Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040623 Financial Sustainability Taskforce Meeting PacketM %O ^ N 00 M N N N co) V p N — N O a o = �; ad Y O V 0 V c o% a d O y XO E LU E O S CL .= O O� M 3M -W 0 _ 'O v '0 N O N O E H S ,o •a a m o m a O - CL O G1 — E S 7 a a E o = V 12 f- T O } } N E f!1 0 O O > a N N � u } L i O 7 v 06 E N E a V N 06 3 Q a U � � L 7 Q d � � C NN a v N L E N V) V w 0 O + C ZA- } 3 Q n 06 O O E Q V O a I E 3 A) O > a7 � O c c a a 3 °' o N E N �F O N h 3 L .0 O I N O _ > C O 3 N E O .N N0 v N } a c O V, u N c N 3 a� c ' E c O U O U O U IIS IIS IIS IIS 12 f- T O } } N E f!1 0 O O > a N N � u } L i O 7 v 06 E N E a V N 06 3 Q a U � � L 7 Q d � � C NN a v N L E N V) V w 0 0 + C ZA- } 3 E Q' n 06 E Q O M I 0 a § a \ \ ƒ » o 2 / \ f E 2 > o k / ± \ 06 & E $ o b ƒ ƒ .6 c \ ® � ƒLny E ± G f q & ¥ LU � ƒ 3 � U 2 G \ « 0 ¥ 0 0 a ° » ( U @ 7 Q L E � § ne g 3 m ® g - § D � b U ƒ ) 2 o [ Lu / v � / m § © C ) o ■ § 04 q ¥ : !# FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILLY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES DATE: March 17, 2023 START TIME: 1:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall (In person and virtual) VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Catharine Robinson, Rick Jahnke, Earll Murman, John Nowak NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Berk Consulting Staff: Project Manager Katherine Goetz, Lead Facilitator and Analyst Julia Tesch, MEMBERS EXCUSED: MEMBERS ABSENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Manager John Mauro, Finance Manager Ron Logghe, Director of Finance and Technology Services Connie Anderson, Public Works Director Steve King, Director of Parks, and Recreation Strategy Carrie Hite, Planning and Community Development Director Emma Bolin and City Attorney Heidi Greenwood. Topic Action Welcome, Meeting Overview, Minute Approval: Motion: Rick Jahnke made a motion to City Manager John Mauro welcomed the task force, reviewed minutes, and approve the January 20,2023 minutes. provided a meeting overview. John Nowak seconded. Vote: Motion passed unanimously. Berk Consulting Project Manager Katherine Goetz, Lead Facilitator and Analyst Julia Tesch provided the meeting overview and objectives, project schedule, and Meeting Arc. Review Peer Cities Comparisons: Ms. Goetz provided the Peer Cities Comparison presentation which included Peer Cities, About Peer Cities, Population Growth, Age Distribution, Persons Per Household, Population Density, Median Household income, Person Income, Jobs by Sector, Share of Revenues from Primary General Fund Taxes, Shares of Revenues from Other Sources, PT Property Tax Detail, How Property Tax Works in Washington, PT Sales Tax Detail, PT Sales Tax by Industry, and Discussion. Discussion ensued around why certain cities have grown so much and the context of growth, as well as the importance of including the population of each city in the Population Growth slide. The taskforce went on to discuss housing availability being a factor in population density and growth, including data of availability of housing, being single family oriented in Port Townsend, sources Topic Action of income, business growth, Fire District Levy Rate changing, adjusting bullet one in "How Property Tax Works in Washington" slide and 1 % increase, how the .98% tax rate relates to comparable cities, what retail trade in Port Townsend is, sales tax, and utility/property taxes. Review Revenue Options: Ms. Goetz continued the presentation which included Funding Strategies, Types of Funding Strategies, Tax Increases, Special District Taxes, Fees, Ms. Goetz will look to see if Public Facility Other Options, Balancing Options for Financial Sustainability, Funding Districts can issue bonds. Strategies Summary, Funding Strategies and Peer Cities, Level of Service Mr. King will send Infrastructure and Discussion Development Committee Meeting link Discussion ensued around property tax increase cap, vehicle license fees as regarding impact fees. an alternative to sales tax, MPD bonds, Public Facility Districts, impact fees, Connie will look for a Dept of Revenue fact lodging tax, TBD, affordable housing tax, multifamily tax, electric vehicle fees, sheet of systems for low income and senior property taxes, vegetation maintenance, fees/tax related to service provided, community members. systems for senior/low-income community members, number of staff per 1000 residents, performance improvement, trust, burnout, sustainable model, efficiency, impacts of doing nothing, other community discussions, current position, importance of level of service discussion, and community involvement Review Criteria for Evaluating Funding Strategies: Engagement Update: Mr. Mauro discussed the importance of informing other agencies of the process and the creation of synergy Next Steps and Adjourn: Connie and John will send out a Doodle Ms. Goetz discussed next steps which included a possible April Meeting and Poll to find a date for April meeting. discussion with Council in May. