HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 05/28/2013W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A.
CITY COUNCIL MEMO
DATE: MAY 24, 2013
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DAN MCKEEN, CITY MANAGE
BYRON W. OLSON, CHIEF FI
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION L
IAL OFFICER
Long -Range Financial Plan (LRFPI Work Session on Mav 28.2013
NGE FINANCIAL PLAN DRAFT
At the City Council Worksession on May 28, we will provide an update on recent progress in
development of the Long -Range Financial Plan (LRFP).
The "working draft" has some sections relatively complete, other sections being worked on, and
some sections "under development." Our goal is to:
Gather further Council input and consensus on the recommendations contained in the
working draft.
Seek input from Council as to additional information or data Councilmembers may desire to
have included in the LRFP.
Review the schedule for both completion of the LRFP as well as the start of the 2014 Budget
process.
The agenda for Monday's meeting is fairly tight based on the goal of limiting worksessions to no
more than two hours. The suggested outline is below.
1. Review Current Status: 5:00 PM 5:15 PM
A. Working Draft, subject to revision
B. Sections to be completed or expanded more work to be done
C. Goal for tonight's meeting:
Further discussion and consensus on recommendations.
Review financial projections.
Answer questions and seek guidance on additional information desired by Council
in the LRFP.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION MAY 28, 2013 LONG -RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN DRAFT
PAGE 2
2. 2014 Budget Development: 5:15 PM 5:30 PM
A. Tie -in between LRFP and 2014 Budget
B. Initial Budget Message
C. General Timeline:
Preliminary Budget Requests Completed by Departments July 29
Public Input Session 1 on 2014 Budget July 16
2013 Budget Amendment #2 July 16 August 6
First Round Budget Review with City Manager July 12 24
Proposed Budget to Council for Review October 14
Potential Budget Workshops October 14 November 15
Public Hearings Revenue Sources 2014 Property Tax Levy November 5
1 Reading Property Tax Levy Ordinance November 5
Final Reading of Property Tax Levy Ordinance 1 st Public Hearing on 2014
Budget 2013 Budget Final Amendment 1 Reading November 19
Potential Adoption of 2014 Budget Final Amendment of 2013 Budget
December 3rd
3. Review Discussion of Recommendations: 5:30 PM 6:30 PM
4. Review Discussion of Financial Projections: 6:30 PM 6:45 PM
5. Other Questions or Requests for Further Information for Inclusion
in the LRFP: 6:45 PM 6:55 PM
6. Summary Next Steps: 6:55 PM 7:00 PM
A. Summary of work accomplished tonight
B. Prepare 2nd Draft Long Range Financial Plan
C. Next Council Review: Worksession on Tuesday, June 25, at 5:00 PM
D. Potential Council Adoption: Regular Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Working Draft Subject to Revision
City of Port Angeles, WA
Long -Range Financial Plan
First Draft —May 28, 2013
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background .1
Strategic Planning Process 1
Long Range Financial Plan 1
Program Services Plan 2
Influence on Bond Ratings 3
Economic and Demographic Factors 3
Table Selected City Comparison 3
Table Household Income Estimates 4
B. Demands Pressures 5
Resource Demands 5
Map of Tax Exempt Properties 6
Table _Sales Tax History 7
Table Utility Tax—Combined—History 7
Historical Price Charts 8
Expenditure Demands 8
Costs of Delay and Procrastination 8
11. Financial Plan 9
A. Goals and Objectives 9
B. Recommendations 10
Revenues Resources 10
Expenditures Use of Debt 11
C. Communications Plan 13
D. Existing Policies Practices 13
E. History Forecast Projection Factors 13
Inflation Factors 13
General Fund 14
Table General Fund Revenues Expenditures History Projection 14
Table General Fund Revenue History Projection 15
Table Property Tax General Fund Revenue History Projection 16
Table Sales Tax General Fund Revenue History Projection 17
Table Utility Tax Combined General Fund Revenue Projection 18
Table General Fund Salaries Wages History Projection 19
Table General Fund Benefit Cost History Projection 19
Table _Court, Jail Public Defender Revenue Expenditure
History Projection 20
Table General Fund Un- Assigned Fund Balance 21
Street Fund 21
Table Street Fund Revenue History Projection 22
Economic Development Fund 23
Table Economic Development Fund Revenue Expenditure History 23
2
f
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Table of Contents (Cont'd)
II. Financial Plan (Contd)
E. History Forecast Projection Factors (Cont'd)
Utility Fund 24
Equipment Services Fund 24
Information Technology Fund 24
Self- Insurance Fund 24
Firemen's Pension Fund 24
Esther Webster Fine Arts Center Fund 24
Debt Service 24
Table Total Debt Service 25
F. Ability to Pay Analysis 26
Defining What is Ability to Pay 26
Table 3.0 Gross Rent as Percent of Household Income 27
Comparable Communities 27
Demographic Economic Comparisons 27
Summary of Port Angeles School District Enrollment Projections 28
Table Educational Attainment 29
What Does it Mean 29
G. Policy Review Analysis 29
H. Relationship to Budget Development 29
I. Benchmarks Performance Measurement 29
J. Summary Conclusion 29
Financial Plan Summary 29
Program Services Plan Review 29
Next Steps 29
1111. APPENDIX
A. Financial Policies 29
B. MuniCast Project Detail 29
C. Capital Project Financial Status 29
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND:
1. Strategic Planning Process:
a. Long -Range Financial Plan:
In mid -2012, leaders of the City of Port An-
geles became concerned that General Fund
revenues were falling significantly short of
the budget. Further analysis of the shortfall
showed that although the challenges includ-
ed only a small number of revenue sources,
they are indicative of a much larger structur-
al issue that the City needed to address.
