REVENUE SOURCES FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN SUPPORT DOCUMENT
FEBRUARY 7,1995
REVENUE SOURCES FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
This report identifies and briefly describes revenue sources that are available to City of Port Townsend for capital facilities.
Organization of Report
The report is organized in two major sections -- Multi-Use and Single-Use Revenue Sources:
Section 1. Multi-Use: Revenue sources that can be used for virtually any type of capital facility (but which may become restricted when the City adopts their use for a specific type of capital facility).
Section 2. Single-Use: Revenue sources that can be used only for a particular type of capital facility. In Section 2, the list of revenue sources is organized according to the types of capital facilities for which the revenues may be used (i.e., roads, parks, water, etc.).
Within each section revenues are presented in categories:
Taxes
Fees and Charges
Grants and Loans
Some of the sources of revenue that can be used for capital facilities can also be used for operating costs. The discussion of limitations on the use of each revenue source indicates whether it may be used only for capital expenditures, or whether it may be used for other purposes.
Each revenue source is presented in a standard format:
a. Type of local government that can use the source of revenue.
b. Source of revenue, including its basis, and general purposes for which the revenue can be used.
c. Specific limitations and requirements for use of the revenue.
d. Decision basis (local government discretion, voter approval required, state grant, or state entitlement).
e. Current use in City of Port Townsend describes whether or not the City currently uses the revenue source, and any notes about its use and the amount the City collects.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast (which corresponds to the six-year Capital Facilities Plan) shows amount that could be collected if the City uses the additional revenue source for capital, and notes regarding the basis of the forecast.
Existing City revenues are not forecast, nor are they diverted to capital (from maintenance and operations).
New Revenue Vs. Borrowed Money
This report includes bonds as a source of revenue for capital facilities. Bonds are not a source of "original" revenue. Rather, bonds are a use of money borrowed by a local government, and they require a source of "original" revenue (such as those listed and described in this report), to be used to repay the bondholders. General obligation bonds can create a "new" source of revenue when they are repaid by additional (excess levy) property taxes that are specifically approved by local voters.
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds are secured by the "full faith and credit" of the government, and repayment can be made from any unrestricted revenue source. Generally, G.O. bonds are repaid with tax revenue, and local governments must obtain voter approval to issue most G.O. bonds and raise taxes for their payment. One kind of G.O. bond (councilmanic bonds) can be issued without voter approval.
Revenue Bonds are secured by a specific revenue source, usually a user fee or charge, and can be issued without voter approval. For example, a government might finance a water or sewer system with a revenue bond, and designate part of income from users of the facility to make the principal and interest payment.
Revenue bonds have been the source of the most creative financing in local jurisdictions, such as Industrial Revenue Bonds, Building Authority Bonds, and Low-Interest Housing Bonds. Federal law restricts the amount and uses of may revenue bonds, and Washington law prohibits the use of public debt for private purposes.
G.O. bonds are mostly used for general government (non-utility purposes, and revenue bonds are used most frequently for utilities (water, sewer, etc.).
SECTION 1. MULTI-USE REVENUE SOURCES
TAXES
1. Property Tax and "Lid Lift"
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 84.52 authorizes this tax on the assessed valuation of real property. Presently, the maximum rate is $3.60 per $1,000 assessed valuation for cities, and for counties is approximately $1.80 per $1,000 assessed valuation (general) and $2.25 per $1,000 _ assessed valuation (roads).
A property tax 106% lid was imposed in 1973 (RCW 84.55). It prohibits a local government from raising its levy more than 6% of the highest amount that could have been lawfully levied in the last 3 years (before adjustments for new construction and annexation).
The State also authorizes temporary or permanent increases above the 106% lid (up to the statutory limit), subject to approval by local voters
A temporary "lid lift" requires the following to be specified: (1) proposed levy rate, (2) time period for which the levy will be in effect, and (3) purpose of the levy increase. When the limited time period expires, or when the limited purpose is satisfied, whichever comes first, subsequent levies are computed as if the excess levy had not been approved.
A permanent "lid lift", on the other hand, is not required to identify a specific time period or purpose for the tax revenue. Upon voter approval of a permanent "lid lift", the new levy rate is used to compute the limitation for all subsequent levies.
c. Limitations/Requirements: None.
d. Decision Basis: City Council decision for levy that does not exceed 106% of tax revenues in past 3 years. "Lid lifts" (exceeding 106%) require approval by 50% or more of the voters.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City's 1994 general levy is $1.88884 per $1,000 assessed valuation and is projected to generate $850,000 in revenue. Revenue generated from the levy is distributed to several funds as follows: allocations to the Current Expense, Street Maintenance, Library, Park and Firemen's-Pension and Relief funds total $719,617 for operating and maintenance costs; allocations to the 1988 and 1993 Bond Redemption Funds total $120,383 for debt service costs. (Even though the City's levy allocation for councilmanic debt [i.e., not requiring voter approval] are included in this section of the study there is a limit on the amount of councilmanic debt which is discussed in revenue source Number 2, below.) Finally, $10,000 is allocated to the Port Townsend Local Improvement Guaranty Fund 361. No regular levy monies are currently used for capital improvements.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
ADDITIONAL LEVY TO $3.60 MAXIMUM
Planning Period | Tax
Revenue
($ million) |
1995 - 2000 | $4.7
|
The statutory maximum allowable levy is $3.60. The current City levy (1994) is $2.07458. The City could raise it's general levy rate by $1.52542 per $1,000 assessed valuation (from $2.07458 to $3.60).
The following table shows a forecast of tax revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000 if it were to levy an additional $1.52542 per $1,000 assessed valuation. The forecast is based on the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecast is based on revenue from an additional $1.52542 per $1,000 assessed valuation being available in the first year of the planning period (i.e., 1995). An increase in property taxes above the 106% lid would require local voter approval.
The forecast consists of two parts: 1) revenue from existing development (which is subject to the 106% limit), and 2) revenue from new construction.
1) Existing development is analyzed in Section A of Table 1. The assessed value of existing property and development is conservatively estimated to increase at approximately 2.5% per year (which is less than the actual rate of increase during the last 5 years). The tax revenue is then calculated by applying the levy rate to the new assessed value.
2) New construction is analyzed in Section B of Table 1. The assessed value of new construction is based on a percentage of the value of existing, development, and the tax revenue is calculated by applying the levy rate to the new assessed value.
New construction is forecast to be 2.72% of the value of existing development. The forecast rate of 2.72% is a weighted average of 2.55% for residential construction and 3.51% for non-residential (i.e., commercial, office, industrial, etc.).
The 2.55% rate for residential construction is based on the City's forecast of dwelling unit growth for the period 1994-2000 (using the City's moderate growth scenario).
The 3.51% growth rate for non-residential construction is based on the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
Each year, the new construction estimate is prepared by taking 2.72% of a baseline assessed value which consists of two parts: 1) existing development (including the 2.5% growth rate for existing property and development), and 2) the increase due to new construction during the previous year. For example, the baseline assessed value for 1996 is the sum of the 1995 assessed value and 1995 new construction, with the sum increased 2.5% over the previous year.
The forecast of total revenue available for capital improvements is presented in Section C of Table 1. The tax revenue from existing development (see Section A) and new construction (see Section B) are listed in the first two columns, and totaled in the third column. The portion that is available for capital improvements is calculated at 100% of total revenue generated from the additional levy, as shown in the last column.
Property tax levys are most often used by local governments for operating and maintenance costs. While it is legally permissible to use this levy for capital improvements, it may not be prudent to do so because this is the principle source of revenue available to pay for future increases in operating and maintenance costs.
1 PROPERTY TAX TAX: ADDITIONAL LEVY (1.52542)
A. REVENUE GENERATED FROM EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
| | TAX REVENUE |
| ASSESSED | LEVY RATE = |
| VALUE | 1.52542 |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | 698,073 |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.50% | NA |
1995 | 469,067,362" | 715,525 |
1996 | 480,794,046 | 733,413 |
1997 | 492,813,898 | 751,748 |
1998 | 505,134,245 | 770,542 |
1999 | 517,762,601 | 789,805 |
2000 | 530,706,666 | 809,551 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 4,570,584
|
B. REVENUE GENERATED FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION
| EXISTING
PLUS NEW*
ASSESSED
VALUE
2.50%
ANNUAL GROWTH | NEW
CONSTRUCTION
ASSESSED VALUE
2.72%
OF BASE | NEW
CONSTRUCTION
TAX REVENUE
LEVY RATE "
1.52542 |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | NA | 0 |
FORECAST | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.50% | NA | NA |
1995 | 469,067,362 | 12,758,632 | 19,462 |
1996 | 493,102,374 | 13,433,309 | 20,491 |
1997 | 518,368,940 | 14,143,662 | 21,575 |
1998 | 544,930,164 | 14,891,579 | 22,716 |
1999 | 572,852,386 | 15,679,046 | 23,917 |
2000 | 602,205,342 | 16,508,154 | 25,182 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | NA | 133,344
|
C. TOTAL REVENUE AVAILABLE FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
| TAX REVENUE
LEVY RATE "
1.52542 | NEW
CONSTRUCTION
TAX REVENUE
LEVY RATE "
1.52542 | TOTAL
TAX REVENUE
LEVY RATE =
1.52542 | REVENUE
AVAILABLE
FOR
CAPITAL
100% |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | | |
1994 BUDGET | 698,073 | NA | 698,073 | 698,073 |
FORECAST | | | | |
% GROWTH IRATE | | | | |
1995 | 715,525 | 19,462 | 734,987 | 734,987 |
1996 | 733,413 | 20,491 | 753,904 | 753,904 |
1997 | 751,748 | 21,575 | 773,323 | 773,323 |
1998 | 770,542 | 22,716 | 793,258 | 793,258 |
1999 | 789,805 | 23,917 | 813,723 | 813,723 |
2000 | 809,551 | 25,182 | 834,732 | 834,732 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | 4,570,584 | 133,344 | 4,703,927 | 4,703,927
|
2. General Obligation Bonds (Voted and Councilmanic)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: GO Bonds are backed by the value of the property within the jurisdiction (full faith and credit). There are two types of GO Bonds: voter-approved and councilmanic.
Voter-approved bonds will increase the property tax rate, with the increased revenues dedicated to paying principal and interest on the bonds. Local governments are authorized "excess levies" (increases in the regular property tax levy (RCW 84.52) above the $1.80 per $1,000 assessed valuation ($3.60 for cities) statutory limit (general) and $2.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation statutory limit (roads) to repay voter-approved bonds. There is no dollar limit for this levy, however the total amount of debt is limited as described below (see Limitations/Requirements).
Councilmanic bonds, on the other hand, are authorized by the jurisdiction's legislative body without the need for voter approval. Principal and interest payments for councilmanic bonds come from general government revenues, without a corresponding increase in taxes, which means that this method of bond approval does not utilize a dedicated funding source for repaying the bondholders.
Lease-Purchase arrangements, which are also authorized by the jurisdiction's legislative body without the need for voter approval, are a third type of obligation in addition to voter-approved or councilmanic bonds.
c. Limitations/requirements: The amount of local government debt for cities is restricted by law to 2.5% of taxable value of property for general purpose bonds (RCW 39.36.020). Of the 2.5% for general purpose debt, the City may issue up to 1.5% in the form of councilmanic bonds and 1.5% for lease-purchase arrangements (provided that the total for all three types of debt does not exceed 2.5% of taxable value).