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:11 pm Topic I Action Next Regular Meeting: May 19, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND FINANCIAL S U STAI NAB I LITY TAS KFO RCE MEETING 4 1 APRIL 6, 2023 &Z=-, 7.004101� =0 • 3. Community Initiatives - Where do we want to go 4.. Continue discussion on funding strategies and review impact of options on 1:00 - 1:10 PM Welcome and meeting John Mauro I City Manager ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. overview 10 Katherine Goetz I BERK John Mauro 1:10 - 2:00 Pm Ideas and strategies to meet community expectations Connie Anderson, Director of Finance and IT Review Community Initiatives Steve King, PW Director 10 Streets Carrie Hite, Director of Parks & 2:00 - 2:30 pm Recreation Strategy 10 Parks&Wellness Emma Bolin, Planning & Community ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Affordable Housing Development Director 2:30 - 2:45 pm Interactive funding exercise John and Connie 2:50 - 3:00 2 0 0 01 0 0 llas�IkfouucfI Nftetiiiing ���� ����;IIII1 � u�ul1 � ee'11111111 q �����P��� u11 M eeltiuu 9 �B�iR', "' 1111 � �Mee6hiing j �����P���a I[cfouur IIII nee°di111 g NAeetiiiinq willillill 1",�u 111111110 1 11111111 uiui IIIIIIIII mii m I�IIII� IIII�IIIIII 1111111 IIII IIII on 0, 0 0 0 0 0 Iteview aiiiiad fiii lllD IIII ui e uu,ide uu °t uu IIII uu o'IIIII pilliolillity e uu uu how uu�l liu uu Ill � IIII' II uu� IIII uu e s r I � IIII ° llil lulu ul t i Ic! uu Inde int Ifs �III��Iuu����� IIII�� uu� Illlu�lll� Illl�uuuu�� � � �� � uu stuu� ld� s. lu�� advise Quin fi hill liiiimc ul i� l iu'flIII � � IIII auu�l oo uu I uu � � II SII.. uu uu uu � uu I� � � IIII uu� � uu � �`t ��uu�ll �uu�uu uu �°� Ili � uu uu IIII uu^ .; � �uu� uu� uu IIII � IIII � � � � �I� uu °�I�� uli �, uu uu uu uu � uu,I uu°uu uu � uu d°IIS uu � uu s :IIIIl IIII � IIII% II "lIlln't, ����IIII"� c'os IIII*IIII �I!91irs. �w° IIIb iIII:IIIIIillilies. discussioilli strategy IIReVuli� uunuuvunlt City1Ievi uu �lll ��uu ll � pirioirities auu d key qptiollills. iiiinirtuiatiu on Lin 11110 i ;• ,is Creating the best positive benefit for all the community I I M-ff =- 0 on on MINE MITIUMMINIVOM Do Nothing III mmllul I I I ............................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11" ............................. I I ................ "I'll'I'll""Il""Ill""I'll'I'l"""""'I", Sustain Current Services ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Enhance Services MINE MITIUMMINIVOM Do Nothing III mmllol I I I ............................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11" ............................. I I ................ "I'll'I'll""Il""Ill""I'll'I'l"""""'I", Sustain Current Services ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Enhance Services on Do Nothing ............................ .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11" ............................. "I'll", ............... I ................. "I'l""I'll"""""""""", Sustain Current Services Enhance Services Do Nothing • No new revenue • Service level reductions • "Fall off a cliff" • Efficiency here also • Describe the impacts of doing nothing • Impact on major initiatives (pool)? • Potential service cuts No Net Loss Sustain Current Services • Raise revenue to sustain current services • No new services • Trade-offs • "No cliff" • How to provide same service at less cost (Lean initiatives) - how far can this go? • Look not only at revenue side • Needed revenue to maintain Enhance Services • Efficiency remains important • Trade-offs • New revenue • Amount needed for enhanced services III Mmuiu, 10 on II MMIIIIVI 12 Tax Increases • Property tax increase • Utility tax increase Special District Taxes • Transportation Benefit District sales tax • Metropolitan Park District property tax • Public Facilities