Last June, the City Manager directed the
Chief Financial Officer to begin formulating a
plan that would do the following:
Eliminate any shortfall in the General
Fund and other funds;
Not use reserves or fund balance to
back -fill for the revenue shortfall; and
Begin the structural realignment of the
organization to eliminate the use of one
-time revenues, use of reserves, or oth-
er "rabbits- out -of- the -hat" solutions to
balance the operating budgets for the
City.
City staff examined all of the revenue
sources for the General Fund and all other
funds to identify and isolate the use of one-
time funding sources from on -going reve-
nues. Additionally, staff further analyzed on-
going revenues (taxes, fees charges,. utility
rates, state shared revenues, etc.) to identify
any new or emerging trends associated with
our various revenue sources.
During that process, it became clear that
over the previous years, the City had been
very creative in funding its operating and
capital budgets using a variety of one -time
revenues. While those creative actions al-
lowed the City to avoid some hard choices
on program and service reductions, it also
helped foster the impression that the City of
Port Angeles might somehow be immune to
the financial challenges impacting all of the
other cities and towns in Washington State.
Simply stated, citizens and businesses were
able to continue to receive programs and
services because of creative funding, but the
solution is not sustainable over the long run.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
4
By mid -2012, the City has used nearly all of
the "rabbits- out -of- the -hat" and it is forced
to begin to look at long -term solutions that
would rely on recurring revenues to pay for
recurring expenses. In addition, significant
work was needed to help identify the drivers
of costs and revenues so that the City could
build a sustainable budget for the years to
come.
Recognizing that fact, it became obvious to
the City Council, the City Manager and sen-
ior staff that the City had to embark on a
strategic planning process.
In briefings with the Council, the City Manag-
er and the Chief Financial Officer laid out a
plan that would allow for:
Balancing of the 2012 budget without
the use of reserves to cover the revenue
shortfall;
Balancing the 2013 budget without the
use of reserves;
Beginning development of the Strategic
Plan to include both a financial plan and
a program and services plan
Council agreed with the plan and directed
the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer
to implement the plan starting with the
adoption of the 2012 Budget Amendment #1
on October 2, 2012. Further work produced
the 2013 Budget, adopted by Council on
December 6, 2012.
All of the work done to balance the 2012
Budget, correct the revenue shortfall, and
develop the 2013 Budget set the stage for
the City to commence work on the Strategic
Plan in 2013.
In the initial presentation to Council, the City
Manager recommended that the focus dur-
ing 2013 is to prepare a Long -Range Finan-
cial Plan "LRFP for at least the next five (5)
years. The primary concern was that the
City faced numerous and immediate finan-
cial challenges across a variety of funds. This
suggested that the City's first step should be
to focus on its financial foundation, followed
by a comprehensive program and services
plan review in 2014.
The question before the City is, in essence,
how much the citizens and businesses of Port
Angeles could afford to pay in taxes, fees
charges, and utility rates.
City staff needed to understand both the de-
mographic and economic factors that impact-
ed the City in order to decide on how to best
calculate what citizens and businesses in Port
Angeles could afford to pay.