[An excess property tax can also be imposed for a single year (two years for school districts) for general purposes (i.e., capital facilities, maintenance, or operations). See RCW 84.52.052. This excess property tax levy must be approved by a 60% majority vote and the total number of voters must be at least 40% of those voting in the most recent general election.]
d. Decision Basis: Local government decision: 60% majority required for voter-approved bonds/excess levy. Only council approval required for councilmanic bonds and lease purchases.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has a voted debt levy of $0.18574 (1994) per $1,000 population which is projected to generate $85,000 in 1994 for fire equipment debt service. The City's current councilmanic general obligation debt is $ 858,191 and voter approved general obligation debt is $124,845.
(Source for current debt is the "City of Port Townsend Limitation of Indebtedness for the Year Ending December 31,1993, Schedule 10, minus debt service payments budgeted for 1994.)
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: The debt capacity forecasts are presented in 2 sections; A) voted general obligation bond debt capacity, and B) councilmanic debt capacity. The statutes provide an overall cap of 2.5% of assessed value on bonds, however we prepared separate forecasts for 1.0% (voter approved) and 1.5% (councilmanic) in order to show councilmanic debt capacity separate from the total debt capacity. As noted above, a third category of debt, lease-purchase, is available to the City. A portion (not to exceed 1.5% of assessed value) of the 2.5% cap could be allocated to lease-purchase arrangements. However, the amount of debt capacity available for councilmanic and voted debt capacity would be reduced proportionately in order to stay within the overall 2.5% cap. In addition, we recognize that the City could exceed the 1.0% limit for voter approved general obligation debt by using part or all of the 1.5% councilmanic debt service capacity as long as the total does not exceed 2.5%.
The basis for the forecasts is the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
For the 1994 and 1995 data the total general purpose debt capacity for each year is calculated at 1.0% (voted G. O. Bonds) and 1.5% (councilmanic) of the assessed valuation. The debt capacity "growth increment" is calculated by subtracting the prior year's total debt capacity from the current year's total debt capacity. In the right-hand column the total unused debt capacity is calculated per year by subtracting the existing debt from total debt capacity.
Beginning in 1996 the "Unused Debt Capacity" changes from reflecting total unused debt capacity to reflecting the annual "growth increment" in unused debt capacity (i.e., the 1996 debt capacity minus the 1995 existing debt/issues equals 1996 unused debt capacity increment).
The forecasts (Table 2) assume 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
DEBT CAPACITY FORECAST: 1995 -2000
| Percent | | |
| Of | Debt | |
| Taxable | Capacity | Table 2 |
Type of Debt | Value | ($ million) | Section |
Voted G.O. Bonds | $1.0% | $6.1 | A |
Cuncilmanic Bonds | 1.5% | $8.5 | B |
Total | 2.5% | $14.6 |
|
If the City were to borrow the entire remaining debt capacity (i.e., $14.6 million) in a single bond issue the estimated annual debt service obligation (principle and interest) would be $1,378,240 (based on a 7% interest rate over a 20 year period). In 1995 the levy rate required to generate $1,378,240 is $2.9383 per $1,000 of assessed value. The basis for the levy rate is the forecast of assessed value from Table 2.
As an example of what this would amount to in additional taxes for a home in the City of Port Townsend, the following is an analysis of the tax contribution per household for debt service:
The median value of a home in the City of Port Townsend is estimated to be $124,500. This was determined by applying an annual inflation rate of 2.5% to the 1990 Census median price of a home in Port Townsend of $110,082.
The annual contribution per home for the debt service obligation, based on a median home value of $124,500 and an annual levy rate of $2.9383 per $1,000 of assessed value, would be $365.82 or approximately $1.00 per day.
The City could issue additional debt amounts less than the legal maximum of $14.6 million. For every $1.0 million of debt issued the annual principal and interest payment is estimated to be $94,400 requiring an additional levy of $0.2013 per $1,000 of assessed value. This equates to a contribution of $25.06 for a median priced home.
2. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
A: VOTED GENERAL PURPOSE BONDS
| ASSESSED
VALUE | DEBT
CAPACITY
@1.0% OF
ASSESSED
VALUE | DEBT
CAPACITY
GROWTH
INCREMENT | EXISTING
VOTED
DEBT | UNUSED
DEBT
CAPACITY |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | | | |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | 4,576,267 | NA | 220,000 | 4,356,267 |
FORECAST | | | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 4,815,148 | 238,881 | 124,845 | 4,690,303 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 5,066,499 | 251,351 | | 251,351 |
1997 | 533,097,055 | 5,330,970 | 264,471 | | 264,471 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 5,609,247 | 278,277 | | 278,277 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 5,902,049 | 292,803 | | 292,803 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 6,210,136 | 308,087 | | 308,087 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | NA | NA | 124,845 | 6,085,291
|
B: COUNCILMANIC BONDS
| ASSESSED
VALUE | DEBT
CAPACITY
@1.5% OF
ASSESSED
VALUE | DEBT
CAPACITY
GROWTH
INCREMENT | EXISTING
COUNCILMANIC
DEBT | UNUSED
DEBT
CAPACITY |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | | | |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | 6,864,400 | 6,864,400 | 978,704 | 5,885,696 |
FORECAST | | | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 7,222,722 | 358,322 | 858,191 | 6,364,531 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 7,599,748 | 377,026 | 0 | 377,026 |
1997 | 533,097,005 | 7,996,455 | 396,707 | 0 | 396,707 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 8,413,870 | 417,415 | 0 | 417,415 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 8,853,074 | 439,204 | 0 | 439,204 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 9,315,205 | 462,130 | 0 | 462,130 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | NA | NA | 858,191 | 8,457,014
|
3. Real Estate Excise Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.46 authorized real estate excise tax levy of 1/4%. The Growth Management Act authorized another 1/4% for capital facilities, and requires the existing 1/4% real estate excise tax to be used primarily for financing capital facilities specified in the local government's capital facilities plan.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenues from this tax must be used for financing capital facilities specified in the local government's capital facilities plan. For counties" and cities within those counties that "opt in", this additional tax must be voter approved. The City of Port Townsend is required to plan under the Growth Management Act, therefore the Real Estate Excise Tax can be approved by the City Council.
Both the first and second 1/4% real estate exise tax revenue may be used for the following capital facilities:
1) The planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation or improvement of:
Streets;
Roads;
Highways;
Sidewalks;
Street and Road Lighting Systems;
Traffic Signals;
Bridges;
Domestic Water Systems; and
Storm and Sanitary Sewer Systems
2) The planning, construction, reconstruction, repair, rehabilitation, or improvement of parks and recreation facilities.
In addition, the first 1/4% real estate excise tax may be used for the following capital facilities:
1) The acquisition of parks and recreation facilities;
2) The planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation or improvement of:
Law Enforcement Facilities;
Fire Protection Facilities;
Trails;
Libraries;
Administrative and Judicial Facilities;
River and/or Waterway Flood Control Projects (if the jurisdiction has expended funds for this purpose prior to June 11, 1992); and
Housing Projects (until December 31, 1995, and only if the jurisdiction has expended funds for this purpose prior to June 11, 1992).
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion per ESHB 2929 requirements.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has enacted both the first and second 1/4% Real Estate Excise Tax According to the City's Finance Department the 1994 revenue is estimated to be $144,000. A portion of the revenue is committed to payment of the City's annual contribution (i.e.,$25,000) to Jefferson County for the County's debt service payments for the Recreation Center renovation project, and annual real estate contract payments (a form of land acquisition debt) of $9,228. Based on the estimated expenditures in the Capital Improvement Fund (180) the balance of the revenue is used for sidewalk and bicycle path improvements (the 1994 estimated expenditure for these projects is $30,000) and fund reserves
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast
Planning Period | Total R.E.E.T
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.74
|
The forecast in the following table (Table 3) shows the amount of R.EE.T. revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000.
The basis for the forecast is the 1994 budgeted revenue of $100,000, which has been adjusted to $144,000 in order to reflect the City's current estimate of revenue for 1994. Fiscal year 1994 is the first full year of collection of the 2nd 1/4% R.E.E.T. The City estimates that the actual revenue collected for both the first and second 1/4% R.E.E.T. will be approximately $144,000 rather than the more conservative budgeted amount of $100,000. The forecast in Table 3 assumes collection of $144,000 in 1994 and continuation of the City's committment of $34,228 per year for contributions to Jefferson County debt service payments and land acquisition debt through the planning period.
The forecast assumes 2.72% annual growth in real estate transactions. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) Revenue generated from sales of existing property and development (1994) is projected to remain "constant. It is virtually impossible to predict with any accuracy a wide variety of economic conditions, such as interest rates, unemployment rates, household formation rates or housing inventories, which will affect real estate transactions. As a result we assume that real estate transactions for the resale of existing property will remain at the same level;
2) Revenue generated from sales of new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) Revenue generated from sales of new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
3. REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX
| REET
REVENUE | REAL ESTATE
CONTRACTS
AND OTHER
DEBT
SERVICE | REVENUE
AVAILABLE
FOR CAPITAL |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | |
1990 ACTUAL | 70,000 | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | 70,681 | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | 64,185 | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | 104,888 | NA | NA |
1994 ESTIMATE | 144,000 | 34,228 | 109,772 |
PERCENT CHANGE | | | |
1990-91 | 1.0% | NA | |
1991-92 | -9.2% | NA | |
1992-93 | 63.4% | NA | |
1993-94 | 37.3% | NA | |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | 19.8% | NA | |
FORECAST | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.72% | NA | NA |
1995 | 147,917 | 34,228 | 113,689 |
1996 | 151,940 | 34,228 | 117,712 |
1997 | 156,073 | 34,228 | 121,845 |
1998 | 160,318 | 34,228 | 126,090 |
1999 | 164,679 | 34,228 | 130,451 |
2000 | 169,158 | 34,228 | 134,930 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | 950,085 | NA | 744,717
|
4. Business and Occupation Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 35.11 authorizes this tax on the gross or net income of businesses, not to exceed a rate of 0.2%.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenue can be used for capital facilities acquisition, construction, maintenance, and operations.
d. Decision Basis: Tax levied at local discretion subject to voter approval for new tax or rate increase (RCW 35.21).
e. Current Use in Port Townsend: $309,000 is budgeted in 1995 for operating and maintenance costs. The City's current (1995) Business and Occupation Tax rate is 0.14%.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Additional
B & O Tax
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.78
|
The following table shows the additional revenue the City could generate for capital facilities if it were to raise the Business and Occupation Tax to the maximum allowable rate of 0.2%.
Taxable sales are forecast for each year in the planning period. For 1994 the taxable sales estimate is $190,000,000 ($190,000 divided by 0.1%) The 1995 preliminary budget estimate for the Business and Occupation Tax is $309,000 and is based on the rate increase to 0.14% for increased operating and maintenance costs. This equates to taxable sales of $220,000,000. However the 1995 estimated revenue includes a one time increase in revenue due to construction activity related to two major school and hospital construction projects. The 1996 taxable sales forecast is based on the 1995 estimate adjusted to delete the one-time additional revenue, to more accurately reflect taxable sales activity.
The additional Business and Occupation Tax revenue is calculated by multiplying the forecast of taxable sales by 0.06% (maximum allowable rate of 0.2% less the current rate of 0.14%).