District taxes Fees • Impact fees • Development services fees • Recreation user fees Other Options • Sale of surplus property • Alternative methods of service delivery • Service level reductions or efficiencies • Economic development strategies Property tax increase. A city can increase its property tax rate with a "levy lid lift". It can be temporary or permanent and a single year or multi-year. Voter approval is required. Revenues can be used for any purpose or limited to a specific purpose defined in the ballot measure. iii Utility tax increase. A city can raise the tax rate on a private utility (electricity, as, telephone) or a public utility (water, sewer, sr water, solid waste). Revenues can be used for any purpose. III MMIui I I 1 15 lip Rill! impose a sales tax of up to 0.2%. Voter approval is required. Revenues must be used for transportation improvement projects. The tax is limited to 10 years. A TBD can impose a vehicle license fee instead of the Metropolitan Park District property tax. A city can for a Metropolitan Park District (MPD). Voter approval is required. The MPD can assess a regular property tax levy up to $0.75 per $1,000 assessed value. Public Facilities District sales tax. Any city or group of contiguous cities may create a public facilities district (PFD) to develop, improve, and operate "reg Iona I centers" costing at I east $10 m I I I ion and serving regional population. PFDs may impose taxes, fees! or charges, including sales tax of up to 0.2%. III nmlVi I I 1 16 ,is Impact fees. A city can adopt fees paid by developers to mitigate the impacts on infrastructure and capita facilities because of increased demand resulting from new development. Revenues may only be used for streets, parks, schools, and/or fire protection. Development services fees. Fees associated with development can be adjusted to cover a desired portion of costs. Recreation user fees. Recreation user fees can be adjusted to cover a desired portion of operating costs. ,is Sale of surplus city property. If a city owns property that it does not in to use for a future public purpose, it can consider selling it. This is one-time revenue. Alternative methods of service delivery. A city can consider use alternate methods of service delivery in order to reduce costs, such as using private entities or partnering with another entity to deliver services. Economic development. A city can Implement strategies to spur growth. Commercial and residential development creates new revenue int for of property and sales taxes. Reduce service levels or achieve efficiencies. A city can reduce expenditures by reducing the levels of III MMIVi I I 1 18 Voter approval Yes No Yes required No No No One-time or Can be either Ongoing, TBD tax has a Ongoing, can Ongoing, can Some one - ongoing can be time limit be adjusted be adjusted time, some adjusted ongoing Restrictions on No No Yes Yes No N o use Who is Property Residents Property Users Users Depends on impacted owners and owners and (developers in the strategy businesses visitors (for this case) sales tax) III aIIIVI I I 1 19 Anacortes Yes Leavenworth Yes I Part of a park service area Yes Yes** Yes Port Orchard Yes Yes Port Townsend Yes Yes Poulsbo Yes Yes Yes Sequim Yes Part of a park Yes Yes district *Transportation Benefit District „g **A nacortes is also part of a Tourism Promotion Area, which assesses an additional charge on lodging. dging.auiu� 20 1 11111111 i 2,116TOM O�ffl Mir � Mokw�l oiiuipiii gii� I I ill ® How much net revenue could this option generate? ,is Growth: How is this revenue source expected to grow or decline int future? Stability: How stable is this revenue source? Equity: How much does the revenue option align the burden of who pays with who benefits? Political feasibility: How politically feasible is the option? Restrictions/Alignment with needs: What cant e revenue be used for? Can it meet the City's needs? ,mill, May 8 Joint Meeting with City Council and Task Force ,mill, May 19: Task Force Meeting 4 to develop draft recommendations for funding strategies Questions: Contact Connie Anderson at c a i.n d e r S o D @ c i...-ty.QfRU5 ........ ........ . ....... .......... ........ ..... ...... .......... . ... ... ............... ........ . .... III nmiV, I I 1 23 Financial options with criteria Subject to 1 % Impacts all property Property tax increase 1% levy lid lift = $21,000 budgetary growth Can be ongoing owners Current 22% rate eff to 12/2023; Jan 2024 Water, Sewer & Stormwater Utility tax increases Electric and Telephone Utility tax increases Transportation Benefit District sales tax Transportation Benefit District vehicle license fee Metropolitan Park District property tax Public Facilities District sales tax Impact Fees Development Services Fees Requires voter Can be used for any approval purpose Would grow as reverts to 20% ($152k Impacts all utility Can be implemented Can be used for any 1 % increase = $76,000 development grows reduction in revenue) users without voter approval purpose Would grow as Impacts all utility Requires voter Can be used for any 1% _ $8,500 development grows Ongoing users approval purpose Would grow with increased economic Sales tax available for May require voter 0.3% _ $825,000 development 10 years Impacts all purchases approval For transportation projects Would grow with more $20 fee = $186,000 vehicles registered $0.60 per $1,000 = Subject to 1 % --$1,300,000 budgetary growth Would grow with increased economic 0.2% _ $550,000 development $5,000/housing unit = Would grow as $250,000 development grows Would grow as TBD development grows Same fee for all Can be implemented vehicle owners without voter approval For transportation projects Impacts all property Requires voter Ongoing owners approval For park projects Requires voter Impacts all purchases approval For a regional facility For capital projects Can be implemented specific to the fee Ongoing Impacts specific users without voter approval (housing, streets, parks) Can be implemented Ongoing Impacts specific users without voter approval Can be implemented User Fees TBD Would grow with use Ongoing Impacts specific users without voter approval Find efficiencies in operations Targeted service level reductions Alternative service delivery Financial Sustainability Task Force As of April 6 2023 SIV Com"w%rehen IN Financial Sustainability Task Force Update April 6, 2023 Connecting Streets to the larger overall sustainability analysis city0f,14",PortTownsend Please review EngagePT website for background for all chapters and information to date. This background serves as the fundamental basis for development of funding consideration and actions that comprise development of strategies for sustainable streets. Each chapter of the program is addressed. 0--lubi Ic Engagement QPort Townsend COMMUrlity Indeed... COMng soon to a street near you! Street golf . ....... .. . . —A W saki; P . ..... ........ MM 7 5 (ornrn(,Wrs 9 hare,� QPort Townsend COMMUnity Drive United #Oucking #tmck5 #ts 'ickdfiver *vucktngjobOtiuckWe #IruckeiVe #truckdrivers Follow us on nslagram * 0 uj ,,, ,ofrrYxj0s 1 ,Mres See February 1, 2023 Infrastructure and Development Meeting Presentation for background on public engagement. ht daVieweLph ?view id=4Etclip -id=2553 Ask Itnjective of Presentati*on The objective of these slides is to share a shortened version of the March 1, 2023 Infrastructure and Development Committee meeting regarding funding for Streets based on a comprehensive look at the City street system and work needed to accomplish desired outcomes for streets. What does �evea of service bok hke an each scenarios'? I -low, do we achieve each, scen&rio? -„ .fit IIs fe �rrq,,-)ac� to our cornrnU.,rniJty II,i ead) sceIP? aric)? Do Nothing Sustain Current Services .. ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ .......... ......... ......... ..... .......... ... ........ ......... ....... E n h a n c " e S e r , v 'I c e s .................................................................... Ask What does �evea of service bok hke an each scenarios'? 1 -low, do we achieve each, scen&rio? -„ .fit IIs fe �rrq,,-)ac� to our cornrnU.,rnVit. II,i ead) sceIP? aric)? Do Nothing Current Street Inv. - Continued deterioration. No increase in funding Sustain Current Services No Net Loss - Stop the decay, increase investment by $750,000 .. ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ .......... ......... ......... ..... .......... ... ........ ......... ....... E n h a n c " e S e r , v 'I c e s .................................................................... Fix Streets and Make Imp. Increase by $1,500,000 Ask What does �evea of service bok hke an each scenarios'? 