOPTED by the City Council by the affirmative vote of a majority plus one vote of the members thereof and APPROVED by the Mayor of Pasco, Washington, at a regular open public meeting thereof, this 18th day of November, 2013. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City CouncijDuty TO: Gary Crutch Manager FROM: Stan Strebel City Manager SUBJECT: Community Survey Policy Questions I. REFERENCE(S): Community Survey Questions from Prior Years November 4, 2013 Workshop Mtg.: 11/12/13 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 11/12: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City is contracting again with the National Research Center (NRC) to conduct the National Citizens Survey, a biennial community survey consisting primarily of standard questions regarding the availability and quality of municipal services. Additionally, the City may include up to three "policy" issues to be included as questions in the survey. B) The City has contracted for the survey to be completed in odd years since 2005. In each case, policy questions were asked. Attachment 1 includes the questions asked in prior survey rounds. C) The City will have to provide NRC with draft policy questions/topics by late November in order to have them included in the survey this fall. The completed survey will provide policy guidance to the City Council in preparation for its biennial retreat in spring 2014. V. DISCUSSION: Staff offers the following for Council consideration: Ambulance Service to Fire District: The donut hole (surrounded by Pasco) has received ambulance service from the Pasco Fire Department under a contract with Fire District #3, whereby the District has paid a small annual fee, but donut hole residents do not pay the same monthly ambulance utility fee ($6.25 /month) that is paid by Pasco residents. If the city continues to provide the same ambulance service to Fire District #3 that it provides to city residents, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the contract should require the District to pay an annual fee based on the same monthly ambulance fee paid by Pasco residents. a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Disagree d) Strongly Disagree 4(c) Development Standards in Urban Growth Area: State law in 1990 required counties to plan under the new Growth Management Act and to designate an Urban Growth Area (UGA) for each city. The purpose of a UGA concept is to have cities plan for their growth and for cities and counties to minimize the development conflicts within the designated areas, as such areas are expected to eventually be within the adjacent city. Franklin County does not apply the city's development standards in the Pasco UGA, so the city must spend Pasco tax dollars after annexation to make the roads, hydrants and other improvements meet city standards. To what extent do you agree or disagree that Franklin County should require new developments in the Pasco UGA be consistent with development requirements of the city? a) Strongly Agree b) Agree c) Disagree d) Strongly Disagree Public Records Requests: The State Public Records Act provides that units of state and local government must be responsive to citizen requests to view or obtain copies of public documents. While most requests are specific in nature and limited in scope, some requestors have used the system to make burdensome or harassing requests for huge volumes of non - specific documents — resulting in significant public costs for responding to such requests. To what extent do you agree that public records requestors, if making frequent, large volume requests, should be required to pay a proportionate share of the costs of making such requests? a) Strongly Agree b) Somewhat Agree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Strongly Disagree Community Survey Questions 2011 Survey 1. "Impact Fees" are assessed on all new housing construction to help pay for related public infrastructure (like roads and parks). To what extent do you support or oppose an impact fee to pay a portion of new school construction costs in Pasco? 2. The City of Pasco is considering asking the state to change the process arbitrators use in organized -labor negotiations to ensure that an individual city's budget or "ability to pay" is factored into the arbitration decision. To what extent do you support or oppose a change to reflect the city's "ability to pay?" 3. There are seven members of the City Council; five positions require a candidate to reside within a geographical district within the City and two positions are elected "at large" without regard to district residency. The purpose of having some districts is to assure reasonable geographic representation of Council members throughout the city. Please indicate which of the following best reflects your view: favor the current system as described above; prefer fewer at large representatives; prefer more at large representatives. 2009 Survey 1. To what extent do you support or oppose establishing curbside recycling service, if it requires an increase to your garbage pickup service cost of $4 to $5 dollars per month? 2. To what extent do you support or oppose the City continuing to add fluoride to the City's drinking water system? 3. A committee, consisting of representatives of the cities of Kennewick, Richland and Pasco, has been studying the feasibility of developing regional centers (e.g., aquatic center, performing arts center, etc.) that could be used by all residents in the region and considering voter approved sales tax and property tax options to finance them. Because a sales tax would be paid by visitors as well as residents and would be paid in much smaller increments throughout the year, among other reasons, the committee has tentatively concluded that a sales tax increase would be preferable to a property tax increase. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this conclusion? 2007 Survey: 1. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking a more active role in working to improve the downtown business area? 2. To what extent do you support or oppose the City installing and maintaining landscaping along select major street corridors to improve the appearance of the community? 3. As you may know, the three public pools in Pasco are in need of complete renovation. As an alternative, to what degree would you support or oppose the City building a new water park (including a pool slide and other water features) that would replace one (or possibly two) existing swimming pools? 2005 Survey: 1. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "The City of Pasco should assume all the cost of maintaining and operating Chiawana Park "? 2. To what extent do you support or oppose an increased sales tax of 1/10 of one percent (one extra penny on each $10 purchase) to have a regional aquatic center in the Tri- Cities? 3. The City has a history of supporting Pasco School District programs and facilities with City funds. To what extent do you support or oppose the City of Pasco continuing to support Pasco School District programs and facilities with City funds?