The forecast assumes taxable sales will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
4. BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX
| TAXABLE
SALES | ADDITIONAL
B & O REVENUE:
TAX RATE =
0.06% |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 190,000,000 | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 3.51% | NA |
1995 | 220,000,000 | 132,000 |
1996 | 201,821,728 | 121,093 |
1997 | 208,905,670 | 125,343 |
1998 | 216,238,259 | 129,743 |
1999 | 223,828,222 | 134,297 |
2000 | 231,684,593 | 139,011 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | 1,302,478,473 | 781,487
|
5. Local Option Sales Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and public transportation benefit authorities.
b. Source/Purpose: State legislature authorizes local option retail sales and use tax (RCW 82.14) of up to 1% of which first .5% was granted in 1970 and the additional .5% in 1982. An additional 1/10 of 1% approved January 1, 1991 for criminal justice (RCW 82.14.340). This additional 1/10 of 1% was initially only authorized for 6 counties: King, Pierce, Spokane, Snohomish, Thurston and Clark. (Metro and PTBA's may levy up to .6% in addition to a city/county tax)
c. Limitations/Requirements: Local governments that levy second .5% may participate in a sales tax equalization fund, whereby all counties and cities can obtain up to 70% of the statewide average per capita yield of the total sales tax.
d. Decision Basis: Local discretion with voter approval. The additional 0.6% (Metro and PTBA's) also requires voter approval.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has enacted both the first and second 0.5% Local Option Sales Tax and the 1/1Oth of 1% Criminal Justice Tax. The City's total budgeted revenue for all sales tax revenue (i.e., retail sales and use taxes is $818,100, which includes both the Local Option Sales Tax and the Criminal Justice Sales Tax revenue. Most of the $818,000 is allocated to the following funds for operating and maintenance costs:
Current Expense | $551,000 |
Library | 141,100 |
Park | 84,000
|
A portion of local option sales tax revenue ($42,000) is also allocated to the Street Maintenance Fund of which $36,120 (86% of the $42,000) is used for operating and maintenance costs and $5,880 (14% of the $42,000) is used for capital costs (14%).
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. This study assumes the City will continue its policy of using the majority of both the 1% Local Option Sales Tax revenue and all of the 1/l0th of 1% Criminal Justice Sales Tax revenue for operating and maintenance costs.
6. Motor Vehicle Excise Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.44 authorizes this annual excise tax (2.2%) paid by motor vehicle owners and administered by the Department of Licensing.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Cities receive 17% of base allocations, and are required to spend these funds for police and fire protection and the preservation of public health (including capital facilities). Counties receive 2% of the base allocations, which provide the revenues for their sales tax equalization fund. The State receives the remainder (71%).
d. Decision Basis: State shared revenue distributed to cities and counties.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The 1994 budgeted revenue is $126,000 of which 86% ($108,360) is allocated to operating and maintenance costs and 14% ($17,640) is allocated to capital costs (ROW acquisition).
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Motor Vehicle
Excise Tax
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.12
|
The following table shows the forecast of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000. The forecast assumes the current split between operating and maintenance costs and capital facilities.
The basis for the forecast is the County's 1994 budgeted revenue of $126,000. The forecast assumes 2.55% annual growth in revenue. This is consistent with the average annual population growth rate in the City for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario.
Total Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenue for the planning period (1995-2000) is shown in the first column of data in the table. In the second column of data, the forecast has been adjusted to equal 14% of revenue generated in order to forecast the portion of total revenue available for capital facilities.
6. MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE TAX
| TOTAL
TAX
COLLECTED | PORTION OF
TAX FOR
CAPITAL
@ 14% |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | 94,334 | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | 90,000 | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | 104,322 | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | 121,718 | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 126,000 | 17,640 |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | -4.6% | |
1991-92 | 15.9% | |
1992-93 | 16.7% | |
1993-94 | 3.5% | |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | 7.5% | |
FORCAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.55% | NA |
1995 | 130,763 | 18.307 |
1996 | 135,706 | 18,999 |
1997 | 140,835 | 19,717 |
1998 | 146,159 | 20,462 |
1999 | 151,684 | 21,236 |
2000 | 157,417 | 22,038 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | 862,564 | 120,759
|
7. Utility Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities.
b. Source/Purpose: State authorized tax (RCW 35A.82) on the gross receipts of electric, gas, garbage, telephone, cable TV, water/sewer and stormwater entities. The taxes are passed on to service users by the utilities who may include the tax as a separate billing item on utility bills or as a cost item in utility rates.
c. Limitations/Requirements: State law limits the maximum to 6% of total receipts for cable TV, electric, gas, steam, and telephone, unless a majority of the voters approve a higher rate. There are no restrictions on the tax rates for water, sewer, solid waste, and stormwater. Revenue can be used for capital facilities acquisition, construction, and maintenance.
d. Decision Basis: Local discretion without voter approval up to 6% of gross receipts; voter approval required for rate increases.
e. Current Use in Port Townsend: $503,000 is budgeted in 1994 for operating and maintenance costs. The current utility tax rates are as follows:
Cable TV * | 0% |
Electric | 6% |
Sewer | 7% |
Stormwater | 7% |
Telephone | 6% |
Water | 7%
|
* The City does not charge a utility tax for cable TV. The City does charge a Cable TV Franchise Fee, which is not a utility tax. The current franchise fee rate is 3%. However the City is anticipating an increase in the fee rate to the maximum allowable (per Federal Law) rate of 5% through its negotiations for a new contract with Port Townsend Cable TV Limited. The franchise fee revenue is used for operating and maintenance costs and therefore is not included in this report.
The preliminary 1995 budget proposes that the sewer, stormwater and water utilities rates be increased from 7% to 10%. The additional revenue generated from the proposed rate increases will be used for operating and maintenance costs. No monies are used for capital facilities.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Additional
Utility Tax
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.25
|
No forecast based on existing tax rates and 1995 proposed rates because the revenue will be used for operating and maintenance costs. The following table shows the additional revenue the City could generate for capital facilities if it were to enact an a cable TV utility tax at the maximum allowable rate of 6%. (Note: there are no limitations on the rates for sewer, stormwater and water utilities. However, no additional rate increases for these utilities, beyond those proposed in the 1995 budget, are included in this study).
The 1995-2000 forecast in the following Table shows revenue generated from the maximum allowable tax rate for Cable TV of 6%. The forecast assumes that all of the revenue could be available for capital projects.
The 1994 estimated revenue of $34,200 is based on 6% of Port Townsend Cable TV Limited's estimated taxable gross earnings of $570,000 for 1994
The forecast assumes 2.55% annual growth in utility tax revenue. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario.
7. UTILITY TAX
| CABLE TV
UTILITY TAX
@6% |
HISTORICAL DATA | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | NA |
1994 ESTIMATE | 34,200 |
PERCENT CHANGE | |
1990-91 | NA |
1991-92 | NA |
1992-93 | NA |
1993-94 | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA |
FORECAST | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.55% |
1995 | 38,969 |
1996 | 39,963 |
1997 | 40,982 |
1998 | 42,027 |
1999 | 43,098 |
2000 | 44,197 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | 249,236
|
8. Admissions Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 35.21.280 (cities) and RCW 36.38.010 (counties) authorizes this tax on the price paid for admission. The maximum rate is 5% of the admission charge. Admission charge includes,
A charge made for season tickets or subscriptions;
A cover charge, or a charge made for use of seats and tables reserved or otherwise, and other similar accommodations;
A charge made for food and refreshment on any place where free entertainment, recreation or amusement is provided;
A charge made for rental or use of equipment or facilities for purposes of recreation or amusement; if the rental of the equipment or facilities is necessary to the enjoyment of a privilege for which a general admission is charged, the combined charges shall be considered as the admission charge;
Automobile parking charges if the amount of the charge is determined according to the number of passengers in the automobile.
The admission charge for an activity of any elementary or secondary school is exempt from this tax.
c. Limitations/Requirements: None d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not utilize this revenue source.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Forecast will depend on identifying activities conducted in the City of Port Townsend that may be subject to an admissions tax.
9. Gambling Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 9.46.110 authorizes this tax on the gross receipts of gambling activities. The maximum rates are:
Amusement Games * | 2% |
Punch Boards | 5% |
Pull Tabs | 5% |
Bingo * | 10% |
Raffles * | 10% |
Social Card Games | 20%
|
The maximum rates for taxes on fund raising events is not specified. Charitable or non-profit organizations with combined gross receipts of no more than $5,000 per year from bingo, raffles or amusement games are exempt (as long as no paid personnel operate the games).
c. Limitations/Requirements: RCW 9.46.113 states that gambling tax revenue shall be used "primarily for the purpose of enforcement of the provisions of this chapter". In American Legion Post No. 32 v. City of Walla Walla the Washington Supreme Court handed down a decision which clarified the definition of "primarily." The court said that gambling tax revenues must "first be used" for gambling law enforcement purposes to the extent necessary for that city. The remaining funds may then be used for any general government purpose.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The Gambling Tax was proposed, but not enacted, during consideration of the 1994 budget. There was only one taxable business (i.e., a card room and tavern) in the City at the time.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The forecast will depend on the establishments to which the gambling tax would apply. According to the City, in 1994 there was only one establishment operating within the City of Port Townsend which would have been subject to the gambling tax.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
10. Special Assessment Districts
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special assessment districts implement financing methods for capital facilities which require partial or complete financing by entities other than the jurisdiction. These financing alternatives include those that require financial participation by property owners or developers (i.e., special assessment bonds such as Local Improvement Districts (LID); Road Improvement Districts (RID); and Utility Local Improvement Districts (ULID), and the collection of development fees).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Use of special assessments bonds is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special assessment district is created.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has the following Local Improvement Districts (LID):
LID #1: Sewer improvements
LID #2: Street improvements (57th Street)
Assessment revenue in LID #1 ($25,000 in 1994) is used for debt service. There is no assessment revenue in LID #2 for 1994. The fund balance is used for debt service.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. Special assessments would be tailored to specific circumstances, and are not "general" revenues that can be forecast. There is a significant administrative cost for LID'S. It can be a very significant portion of the cost of small LID'S. For example, in LID #2 nearly 50% of the $10,000 annual special assessment was needed for administrative costs
11. Parking and Business Improvement Authority (PBIA)
a. Type of Local Government:
b. Source/Purpose: Pending information from the City
c. Limitations/Requirements: Pending information from the City
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has not created a Parking and Business Improvement Authority.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. Special assessments would be tailored to specific circumstances, and are not "general" revenues that can be forecast.
FEES AMD CHARGES
12. Street Use license
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 35.23.440 authorizes the enactment of fees and charges for street use permits/permitted right of way obstructions such as temporary exhibits, mobile sales carts, temporary scaffolding, barricades -and/or pedestrian walkways necessary for construction work on private property.
c. Limitations/Requirements: None specified
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: City staff will bring a street use ordinance to the City Council for consideration in the near future
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. Forecast would depend on specific types of permits and activities addressed in the pending ordinance.
GRANTS AND LOANS
13. Community Development Block Grant fCDBG)
a. Type of Local Government: Non-entitlement cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development revenue available (approximately $9.0 million annually through the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development) for public facilities projects, economic development, housing, and comprehensive projects which benefit low and moderate income households, such as design, construction, and reconstruction of water and sewer projects, flood and drainage facilities, street improvements, including traffic signals.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenue must be used for projects which principally (51%) benefit low and moderate income households, citizen participation/ community development plan. Funds may not be used for maintenance and operations.
d. Decision Basis: 100% grants available primarily to applicants who indicate prior committment to project.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: $3,000 in grant revenue is budgeted in 1994 for program costs. The City does not have any on-going construction grants.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast for capital facilities projects. The City may identify specific capital projects that are eligible for Community development Block Grants.
14. Community Economic Revitalization Board fCERB)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, port districts, and special purpose utility districts.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 43.160.060 authorizes Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development revenue available ($5.0 million in the 1993-95 biennium) for low interest loans and occasional grants to finance sewer, water, access roads, bridges, etc. for a specific private sector development.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Funding is available only for projects which will result in specific private developments or expansions in manufacturing and businesses that support the trading of goods and services outside of the State's borders.