1 -low, do we achieve each, scen&rio? -„ .fit IIs fe �rrq,,-)ac� to our cornrnU.,rnVit. II,i ead) sceIP? aric)? Do Nothing Current Street Inv. - Continued deterioration. No increase in funding Total Inv. $11Y200,000 Sustain Current Services No Net Loss - Stop the decay, increase investment by $750,000 $1,950,000 .. ......... ......... ........ ......... ........ .......... ......... ......... ..... .......... ... ........ ......... ....... E n h a n c " e S e r , v 'I c e s .................................................................... Fix Streets and Make Imp. Increase by $1,500,000 $2700000 Ask Stri*v-i*n gcy for Outcomes The following outcomes are recommended to correlate to investment strategies with increases revenues as determined by the Council and the Community. 1. Outcome #1: Sustainable Operations and Maintenance 2. Outcome #2: 3. Outcome #3: 4. Outcome #4: 5. Outcome #5: Fiscal Sustainability Equity - Complete Streets Supporting Housing and Infill Preservation of Arterial Streets 6. Outcome #6: Preservation of Residential Streets 7. Outcome #7: Programming Streets for Livable Communities Each outcome will rate as follows based on investments in particular areas. i Keview Outcome Rati'ong Investment Strat. Increase Options o et Loss Funding Current Inv. $750k Inc. $500k Inc. $1.0 m Inc. $1.5 mIn Existing City of PT Funding $ 1,2 , , 1,200,000 Increase in Local Funding with New Revenue Sources $ - $ 750,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,500,000 Grant Funding $ 1,000,000 $1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Total Street Funding $ 2,200,000 $3,450,000 $ 2,700,000 $3,700,000 $ 4,200,000 Rating Comp. Streets Prog. No Net Loss Outcome Chapter Current Inv. $750k Inc. $500k Inc. $1.0 m Inc. $1.5 m Inc. 1 Sustainable Maint. & Operations Chpt. 3 Operations ✓- ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Financial Sustainability All Chapters ✓- ✓ ✓- ✓ ./+ 3 Equity - Complete Streets Chpt. 4 - Improvements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓+ ✓+ 4 Support Housing and Infill Chpt. 4 - Improvements ✓- ✓- ✓- ✓ ✓+ 5 Preserve Existing Streets - Arterials Chpt. 5 - Preservation ✓- ✓ ✓- ✓+ ✓+ 6 Preserve Existing Streets - Residential Chpt. 5 - Preservation ✓- ✓ ✓- ✓ ✓+ 7 1 Livable Communities Chpt. 6 - Programming ✓ ✓ I ✓ I ✓ I ✓+ Grading Scale Relative to Funding Level Fails to achieve desired outcome Achieves desired outcome - no net loss, but doesn't advance Achieves of desired outcome - w/ advancement ✓- ✓ ✓+ What does $1.5 Increase in Funding Current Exp. $1,500,000 Increase in City Funds Fees for Priority Item Based on 2021 Gen. Fund TBD REET Impact Fees LTAC Service Chapter 3 - Operations $ 1,005,000 $ 140,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 85,000 Chapter 4 - Improvements (Excludes Grant Award) $ - $ 60,000 $ 275,000 $ 260,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - Chapter 5 - Pavement Preservation/Repair Program $ - $ 275,000 $ 245,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - Chapter 6 - Programming $ 206,040 $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ - Streets Funding Amounts $ 1,211,040 $ 485,000 $ 550,000 $ 260,000 $ 100,000 $ 20,000 $ 85,000 $ 1,500,000 What does $1.5 Increase 9 in Fundi*ng o LI*ke',?, Priority Item Chapter 3 - Operations Chapter 4 - Improvements (Excludes Grant Award) Chapter 5 - Pavement Preservation/Repair Program Chapter 6 - Programming Streets Funding Amounts Current Exp. Based on 2021 1 Gen. Fund $ 1,005,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ $ 206,040 $ $1,500,000 Increase in City Funds TBD REET 140,000 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ 275,000 $ 260,000 $ 275,000 $ 245,000 $ - $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ Impact Fees 100,000 $ Fees for LTAC Service - $ 85,000 20,000 $ - $ 1,211,040 1 $ 485,000 $ 550,000 $ 260,000 $ 100,000 $ 20,000 $ 85,000 1 1,500,0001 Funding Recommendation: The Infrastructure and Development Committee visited about funding and recommended that we pursue $1.5 Million in increase funding Housing and Infill - Streets as a strategy The I and D Committee spend considerable time discussion how fees and Impact fees and the requirements for infrastructure can be a strategy for infill and affordable housing with the appropriate program development. Staff will be working on a policy paper to illustrate how an affordable housing and infill fund can work to support the type of development the City is striving to achieve. Questi*ons 'nd Discussion Encouraging the public to be involved through Engage PT