Funding is not available to support retail shopping developments, or projects that would displace existing jobs in any community in the State, or for acquisition of real property. Projects must create or retain jobs The average requirement is to create one job per $3,000 of CERB financing.
d. Decision Basis: Funds are available by application without matching requirement, although funds will be available mostly to those applicants that demonstrate prior committment to the project. Loan maximum is 10% for up to 20 years.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not utilize this revenue source.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City may identify specific capital projects that are eligible for Community Economic Revitalization Board loans or grants.
15. Farmers Home Administration fFHA)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, port districts, and Indian Tribes.
b. Source/Purpose: Federal loans available (i.e., community facility loans) to develop community facilities for public use in rural areas and towns of not more than 20,000 people.
The FHA is also authorized to guarantee loans to borrowers in rural areas and in towns of up to 10,000 people for developing water and waste disposal facilities and, for towns up to 20,000 people, for developing other essential community facilities.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Funds may be used to construct, enlarge or improve community facilities for health care, public safety and public services (community facilities loans) and water, waste disposal and other essential community facilities (guaranteed loans).
d. Decision Basis: Federal loans available within a 45%-25% local matching range.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not utilize this revenue source.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City may identify specific capital projects that are eligible for FHA community facility loans and loan guarantees.
16. Public Works Trust Fund rPWTF)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development revenue available for capital facilities (1) construction ($45 million in 1995), (2) emergency planning (varies), and (3) capital improvement planning ($400,000 annually). Low interest loans are used for construction projects for bridges, roads, domestic water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer; emergency planning projects for remedying public works emergencies; and capital improvement planning projects for upgrading planning capabilities.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Applicants for construction loans must have a capital facilities plan (CFP) in place, cities and counties must be levying the original 1/4%. real estate excise tax, and both construction and emergency planning projects must be for construction or reconstruction of existing capital facilities only. Capital improvement planning projects are limited to planning for streets and utilities.
d. Decision Basis: Loans for construction projects are available by application with local matching share generated only from local revenues or State shared entitlement (gas tax) revenues. Required local share is 10% match for 3% loan, 20% match for 2% loan, and 30% match for 1% loan.
Emergency planning loans are at 5% interest rate. If state or federal disaster funds are received, they must be applied to the loan for the life of the project (20 years). Capital improvement planning loans are at 0% interest rate, but require a 25% local match.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City applied for, but did not receive Public Works Trust Fund loans in 1994.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The following list of eligible projects is from the City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994. (Eligibility of a project for a loan or grant does not assure the City that the loan or grant will be received.)
| Total | Potential |
| Project Cost | PWTF Loans |
| 1995-2000 | 1995-2000 |
Project Name | ($1,000) | ($1,000) |
Water Quality & CT Compliance: | | |
Engineering Studies/Design/SDC | $830.0 | * |
Tri-Area CT Pipeline | 1,480.0 | * |
City CT Pipeline | 900.0 | * |
City Compliance Monitoring Equipment | 100.0 | * |
Watershed Program Implementation | 200.0 | * |
Water Quality Equipment | 80.0 | * |
Land Acquisition | 500.0 | * |
Water Quality Control Facility | 250.0 | * |
Total | 4,340.0 | NA |
Water System: | | |
Well & Treatment System Upgrade | $1,000.0 | * |
Wellhead Protection Plan | 40.0 | * |
Little Quilcene Diversion Dam Reconstruction | 250.0 | ** |
Total | 1,290.0 | NA
|
Stormwater: | | |
Master Plan Implementation | $550.0 | ** |
Property Acquisition | 700.0 | ** |
Site Development Program | 350.0 | ** |
Kah Tai | 150.0 | ** |
North Lagoon (Chinese Gardens) | 40.0 | ** |
Basin 4 & 9 Flood Plain Plan | 210.0 | ** |
Basin 5 & 8 Flood Plain Plan | 100.0 | ** |
City/Port Stormwater Treatment | 80.0 | ** |
Total | 2,180.0 | NA |
Total of All Projects | $7,810.0 | NA
|
* Projects are eligible for either PWTF or State Revolving Fund (Revenue Number 51) loans. The City has not prepared applications for loans at this time.
** Projects are eligible for either PWTF loans or Centennial Clean Water Fund grants (Revenue Number 59). The City has not prepared applications for loans at this time.
SECTION 2. SINGLE-PURPOSE REVENUE SOURCES
A. AIRPORT
FEES AND CHARGES
17. User Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Airports
b. Source/Purpose: Rates charged for such services as take-offs, landings, tie-downs, fueling, and hanger rental.
c. Limitations/Requirements: User fees may be used for operating as well as capital purposes.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use-in City of Port Townsend: The City does not own or operate an airport.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast.
GRANTS
18. Federal Aviation Agency fFAA)
a. Type of Local Government: Airports
b. Source/Purpose: Federal grants for airport capital facilities acquisition and construction.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Specific project applications must be approved by the Federal Aviation Agency.
d. Decision Basis: Grant award from the Federal Aviation Agency.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not own or operate an airport.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast.
B. CULTURAL ARTS, STADIUM/CONVENTION FACILITIES
TAXES
19. Special Purpose Districts
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. RCW 67.38.130 authorizes cultural arts, stadium/convention special purpose districts with independent taxing authority ($ .25 property tax levy limit with majority voter approval) to finance capital facilities. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
The total levy for most governments within a particular tax code area cannot exceed $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Ports, PUD'S, EMS levy and the State School levy are not subject to the $5.90 cap). When combined levies do exceed $9.00 the levy rates for special purpose districts (i.e., "junior districts") must be prorated among the districts according to a statutory mechanism for reducing junior district rates (RCW 84.52).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created.
d. Decision Basis: Voter approval for cultural arts/stadium and convention districts.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have a cultural arts, stadium/convention special district.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Tax Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.82
|
The City could generate over $120,000 per year for capital facilities if it were to create a cultural arts, stadium/convention district and levy the maximum allowable $0.25 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This assumes a single city-wide special purpose district.
Table 19 shows the forecast of tax revenue the City could generate from 1995 through 2000 if it were to levy $0.25per $1,000 assessed valuation. The forecast is based on the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecast assumes 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3,51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
No forecast has been made of general obligation debt of special districts that can be repaid by voter approved excess levies.
C. FIRE PROTECTION AMD EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
TAXES
21. EMS Levy
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: State authorized property tax levy ($0.50) for emergency medical services. EMS can be levied by fire and hospital districts, cities/towns, or counties.
c. Limitations/Requirements: None. Revenue may be used for capital facilities, maintenance, and operating costs, but rarely covers full costs of services provided.
d. Decision Basis: Local government decision.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City's current EMS levy is $0.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation. The 1994 budgeted revenue is $115,000 and is used for operating and maintenance costs and capital leases.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Additional
EMS Tax
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.82
|
The statutory maximum allowable levy is $0.50. The current City levy is $0.25. The City could raise it's EMS levy rate by $0.25 per $1,000 assessed valuation.
The following table shows a forecast of tax revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000 if it were to levy an additional $0.25-per $1,000 assessed valuation. The forecast is based on the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecast assumes 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by'3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
21. EMS LEVY
| ASSESSED
VALUE | TAX REVENUE
ADDITIONAL
LEVY RATE =
$0.25 |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 120,379 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 126,662 |
1997 | 533,097,005 | 133,274 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 140,231 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 147,551 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 155,253 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 823,351
|
22. Fire District
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. Special purpose districts in Washington include fire districts, among others. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
The $5.90 total levy limitations (see Revenue Number 18) also apply to fire districts.
c. Limitations/Requirements: All fire districts are limited to a levy of $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For districts with at least one full-time paid employee the maximum levy is increased to $1.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation. Tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has not enacted a fire district to finance fire protection services, but rather funds this operation in its Current Expense Fund 010.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Tax Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $4.94
|
The City could generate over $700,000 per year for capital facilities if it were to create a fire protection district and levy the maximum allowable levy of $1.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation. (The City's Fire Department has full-time paid employees, therefore the maximum allowable levy is $1.50.) This assumes a single city-wide district.
Creation of a fire district would transfer control from the City Council to a district board. Enactment of a district levy would reduce the burden on the City's levy, but the total of all levies is subject to statutory maximums (see Revenue Number 19).
The following table shows a forecast of tax revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000 if it were to levy the maximum allowable $1.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation. The forecast is based on the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecast assumes 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
No forecast has been made of general obligation debt of special districts that can be repaid by voter approved excess levies.
22. FIRE DISTRICT
| | TAX REVENUE |
| ASSESSED | LEVY RATE = |
| VALUE | $1.50 |
HISTORICAL DATA | NA | NA |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA |
1991-92 | MA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 722,272 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 759 975 |
1997 | 533,097,005 | 799,646 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 841,387 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 885,307 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 931,520 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 4,940,107
|
FEES AND CHARGES
23. Fire Impact Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties, but not fire protection districts.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.02.050-090 authorizes a charge to be paid by new development for its "fair share" of the system (off-site) improvements cost of fire protection and emergency medical services facilities that are required to serve the development.
Usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy, fire protection impact fees are charged on the basis of the number of square feet of residential and commercial development. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for fire protection facilities costs that are paid by other sources of revenue, and additional "credits" can be given to developers who contribute land, improvements, or other assets.
Impact fees do not include any other form of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C), local improvement districts or other special assessment districts, linkage fees, or land donations or fees in lieu of land.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed by growth, and not for current deficiencies in levels of service, and cannot be used for operating expenses. Impact fees must show a "rational nexus of benefit" between the payer of the fee and the expenditure of the fee.
d. Decision Basis: GMA authorizes impact fees to be charged at the discretion of cities and counties.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have fire impact fees.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Impact Fee
Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 - Residential | $ .96 |
1995-2000 - Non-Residential | Unknown
|
The following table lists the types of fire protection and emergency medical services facilities that are needed for the recommended level of service for "adequate public facilities". These facilities would also be the basis for fire impact fees.
Type of Facility | Recommended
LOS per
Capita | Cost
Per Unit | Cost
Per Capita |
Fire Station Bays | 0.0010 | 550,000 | 550.00 |
Fire/EMS Apparatus | 0.0012 | 100,000 | 119.20 |
Total | | | 669.20
|
The City of Port Townsend presently averages 2.42 persons per dwelling unit (1994 population / 1994 dwelling unit count), therefore the cost per dwelling unit is 2.42 time the $669.20 cost per capita: $1,619.46.
Approximately 591 new dwelling units will be built in the City of Port Townsend during the 6-year period 1995-2000. At $000.00 per dwelling unit, the revenue from 591 new dwelling units will be $957,103.
In addition the City would receive an undetermined amount of fire and EMS impact fee revenue from non-residential development.
24. Service Benefit Charge
a. Type of Local Government: Fire Districts.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 52.18 (1987) authorizes fire districts, with approval of 60% of voters in the District, to collect a "benefit charge" for up to six years from residential and business property owners. The law provides that the benefit charge "shall be reasonably proportioned to the benefits received by the property owners resulting from the services afforded by the fire district".
The service charge is not related to property value, but is an annual assessment per residential unit, or commercial, agricultural, and other structure for fire protection services provided. Benefit service charge calculations are based on many measurable benefit criteria, including fire flow, special services, and distance of property from a fire station.
A fire district's Board of Commissioners can impose benefit service charges "...not to exceed an amount equal to 60% of its operating budget.." on personal property used in business and improvements to real property. The service charge can pay for both operating and capital costs (which includes payment for new capital facilities and fleet replacement/refurbishment needs).
c. Limitations/Requirements: None.
d. Decision Basis: Requires approval of 60% of voters. The service charge can only be authorized for periods not to exceed six years, after which it must be resubmitted to the voters or else it expires.
e. current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have fire service benefit charges. Such charges can be assessed only by Fire Districts.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast because the charges cannot be assessed by the City.
D. LIBRARIES
TAXES
25. Library District
a. Type of Local government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. RCW 27.12.050 and 27.12.150 authorize library special purpose districts with independent taxing authority ($.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval) to finance capital facilities. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
The $9.00 total levy limitations (see Revenue Number 18) also apply to library districts.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Use of tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has not enacted a library district to finance its library services, but rather funds this operation with general operating revenues (i.e., general property tax and sales tax revenue).
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Tax Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $1.64
|
The City could generate over $250,000 per year for capital facilities if it were to create a library district and levy the maximum allowable levy of $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation. This assumes a single city-wide district.
Creation of a library district would transfer control from the City Council to a district board. Enactment of a district levy would reduce the burden on the City's levy, but the total of all levies is subject to statutory maximums (see Revenue Number 15).
The following table shows a forecast of tax revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000 if it were to levy the maximum allowable $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation. The forecast is based on the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecast assumes 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
No forecast has been made of general obligation debt of special districts that can be repaid by voter approved excess levies.
25. LIBRARY DISTRICT
| ASSESSED
VALUE | TAX REVENUE
LEVY RATE =
$0.50 |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 240,757 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 253,325 |
1997 | 533,097,005 | 266,549 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 280,462 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 295,102 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 310,507 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 1,646,702
|
E. PARKS AND RECREATION
TAXES
26. Open Space and Park Facilities General Obligation Bonds
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: GO Bonds are backed by the value of the property within the jurisdiction (full faith and credit). There are two types of GO Bonds: voter-approved and councilmanic. Voter-approved bonds will increase the property tax rate, with the increased revenues dedicated to paying principal and interest on the bonds.
Local governments are authorized "excess levies" (increases in the regular property tax levy (RCW 84.52) above the $3.60 per $1,000 statutory limit) to repay voter-approved bonds. There is no dollar limit for this levy, however the total amount of debt is limited as described below (see Limitations/Requirements).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Total amount of local government debt for open space and park facilities is restricted by law to 2.5% of taxable value of property (RCW 39.36.020). (See revenue Number 2, above, for a summary of total debt capacity.)
d. Decision Basis: Local government decision: 60% majority required for voter-approved bonds/excess levy.
e. Current Use in Port Townsend: The City does not currently have any open space and park facilities general obligation debt.
(Source for current debt is the "City of Port Townsend Limitation of Indebtedness for the Year Ending December 31, 1993, Schedule 10.)
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
| Percent | |
| Of | Debt |
| Taxable | Capacity |
Type of Debt | Value | ($ million) |
Open Space and Park Facilities | 2.5% | $15.5
|
The following table shows a forecast of unused debt capacity which is available to the City of Port Townsend for open space and park facilities general obligation debt. (See Revenue Number 2, pages 9-10, for an
analysis of the additional tax contribution required per dwelling unit if the City were to issue additional general obligation debt.)
The basis for the forecasts is the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
For the 1994 and 1995 data the total general purpose debt capacity for each year is calculated at 2.5% of the assessed valuation. In the right-hand column the total unused debt capacity is calculated per year by subtracting the existing debt from total debt capacity.
Beginning in 1996 the "Unused Debt Capacity" changes from reflecting total unused debt capacity to reflecting the annual "growth increment" in unused debt capacity (i.e., the 1996 debt capacity minus the 1995 existing debt/issues equals 1996 unused debt capacity increment).
The forecast assumes 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
26. OPEN SPACE AMD PARK FACILITIES GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
| ASSESSED
VALUE | DEBT
CAPACITY
@ 2.5% OF
ASSESSED
VALUE | DEBT
CAPACITY
GROWTH
INCREMENT | EXISTING
DEBT | UNUSED
DEBT
CAPACITY |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | | | |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | 11,440,667 | 11,440,667 | 0 | 11,440,667 |
FORECAST | | | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 12,037,870 | 12,037,870 | 0 | 12,037,870 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 12,666,247 | 628,377 | | 628,377 |
1997 | 533,097,005 | 13,327,425 | 661,178 | | 661,178 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 14,023,117 | 695,692 | | 695,692 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 14,755,123 | 732,007 | | 732,007 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 15,525,341 | 770,217 | | 770,217 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | NA | NA | 0 | 15,525,341
|
27. Park Districts
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. The total levy for most governments within a particular tax code cannot exceed $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Ports, PUD'S, EMS levy and the State School levy are not subject to the $5.90 cap).
RCW 35.61.210 authorizes metropolitan park districts with independent taxing authority ($.75 property tax levy limits with no voter approval). RCW 39.69.145 authorizes park and recreation districts with independent taxing authority ($.15 property tax levy limits requiring majority voter approval). Both types of districts may use all or part of their levy to finance capital facilities. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
Only one of the two types of park districts can be used, therefore a jurisdiction would need to select either the metropolitan district (with 75¢ levy authority, or the regular district (with 15¢ levy authority).
The $9.00 total levy limitations (see Revenue Number 18) also apply to park and recreation districts.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created.
d. Decision Basis: Voter approval of creation of a parks & recreation district. The $.15 levy is only valid for a maximum of 5 years and would require voter approval for renewal.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: There are currently no park and recreation districts in the City of Port Townsend.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Type of Park District | Tax
Revenue
($ million) | TABLE |
Metropolitan | $2.47 | 27A |
or | or | |
Park & Recreation | $0.49 | 27B
|
Creation of either a metropolitan park district or a park and recreation district would transfer control from the City Council to a district board. Enactment of a district levy would reduce the burden on the City's levy, but the total of all levies is subject to statutory maximums (see Revenue Number 19).
The city-wide park district forecasts are presented in 2 sections; (1) metropolitan park district at $0.75 property tax levy (Table 27A) and (2) park and recreation district at $.15 property tax levy (Table 27B).
The basis for the forecasts is the City's 1994 assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecasts assume 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
No forecast has been made of general obligation debt of special districts that can be repaid by voter approved excess levies.
28. Park and Recreation Service Area (P&RSA)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 36.68.400 authorized a junior taxing district ($.15 levy limit) which can be initiated by petition signed by at least 10% of the voters residing in the affected area, or by resolution. Counties have statutory powers to create a P&RSA, with approval of 60% of the voters, for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance, or operations of any park, senior citizen activity center, zoo, aquarium, and recreational facility.
Counties are the governing bodies of P&RSA's, however they can opt to relinquish those powers to cities though interlocal agreements if P&RSA's are centered around incorporated cities.
A P&RSA can generate revenue from either the regular or excess property tax levies, and through general obligation bonds, with voter approval.
The $9.00 total levy limitations (see Revenue Number 18) also apply to park and recreation service areas.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenues can be used for park and recreational capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion with voter approval.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: There are no park and recreation service areas in the City of Port Townsend.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Tax
Revenue
($ million) |
1995 - 2000 | $0.49
|
The City could generate over $70,000 per year if it were to create a park and recreation service area with the maximum allowable levy of $.15 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.
The preceding forecast for a Park and Recreation District (Table 27B) shows the amount of tax revenue the City could generate from 1995 - 2000 if it were to levy $.15 per $1,000 assessed valuation. ($.15 per $1,000 assessed valuation would produce the same revenue for a park and recreation service area as it would for a park and recreation special purpose district.)
FEES AND CHARGES
29. User Fees and Program Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: Fees or charges for using park facilities, or for participating in recreational programs. The fees often take the form of entrance fees (i.e., some parks, pools, golf courses, etc.) or registration fees (i.e., league sports, craft classes, instruction programs, etc.)
c. Limitations/Requirements: None, unless limits are voluntarily imposed by the local government when the fee is established.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City charges user fees for use of the swimming pool, marine park building and dock facilities. It also accepts donations in lieu of fees for use of other park and recreation facilities. The user fees and donations are used for operating and maintenance costs.
User fees (greens fees, etc) are also charged at the golf course (city-owned by privately operated).
Note: RCW 4.24.210 limits/eliminates the liability that can be imposed on public or private landowners who allow members of the public to use their property for outdoor recreation purposes. One of three exceptions to the elimination of liability is when a fee is charged.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. This study assumes the City will continue its policy of using user fees (swimming pool, marine park building and dock facilities) and donations for operating and maintenance costs.
The golf course user fees could be increased with the resulting additional revenue available for capital improvements.
4. Traditional Park Grants: approximately $500,000 is available annually.
5. Wildlife and Recreation Program: approximately $65.0 million has been appropriated for the 1993-95 biennium with equal division between the Habitat Conservation Account (to provide funding for the acquisition and development of urban wildlife habitat) and the Outdoor Recreation Account (for acquisition and development of local parks, including existing parks, regional trails, trailhead facilities and water access sites.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Specific project applications must be approved by the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. A comprehensive parks and recreation plan or a parks and recreation component in a local comprehensive plan is required for Boating Facility and Outdoor Recreation Account grants.
d. Decision Basis: Grant funds available at local government discretion, based on 50% State/50% Local matching requirement.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not currently have any IAC grants.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The following list of eligible projects is from the City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994. (Eligibility of a project for a grant does not assure the City that the loan or grant will be received.)
Proiect Name | Total
Project Cost
1995-2000
($1,000) | Potential
IAC
Grant
1995-2000
($1,000) |
Wildlife Corridor Acquisition | $566.1 | $283.05* |
Olympic Trailhead | 15.0 | ** |
Adams Street | 15.0 | ** |
Park Playgrounds Equipment | 6.0 | ** |
Pool Enhancements | 20.0 | ** |
Total | 206.0 | 283.05
|
32. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 79.24.580 authorizes State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Lands grants for acquisition and development of water-dependent public access/recreation projects or on-site interpretative projects.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Funds shall be used solely for aquatic lands enhancement projects; for the purchase, improvement and protection of aquatic lands for public purposes. During the fiscal biennium ending June 30, 1995, the funds may be appropriated for shellfish management, enforcement, and enhancement and for developing and implementing plans for population monitoring and restoration of native wild salmon stock.
d. Decision Basis: Grants funds are available by application to the Department of Natural resources.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has been awarded a $2,000,000 grant for Union Wharf Improvements. An additional $30,000 was granted to the City for project planning. No local match is required. Note: this project is the first in the State of Washington to be funded through this grant program.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
No additional eligible projects have been identified in the City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994.
F. ROADS, BRIDGES AND MASS TRANSIT
TAXES
33. Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.36 authorizes this tax, which is administered by the Department of Licensing, and paid by gasoline distributors. Cities and counties receive 11.53% and 22"78%, respectively, of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenues must be spent for "highway purposes" including the construction, maintenance, and operation of city streets, county roads, and state highways.
d. Decision Basis: State shared revenue distributed to cities and counties.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The 1994 budgeted revenue is $183,000 and is allocated to the following funds:
Street Maintenance Fund | $125,000 |
Arterial Street Fund | 58,000
|
Approximately 14% of the Street Maintenance Fund allocation (i.e., $8,100) is used for capital projects, and all of the $58,000 allocated to the Arterial Street Fund is used for capital projects. Therefore $66,100 ($8,100 plus $58,000), or 36% of the total budgeted Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue is used for capital projects and the remaining $116,900, or 64%, is used for operating and maintenance costs.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | MVFT
Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.43
|
The following table shows the forecast of Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue the City will generate for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000. The forecast assumes the current split between operating and maintenance costs and capital facilities.
The basis for the forecast is the City's 1994 budgeted revenue of $183,000.
The forecast assumes 2.55% annual growth in revenue. This is consistent with the average annual population growth rate in population for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario.
Total Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax revenue for the planning period (1995-2000) is shown in the first column of data in the table. In the second column of data, the forecast has been adjusted to equal 36% of revenue generated in order to forecast the portion of total revenue available for capital facilities.
33. MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX
| TOTAL
TAX
COLLECTED | PORTION OF
TAX FOR
CAPITAL
@ 36% |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | 14,000 | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | 172,351 | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | 176,516 | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | 170,239 | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 183,000 | 66,100 |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | 1131.1% | NA |
1991-92 | 2.4% | NA |
1992-93 | -3.6% | NA |
1993-94 | 7 5% | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | 90.1% | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.55% | 2.55% |
1995 | 187,667 | 67,560 |
1996 | 192,452 | 69,283 |
1997 | 197,360 | 71,049 |
1998 | 202,392 | 72,861 |
1999 | 207,553 | 74,719 |
2000 | 212,846 | 76,624 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | 1,200,269 | 432,097
|
34. Local Option Fuel Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.80 authorizes this Countywide (no city levy) local option tax equivalent to 10% of statewide Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and a Special Fuel Tax of 2.3 cents per gallon. Revenues are distributed back to the county and cities within the county levying the tax on a weighted per capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and 1.0 for population in incorporated areas).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenues must be spent for "highway purposes" including the construction, maintenance, and operation of city streets, county roads, and state highways; policing of local roads; county ferries, and related activities.
d. Decision Basis: Local option tax requiring voter approval.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: Jefferson County has not enacted the local option fuel tax, therefore the City does not receive this revenue.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.42
|
The following table shows the revenue the City could receive if Jefferson County were to enact the local option fuel tax.
Fuel sales numbers are needed in order to forecast local option fuel tax revenue. However, these numbers were not readily available at the county level. In lieu of this data, Renders on. Young & Company prepared an estimate of average fuel consumption per capita (derived from statewide fuel sales tax data). The following table assumes that motor fuel purchases equate to 468.5 gallons per capita per year (based on the 1992 estimated average for the State of Washington).
Next, the amount of local option fuel tax revenue per capita was estimated (using county and municipal population data to forecast total revenue which would be generated in Jefferson County). Then the per capita allocation of tax revenue for Jefferson County was calculated (based on the 1992 population to be consistent with the 1992 average gallons per capita per year). The resulting allocation is: Port Townsend = 25.1% and unincorporated Jefferson County = 74.9%. The forecast is based on the weighted population distribution of the tax collected in Jefferson County and is estimated at $8.09 tax revenue per capita in Port Townsend and $12.13 tax revenue per capita in unincorporated Jefferson County.
The City would receive over $65,000 per year if Jefferson County were to enact the 10% ($0.23 per gallon) Local Option Fuel Tax. The basis for the forecast is the City's 1994 population of 7,940.
The forecast assumes 2.55% annual growth in revenue. This is consistent with the City's average annual population growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario.
34. LOCAL OPTION FUEL TAX
| CITY
POPULATION | REVENUE
@ $8.09
PER CAPITA |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 7,940 | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.55% | NA |
1995 | 8,142 | 65,873 |
1996 | 8,350 | 67,552 |
1997 | 8,563 | 69,275 |
1998 | 8,781 | 71,041 |
1999 | 9,023 | 72,996 |
2000 | 9,233 | 74,695 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 421,432
|
35. Commercial Parking Tax
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.80 authorizes a tax on commercial parking businesses (imposed by counties for unincorporated areas only and by cities for incorporated areas), based on gross proceeds or the number of parking stalls, or on the customer, similar to an admissions tax. There are no set rates, however, rate parameters are set forth in the State legislation.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenues must be spent for "general transportation purposes" including highway purposes, public transportation, high capacity transportation, transportation planning and design; and other transportation related activities.
d. Decision Basis: Local option tax requiring local referendum.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have a commercial parking tax at this time.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast.
Statutes not clear on what "commercial parking" is subject to the tax, making forecasts unreliable.
36. Transportation Benefit Districts
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties
b. Source/Purpose: Special districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. The total levy for most governments within a particular tax code area cannot exceed $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Ports, PUD'S, EMS levy and the State School levy are not subject to the $5.90 cap).
RCW 36.73.020 (counties) and RCW 35.21.225 (cities) authorizes transportation districts with independent taxing authority for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding any city street, county road, or state highway improvement within the district. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities.
Property Tax Levy:
Property Tax Excess Levy: Transportation benefit districts are authorized to levy property tax in excess of the one percent limitation upon the property within the district for a one-year period whenever authorized by the voters of the district (RCW 84.52) .
General Obligation Bonds: GO Bonds are backed by the value of the property within the district (full faith and credit). There are two types of GO Bonds: voter-approved and councilmanic. Voter-approved bonds will increase the property tax rate, with the increased revenues dedicated to paying principal and interest on the bonds.
Transportation benefit districts are authorized excess levies to repay voter-approved bonds. There is no dollar limit for this levy, however the total amount of debt is limited as described below (see Limitations/Requirements).
Councilmanic bonds, on the other hand, are authorized by the district's legislative body without the need for voter approval. Principal and interest payments for councilmanic bonds come from the general property tax levy without a corresponding increase in taxes.
Local Improvement Districts: A transportation benefit district may also form a local improvement district to provide any transportation improvement it has the authority to provide, impose special assessments on all property specially benefitted by the transportation improvements, and issue special assessment bonds or revenue bonds to fund the costs of the transportation improvements.
Development Fees: A transportation benefit district may impose a fee or charge on the construction or reconstruction of residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other building or building space, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land. The fee or charge must be used exclusively for transportation improvements constructed by the transportation benefit district.
c. Limitations/Requirements:
Transportation improvements funded with district revenues must be (1) consistent with state, regional, and local transportation plans, (2) necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels attributable to economic growth, and (3) partially funded by local -government or private developer contributions, or a combination of such contributions
Property Tax Levy General Obligation Bonds:
Nonvoter Approved (councilmanic): The district may issue general obligation bonds, not to exceed an amount, together with any other outstanding nonvoter-approved general obligation indebtedness, equal to three-eighths of one percent of the value of taxable property within the district.
Voter-Approved: The district may additionally issue general obligation bonds for capital purposes only, together with any outstanding general obligation indebtedness, not to exceed an amount equal to one and one-fourth percent of the value of the total property within the district, when authorized by the voters of the district.
Local Improvement Districts: LID'S created by Transportation Districts are subject to limits on other LID'S (RCW 35.43 - 35.54). Assessments must give credits for donations of real property or property rights.
Development Fees: The fees or charges must be reasonably necessary as a result of the impact of development, construction, or classification or reclassification of land on identified transportation needs.
d. Decision Basis: Local government decision. Voter approval for bonds/excess levy. Only council approval required for councilmanic bonds, special assessments and development fees.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have a transportation benefit district, nor, to date, does any local jurisdiction in the State.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast,
A transportation benefit district would be related to specific transportation projects that address congestion caused by economic development. Thus the amount of revenue is a function of the cost of the project, rather than a levy rate or assessment amount or fee schedule. In order to prepare a forecast, and to estimate levy or fee rates that produce the forecast amount, the City would need to propose specific transportation projects that reduce congestion from economic growth. There are no projects in the City's Recommended Capital Improvement Program which qualify as transportation benefit district projects.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
37. Road Improvement District
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special assessment districts such as road improvement districts implement financing methods for capital facilities which require partial or complete financing by entities other than the jurisdiction. These financing alternatives include those that require financial participation by property owners or developers (i.e., special assessment bonds such as Road Improvement Districts (RID) or the collection of development fees).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Charges to individual property owners may be assessed only where there is a direct benefit to the property.
d. Decision Basis: Local option discretion requiring 50% or more property owner approval.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not currently have any road improvement districts.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast.
No eligible projects have been identified in the City's 1995-2000 Capital Improvements Program. Special assessments would be tailored to specific circumstances, and are not "general" revenues that can be forecast.
FEES AND CHARGES
38. Road Impact Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.02.050-090 authorizes a charge to be paid by new development for its "fair share" of the system (off-site) improvements cost of roads that are required to serve the development.
Usually collected at the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Road impact fees are flat rates for dwelling units (by type) and square feet of non-residential development. Adjustments must be made to fee calculations to account for road costs that are paid by other sources of revenue, and additional "credits" can be given to developers who contribute land, improvements, or other assets.
Impact fees do not include any other form of developer contributions or exactions, such as mitigation or voluntary payments authorized by SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21C), local improvement districts or other special assessment districts, linkage fees, or land donations or fees in lieu of land.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Impact fees must be used for capital facilities needed by growth, and not for current deficiencies in levels of service, and cannot be used for operating expenses. Impact fees must show a "rational nexus of benefit" between the payer of the fee and the expenditure of the fee.
d. Decision Basis: GMA authorizes impact fees to be charged at the discretion of cities and counties.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not currently have road impact fees.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast: Not forecast.
There are too may variables to permit even a rough approximation of probable impact fee rates. Furthermore, road impact fee rates vary significantly by type of land use, making it difficult to forecast revenue without detailed forecasts of new development by type of land use.
39. Local Option Vehicle License Fee
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.80 authorizes a Countywide (no city levy) local option fee up to $15 maximum per vehicle registered in the county with "Sunset" on January 1, 2000. Revenues are distributed back to the county and cities within the county levying the tax on a weighted per capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and 1.0 for population in incorporated areas).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenues must be spent for "general transportation purposes" including highway purposes, public transportation, high capacity transportation, transportation planning and design; and other transportation related activities.
d. Decision Basis: Local option fee not requiring voter approval.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: Jefferson County has not enacted the local option vehicle license fee, therefore the City does not receive this revenue.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $0.55
|
The following table shows the revenue the City could receive for capital facilities from 1995 through 2000 if Jefferson County were to enact the $15.00 local option vehicle license fee.
The forecast is based on 21,559 vehicle registration in Jefferson County (1993). In the following table vehicle registrations are forecast countywide for the 1995-2000 planning period. The basis for the forecast is the countywide average annual population growth rate of 3.24% for the 1994-2000 planning period.
The total amount of local option vehicle license fee revenue which would be generated in Jefferson County at $15.00 per registered vehicle was calculated (based on the forecast of vehicle registrations). Next, the 1993 per capita distribution to City and County was calculated (Port Townsend = 24.7% of revenue and Jefferson County = 75.3%). The forecast is based on the weighted population distribution of the fees collected in Jefferson County ($3.70 fee revenue per registered vehicle to the City and $11.30 fee revenue per registered vehicle to the County).
The City would receive over $85,000 per year if Jefferson County were to enact the local option vehicle license fee at $15.00 per vehicle.
The forecast assumes 3.24% annual growth in countywide revenue. This is consistent with the countywide average annual population growth rate in Jefferson County for the 1993-2000 planning period based on the County's revised high growth scenario.
39. LOCAL OPTION VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
| VEHICLE
REGISTRATIONS | REVENUE
@ $15.00
PER CAPITA | CITY SHARE
OF TOTAL
REVENUE
@ 24.7% |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA | NA |
1993 ACTUAL | 21,559 | NA | NA |
1994 ESTIMATE | 22,258 | NA | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 3.24% | NA | NA |
1995 | 22,979 | 344,687 | 85,138 |
1996 | 23,724 | 355,855 | 87,896 |
1997 | 24,492 | 267,385 | 90,744 |
1998 | 25,286 | 379,288 | 93,684 |
1999 | 26,105 | 391,577 | 96,720 |
2000 | 26,951 | 404,264 | 99,853 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 2,243,057 | 554,035
|
40. Street Utility Charge
a. Type of Local Government: Cities.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 82.80.050 authorized cities to charge for city street utilities. Subject to city council approval, a street utility may be created to maintain, operate and preserve city streets. Businesses and households may be charged a fee up to 50% of actual costs of construction, maintenance, and operations; cities provide the remaining 50%. The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and cannot exceed $2.00 per full-time equivalent employee per month. Owners or occupants of residential property are charged a fee per household that cannot exceed $2.00 per month. Businesses and households must both be charged.
c. Limitations/Requirements: The law states that the following can be included in a street utility: street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, parking facilities, and drainage facilities. Funds must be used for transportation purposes including street improvements and public transportation (RCW 82.80.070).
d. Decision Basis: Local option tax requiring local referendum.
e. Current Use in Port Townsend: The City does not have a street utility at this time.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $1.15
|
The following table shows the revenue the City could generate from 1995 through 2000 if it were to enact the maximum allowable street utility charge for residential property of $2.00 per dwelling unit per month and $2.00 per employee per month. The forecast is based on a 1994 estimate of 3,628 dwelling units and a 1990 census figure of 3,591 employees in the City.
The forecast assumes 2.55% annual growth in dwelling units and a 3.51% annual growth rate in the number of employees during the 6-year planning period. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario and, for employees, the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992.
40. STREET UTILITY CHARGE
| DWELLING
UNITS | UTILITY
REVENUE
@ $2.00 PER
DWELLING
UNIT PER MO. | EMPLOYMENT | UTILITY
REVENUE
@ $2.00 PER
EMPLOYEE
PER MONTH | TOTAL
STREET
UTILITY
REVENUE |
HISTORICAL DATA | | | | | |
1990 ACTUAL | 3,280 | NA | 3,128 | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | 3,364 | NA | 3,238 | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | 3,449 | NA | 3,351 | NA | NA |
1993 BUDGET | 3,537 | NA | 3,469 | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 3,628 | NA | 3,591 | NA | NA |
PERCENT-CHANGE | | | | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | | | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 2.55% | | 3.51% | | |
1995 | 3,721 | 89,0292 | 3,717 | 89,205 | 178,497 |
1996 | 3,815 | 91,569 | 3,847 | 92,336 | 183,905 |
1997 | 3,913 | 93,904 | 3,982 | 95,577 | 189,481 |
1998 | 4,012 | 96,299 | 4,122 | 98,932 | 195,231 |
1999 | 4,115 | 98,754 | 4,267 | 102,404 | 201,158 |
2000 | 4,220 | 101,273 | 4,417 | 105,999 | 207,272 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 571,091 | NA | 584,453 | 1,155,544
|
41. Street Vacation Compensation
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: Chapter 12.20 of the City of Port Townsend Municipal Code authorizes the City, upon city council approval of a petition for the vacation of any street, alley or public place, to collect one half of the appraised value of vacated street alley or public place.
c. Limitations/Requirements: The Municipal Code does not specify any limitation of use of the revenues received from the vacation of streets, alleys and public places. The City's policy has been to use this revenue for right-of-way acquisitions.
d. Decision Basis: Local discretion.
e. Current Use in Port Townsend: No revenue is anticipated for 1994. The cash balance from prior years is approximately $60,000.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. Revenue is dependent on petition for vacation of streets, alleys or public places. The City's 1995-2000 Recommended Capital Improvement Program (November 29, 1994) for streets anticipates $360,000 in street vacation compensation revenue to be used for capital projects (right-of-way acquisition).
GRANTS
42. National Highway System (NHS)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: WSDOT revenue available for _ construction and improvement of the National Highway System ($ million in 1994).
c. Limitations/Requirements: Project must be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) list and must be a component of the NHS. The NHS will include all Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network and strategic highway connectors. The NHS must be designated by law by September 30, 1995. In the interim the NHS will consist of highways classified as principal arterials.
d. Decision Basis: Entitlement funds are available on an 86.5% Federal / 13.5% Local match based on the highest ranking projects from the Regional TIP list.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have any eligible projects.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
No eligible projects have been identified in the City's 1995-2000 Recommended Recommended Capital Improvement Program.
43. Surface Transportation Program (STP)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: WSDOT block grant revenue available ($ ___ million in 1994) for road construction and maintenance, transit capital projects, bridge projects, transportation planning, research and development, participation in wetland mitigation and wetland banking.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Projects must be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) list and compete with projects in the Region. Funds must be used for roads that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors.
d. Decision Basis: Entitlement funds are available on an 86.5% Federal / 13.5% Local match based on the highest ranking projects from the Regional TIP list.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The 1994 budgeted revenue is $210,000 for the following projects:
Project Name | FAUS*/STP
Revenue
($1,000) |
Kearney Street | $210.0 |
Total | 210.0
|
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The following list of eligible projects is from the City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994. (Eligibility of a project for a grant does not assure the City that the loan or grant will be received.)
Project Name | Total
Project Cost
1995-2000
($1,000) | Potential
STP
Grant
1995-2000
($1,000) |
San Juan Improvements | $15.0 | $15.0 |
SR20 Climbing Lane | 1,000.0 | * |
Gateway Plaza Lane | 300.0 | * |
Gateway Right-Of-Way | 150.0 | * |
Gateway Improvement Plan | 740.0 | * |
Total | $2,205.0 | NA
|
44. Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BR)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: WSDOT State Aid Division revenue ($54.0 million in 1994) available on a statewide priority basis (Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee [BRAC]) for replacement of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Bridge must be on the State of Washington Inventory of Bridges, and the bridge must be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and have a Federal Rating low enough to qualify.
d. Decision Basis: Funds are available with 80% Federal/20% Local matching requirement.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: There are no bridges in the City of Port Townsend.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City does not have any eligible projects.
45. Federal Aid Emergency Relief rER)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and public agencies.
b. Source/Purpose: WSDOT State Aid Division revenue available ($2 million annually) for restoration of roads and bridges on the federal aid system which are damaged by extraordinary natural disasters or catastrophic failures.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Local agency declares an emergency and notifies Division of Emergency Management. Governor declares emergency. Applications are made by WSDOT to FHWA. Local agencies are notified by WSDOT, and funds are set up based upon Damage Survey Report. Emergency must be approved by Federal Highway Administrator.
d. Decision Basis: Entitlement funds are available on a 83.13% Federal/16.87% Local matching requirement.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have any relief revenue at this time.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. Emergencies cannot be forecast.
46. Urban Arterial Trust Account (UATA)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and urban counties.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 47.26 authorizes State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) revenue available ($40.0 million for 1993-1995 biennium) for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Road should be structurally deficient, congested by traffic, and have geometric deficiency, or have accident problems.
d. Decision Basis: Entitlement funds are available on a 80% Federal/20% Local matching requirement (except 10% for roads in rural incorporated cities), and are subject to UATA guidelines.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend:No revenue is anticipated in 1994.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The following list of eligible projects is from the City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994. (Eligibility of a project for a grant does not assure the City that the loan or grant will be received.)
Project Name | Total
Project Cost
1995-2000
($1,000) | Potential
UATA
Grant
1995-2000
($1,000) |
SR20 Climbing Lane | $1,000.0 | * |
Gateway Plaza Lane | 300.0 | * |
Gateway Right-Of-Way | 150.0 | * |
Gateway Improvement Plan | 740.0 | * |
Total | $2,205.0 | NA
|
47. Transportation Improvement Account (TIA)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, urban counties, and transportation benefit districts.
b. Source/Purpose: State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) revenue available ($ 40 million annually) for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic development or growth.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Project should be multi-agency, multi-modal, congestion related, related to economic development activities, and partially funded locally.
d. Decision Basis: Entitlement funds are available on a 80% Federal/20% Local matching requirement (except 5% for incorporated cities with populations of around 0-500).
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: No revenue is anticipated in 1994.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The following list of eligible projects is from The City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994. (Eligibility of a project for a grant does not assure the City that the loan or grant will be received.)
Project Name | Total
Project Cost
1995-2000
($1,000) | Potential
TIA
Grant
1995-2000
($1,000) |
SR20 Climbing Lane | $1,000.0 | * |
Gateway Plaza Lane | 300.0 | * |
Gateway Right-Of-Way | 150.0 | * |
Gateway Improvement Plan | 740.0 | * |
Total | $2,205.0 | NA
|
G. SEWER
TAXES
48. Sewer Districts
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than city or county. The total levy for most governments within a particular tax code area cannot exceed $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Ports, PUD'S EMS levy and the State School levy are not subject to the $5.90 cap).
RCW 56.16 authorizes sewer special purpose districts with independent taxing authority ($.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval) to finance capital facilities. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: There are no independent sewer districts within the City of Port Townsend. The City provides services through its own sewer utility department.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City has no plans to create an independent sewer district.
FEES AMD CHARGES
49. User Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose utility districts.
b. Source/Purpose: State authorized rate charged to generators of wastewater. Some fees are based on the amount of potable water consumed, on the assumption there is a correlation between water consumption and wastewater generation. Other sewer utilities charge a flat fee per account.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Fee revenues may be used for capital facilities, as well as operating and maintenance costs.
d. Decision Basis: Local discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: According to the ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. (EES) 1994 Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Rate Study (see Section f., below) the 1994 projected revenue is $1,355,000 of which $1,256,000 is used for operating and maintenance costs and debt service and $99,000 is used for capital projects.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Revenue
($ million) |
1995-1999 | $0.85
|
ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. (EES) was retained by the City of Port Townsend to review and update the City's water, wastewater and storm drainage rates. As part of the rate study, a revenue forecast of wastewater user fees was developed for the 1995-1999 planning period. The forecast is based on 2% annual growth in the customer base and a 7% rate increase in 1995. The forecast also assumes that the City will continue to use the majority of fee revenue for operating and maintenance costs and debt service. The following is the amount of fee revenue projected to be available for capital projections for each year of the rate study planning period:
Project Name | Total
Project Cost
1995-2000
($1,000) | Potential
SRF Loans
1995-2000
($1,000) |
Water System: | | |
Well & Treatment System Upgrade | $1,000.0 | * |
Total | 1,000.0 | NA |
Total of All Projects | $5,340.0 |
|
H. SOLID WASTE
FEES AND CHARGES
52. User Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: A rate, usually per ton or cubic yard of solid waste delivered to the disposal facility (i.e., landfill, resource recovery site, etc.).
c. Limitations/Requirements: User or tipping fees may be used for capital facilities, as well as maintenance and operating expenses.
d. Decision Basis: Local government decision.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: $1,150,000 is budgeted in 1994 for contractual services and administrative costs. The City contracts for garbage collection and transport (to a transfer station) services.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. This study assumes the City will continue to contract for garbage collection and transport services.
GRANTS
53. Department of Ecology
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Grants by State to local governments for a variety of programs related to solid waste, including Remedial Action Grants to assist with local hazardous waste sites. Moderate Risk/Hazardous Waste Implementation Grants to manage local hazardous waste, and Food and Yard Waste Composting Grants.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Some grants are for programs, others allow some capital costs (i.e., remediation of existing hazardous waste sites.
d. Decision Basis: State agency grant.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City has received a DOE grant, through the County, for $19,500 for compost marketing analysis. The local match is $10,500 for a project total of $30,000.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast
54. Farmers Home Administration (FHA)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, port districts, and Indian Tribes.
b. Source/Purpose: The FHA is authorized to guarantee loans to borrowers in rural areas and in towns of up to 10,000 people for developing waste disposal facilities. (This revenue source is also included in Revenue Number 14, above.)
c. Limitations/Requirements: Funds may be used to construct, enlarge or improve waste disposal facilities.
d. Decision Basis: Federal loans available within a 45%-25% local matching range.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not utilize this revenue source.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City may identify specific capital projects that are eligible for FHA loan guarantees.
I. STORMWATER/FLOOD CONTROL
TAXES
55. Flood Control Special Purpose District
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. The total levy for most governments within a particular tax code area cannot exceed $5.90 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (Ports, PUD'S, EMS levy and the State School levy are not subject to the $5.90 cap).
RCW 86.15.160 authorizes flood control special purpose districts with independent taxing authority ($.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval) to finance capital facilities. In addition, the district can, with voter approval, use an excess levy to pay for general obligation debt. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
The $9.00 total levy limitations (see Revenue Number 18) also apply to flood control special purpose districts.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created. The levy can be pledged for bond repayment, and excess levies can be used for additional bonds.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City does not have flood control special purpose districts.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Tax Revenue
($ million) |
1995-2000 | $1.64
|
The City could generate over $240,000 per year for capital facilities if it were to create a flood control district and levy the maximum allowable $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. This assumes a single city-wide special purpose district.
Creation of a flood control district would transfer control from the City Council to a district board.
Enactment of a district would reduce the burden on the City's Stormwater Utility Fees (Revenue #56) and Stormwater System Development Charges (Revenue Number 53), but the total of all levies is subject to statutory maximums (see Revenue Number 19).
Table 55 shows the forecast of tax revenue the City could generate from 1995 through 2000 if it were to levy $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation. The forecast is based on the 1994 City assessed valuation of $457,626,695.
The forecast assumes 5.22% annual growth in assessed valuation. There are three components in this weighted average growth rate:
1) A conservative estimate of increases in assessed value of existing property and development is an annual increase of 2.5%;
2) The assessed valuation for new residential construction will grow by 2.55% per year. This is consistent with the City's average annual dwelling unit growth rate for the 1994-2000 planning period based on the City's moderate growth scenario, and;
3) The assessed valuation for new non-residential construction will grow by 3.51% per year. This is consistent with the average annual increase in the number of persons employed in Jefferson County for the 5-year period from 1987-1992 (as presented in Table IV-12 of the City of Port Townsend's September 9, 1994 draft Comprehensive Plan).
No forecast has been made of general obligation debt of special districts that can be repaid by voter approved excess levies.
55. FLOOD CONTROL SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICT
| ASSESSED
VALUE | TAX REVENUE:
LEVY RATE =
$0.50 |
HISTORICAL DATA | | |
1990 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1991 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1992 ACTUAL | NA | NA |
1993 BUDGET | NA | NA |
1994 BUDGET | 457,626,695 | NA |
PERCENT CHANGE | | |
1990-91 | NA | NA |
1991-92 | NA | NA |
1992-93 | NA | NA |
1993-94 | NA | NA |
ANNUAL AVERAGE | NA | NA |
FORECAST | | |
% GROWTH RATE | 5.22% | NA |
1995 | 481,514,808 | 240,757 |
1996 | 506,649,881 | 253,325 |
1997 | 533,097,005 | 266,549 |
1998 | 560,924,669 | 280,462 |
1999 | 590,204,937 | 295,102 |
2000 | 621,013,634 | 310,507 |
6-YEAR TOTAL | NA | 1,646,702
|
FEES AMD CHARGES
56. Storm Drain Utility Fee
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: State authorized fee, usually a flat rate per month charge per residential equivalency. Residential equivalencies are based on an average amount of impervious surface. Commercial property is assessed a rate based on a fixed number of residential equivalents.
c. Limitations/Requirements: None.
d. Decision Basis: Local discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: The City of Port Townsend has enacted Storm Water Utility Fees (Municipal Code 13.20) for all real property in the City which contributes drainage water to or that benefits from the City's storm water utility. The monthly fee for single-family dwelling units is $5.00, provided that the impervious surface on the lot shall not exceed 3,000 square feet. The monthly fee for all other property is based on calculating equivalent single-family units.
According to the ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. (EES) 1994 Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Rate Study (see Revenue Number 49) 1994 revenue is projected to be $318,500 of which $238,500 is used for operating and maintenance costs and $80,000 is used for capital projects.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Stormwater
Utility Fee
Revenue
($ million) |
1995-1999 | $0.37
|
A revenue forecast of storm drain utility fees was developed as part of the EES rate study. The forecast is based on 2% annual growth in the customer base. No rate increases are projected. The forecast assumes that the City will continue to use the majority of utility fee revenue for operating and maintenance costs and repayment of the State Revolving Loan (see Revenue Number 51). The following is the amount of utility fee revenue projected to be available for capital projects for each year of the rate study planning period:
1995 | $ 67,000 |
1996 | 60,000 |
1997 | 80,000 |
1998 | 80,000 |
1999 | 80.000 |
1995-1999 Total | 367,000
|
57. Stormwater Reserve Capacity Charges
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties, and special purpose utility districts.
b. Source/Purpose: Port Townsend Municipal Code 13.20.080 authorizes reserve capacity charges for connection to the City's storm water drainage system. This charge applies to properties developed after the effective date of the first billing of the storm water utility fees (adopted in 1987). The Reserve Capacity Charge is equal to $3.00 times the number of months which have elapsed since the first storm water utility billing.
c. Limitations/Requirements: The charges reflects the City's investment, either through prior investment or bonding, in storm water drainage system capital facilities.
d. Decision Basis: Local discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: According to the ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. (EES) 1994 Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Rate Study (see Revenue Number 49) the 1994 projected revenue is $20,000 and is used for capital projects.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Revenue
($ million) |
1995-1999 | $0.10
|
A revenue forecast of stormwater reserve capacity charges was developed as a part of the EES rate study. The forecast is based on the 1994 EES projection of $20,000 and assumes the annual revenue collected will remain constant (i.e., $20,000 per year) during the rate study planning period (1995-1999) for a total of $100,000 in revenue ($20,000 per year x 5 years).
The City is considering a modification to the system development charges that will make the charge a flat rate per dwelling unit instead of the existing pro-rata charge. Such a change in the rate structure would affect the revenue forecasts.
J. UTILITIES
TAXES
58. General Obligation Bonds
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose districts.
b. Source/Purpose: GO Bonds are backed by the value of the property within the jurisdiction (full faith and credit). There are two types of GO Bonds: voter-approved and councilmanic. Voter-approved bonds will increase the property tax rate, with the increased revenues dedicated to paying principal and interest on the bonds.
Local governments are authorized "excess levies" (increases in the regular property tax levy (RCW 84.52) above the $3.60 per $1,000 statutory limit) to repay voter-approved bonds. There is no dollar limit for this levy, however the total amount of debt is limited as described below (see Limitations/Requirements).
c. Limitations/Requirements: The amount of local government debt for utility bonds is restricted by law to 2.5% of taxable value of property (RCW 39.36.020). (See revenue Number 2, above, for a summary of total debt capacity.)
d. Decision Basis: Local government decision: 60% majority-required for voter-approved bonds/excess levy.
e. Current Use in Port Townsend: The City does not have any general obligation debt for utility purposes.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City does not plan to issue general obligation bonds. The City issues revenue bonds, repaid by utility fee revenue, which is the customary practice of city utilities and utility districts throughout the State of Washington.
GRANTS AND LOANS
59. Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF)
a. Type of Local Government: Cities/towns, counties, conservation districts, water/sewer districts, and Indian Tribes.
b. Source/Purpose: RCW 70.146, RCW 82.24 and RCW 82.26 authorize State grants and loans ($45 million annually) administered by the Department of Ecology Water Quality Financial Assistance Program for the design, acquisition, construction, and improvement of Water Pollution Control Facilities, and related activities to meet state and federal WPC requirements and protect water quality.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Use of funds limited to planning, design, and construction of WPCF's, stormwater management, ground water protection, and related projects.
d. Decision Basis: State grants and loans available based on 50%-25% local matching share range.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: $400,000 in 1994 for the secondary treatment project.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
The following list of eligible projects is from the City of Port Townsend Recommended Capital Improvement Program 1995-2000, dated November 29, 1994. (Eligibility of a project for a grant does not assure the City that the grant will be received.)
Project Name | Total
Project Cost
1995-2000
($1,000) | Potential
CCWF Revenue
1995-2000
($1,000) |
Wastewater treatment: | | |
Wastewater Treatment Plant | | |
Engineering | $ 50.0 | * |
Secondary Treatment Plant | 180.0 | * |
Biosolids Composting Facility | 130.0 | * |
Total | 360.0 | NA |
Water System: | | |
Little Quilcene Diversion | | |
Dam Reconstruction | 250.0 | ** |
Wellhead Protection Plan | 40.0 | ** |
Total | 290.0 | NA |
Project Name | ($1,000) | ($1,000) |
Stormwater: | | |
Master Plan Implementation | $ 550.0 | ** |
Property Acquisition | 700.0 | ** |
Site Development Program | 350.0 | ** |
Kah Tai | 150.0 | ** |
North Lagoon (Chinese Gardens) | 40.0 | ** |
Basin 4 & 9 Flood Plain Plan | 210.0 | ** |
Basin 5 & 8 Flood Plain Plan | 100.0 | ** |
City/Port Stormwater Treatment | 80.0 | ** |
Total | 2,180.0 | NA |
Total of All Projects | $2,830.0 | NA
|
K. WATER
TAXES
60. Water Districts
a. Type of Local Government: Cities and counties.
b. Source/Purpose: Special purpose districts are usually established when a community's need may be too large for existing governmental resources or the boundaries of the area needing service are different than a city or county. The total levy for all special districts Cannot exceed $9.00. RCW 57.20.100 authorizes water special purpose districts with independent taxing authority ($.50 property tax levy limit without voter approval) to finance capital facilities. The special district's tax base, rather than the City's is used to finance capital facilities, maintenance, and operations.
c. Limitations/Requirements :Tax revenue is restricted to uses related to the purpose for which the special purpose district is created.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: There are no independent water districts within the City of Port Townsend. The City provides services through its own water utility department.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Not forecast. The City has no plans to create an independent water district.
FEES AMD CHARGES
61. User Fees
a. Type of Local Government: Cities, counties, and special purpose utility districts.
b. Source/Purpose: State authorized rate charge to each residential and commercial consumer, usually based on per volume of water used.
c. Limitations/Requirements: Revenue may be used for capital facilities, as well as operating and maintenance costs.
d. Decision Basis: Local government discretion.
e. Current Use in City of Port Townsend: According to the ECONOMIC AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. (EES) 1994 Water, Wastewater and Storm Drainage Rate Study (see Revenue Number 49) 1994 revenue is projected to be $1,524,550 of which $1,288,550 is used for operating and maintenance costs and debt service and $236,000 is used for capital projects.
f. 1995-2000 Capital Forecast:
Planning Period | Revenue
($ million) |
1995-1999 | $1.07
|
As part of the EES rate study, a revenue forecast of water user fees was developed for the 1995-1999 planning period. The forecast is based on 2% annual growth in the customer base and a 10% rate increase in 1995. The forecast also assumes that the City will continue to use the majority of fee revenue for operating and maintenance costs and debt service. The following is the amount of fee revenue projected to be available for capital projections for each year of the rate study planning period:
1995 | $ 160,000 |
1996 | 200,000 |
1997 | 220,000 |
1998 | 245,000 |
1999 | 245.000 |
1995-1999 Total | 1,070,000
|
yet not be too high to cause a great burden for the first time home buyer, or any middle-income buyer who does not have a large equity from a former ownership").
In addition the Committee recommended the following percent allocation:
Water | 30% |
Wastewater | 25% |
Stormwater | 20% |
Parks | 5% |
Transportation | 10% |
Schools | 10%
|
Based on the percent allocation, and assuming an overall cap of $5,000, the recommended impact fees would be $1,500 for water; $1,250 for wastewater; $1,000 for stormwater; $250 for parks; $500 for transportation; and $500 for schools.
The Port Townsend city Council has not adopted the Impact Fee Advisory Committee recommendation regarding the $5,000 cap. However the City has adopted water and wastewater system development charges of $1,500 (per ERU) and $1,250 (per ERU) respectively, consistent with the recommended percent allocation.
The Committee's allocation did not address fire protection, which is allowed by law.