In the development of the Long -Range Finan-
cial Plan, staff looked at a variety of data to
help make the forecasts and projections for
revenue and expenditures. Among the data
analyzed were the following:
Demographic and economic data from
comparable cities and Port Angeles;
Historic information from the City re-
garding taxes, fees charges, and utility
rates /revenues; and
Economic and financial projections from
the State of Washington and other local,
state and regional sources regarding fi-
nancial and economic trends
Once the data had been collected, sorted and
arranged, the City developed a series of sce-
narios based on different economic factors
and trends. The forecasts were then viewed
against information that had been collected
from other sources to help evaluate the likeli-
hood of any scenario offering the most prob-
able forecast or projection for future reve-
nues and expenses.
On a parallel path, the City also began devel-
opment of the data analysis on the ability of
citizens and businesses to pay. Work needed
to be done to identify the best available indi-
cators to determine the ability to pay scenar-
io.
For example, if the average household in-
come was $40,000 per year in Port Angeles,
but in another city it was $50,000. Would the
Port Angeles utility payer be in a better or
worse position to afford a 3.0% utility rate
increase versus a 4.0% rate increase in the
other city?
Once we had a better understanding of the
ability to pay issue, the City was in a better
position to determine program and service
priorities as well as program and service lev-
Working Draft Subject to Revision
els that could fit within the City's projected
resources.
A final benefit of the Long -Range Financial
Plan is that it sets out a roadmap for develop-
ing future budgets.
In the LRFP, staff projected revenues and
expenses in significant detail for the next five
(5) years and in a more summary fashion for
an additional five -year period. The 5 5 for-
ward look will be updated on an annual basis
prior to the start of future budget processes.
The City can make adjustments to new or
emerging trends, take into account changing
circumstances, and allow the City to move
into a proactive mode.
The City also recognized that it could not to-
tally divorce the Long -Range Financial Plan
from the Program and Services Review sched-
ule for 2014. While reductions and cuts will
be required to balance the 2014 Budget, the
City will look to the Program and Service Plan
review scheduled for 2014 to chart the long-
term structural changes to the City's service
delivery plan.
b. Program Services Plan:
While the LRFP focuses on the economic fac-
tors that impact the City and its overall mu-
nicipal operation, the Program Services
Plan "PSP will detail the City's priorities for
delivering the programs and services that
citizens and businesses rely on.
The PSP will:
Establish the City's program and service
plan priorities;
Establish delivery method and the
amount of program and services to be
delivered;
Establish which programs and services
the City should:
0 Directly provide and pay for;
0 Not provide but pay for (programs
and services provided by others);
and
0 Not provide nor pay for (programs
and services provided by others and
paid for by others)
Establish criteria to ensure that the City
provides a balanced approach to pro-
gram service delivery the City must
provide an appropriate balance of public
safety combined with quality of life ser-
vices
Establish the foundation for economic
development for the City to help ensure
future growth for the City, its citizens and
the businesses /industries that support
the City and its citizens.
Going forward, the City will continue to build
and refine the financial projections for 2014
and beyond. Without a doubt, the economic
environment the City will face six months or a
year from now is not the same environment
that we currently see. It is imperative that
the City continue to closely monitor the eco-
nomic environment to identify challen €;es and
opportunities at the earliest possible mo-
ment. It is equally imperative that the City
routinely evaluate, revise and amend its Long
-Range Financial Plan to factor in the best
available information. Failure to do so would
condemn the Long -Range Financial Flan to
merely being another plan that sits on a shelf
collecting dust while the future moves past
Port Angeles.
c. Influence on Bond Ratings:
The greatly enhanced efforts of the City in
identifying and projecting forward key eco-
nomic drivers and other factors that can influ-
ence the City's overall fiscal health will pro-
duce additional benefits as the City seeks to
either issue new debt or to refinance existing
debt.
Bond rating agencies like Moody's Investor
Services or Standard Poor's have been eval-
uating the creditworthiness of cities for years.
2010
Selected Cities Population Population
Estimate Estimate
i
Mountlake Terrace, City of 19,9091
Camas, City of 19,3551
Tukwila, City of 19,1071
Port Angeles, City of 19,0381
Mill Creek, City of 18,2441
Ellensburg, City of 18,1741
Average 18,9711
Source: City of Port Angeles Finance Department
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Table Selected4ity Comparison
2012 Assessed Property
Value 2013
Taxes
20,090
20,020
19,080
19,100
18,450
18,320
19,1771
$1,795,193,718
2,539,499,571
4,660,649,637
1,595,868,974
2,408,447,316
1,190,097,922
$2,364,959,523
6
$6,544,590
That analysis focuses on variety of factors
including:
Fiscal condition of the City including anal-
ysis of reserves, financial planning and
budget;
Management practices;
Economic condition of the City, region
and State;
Political considerations;
Legal issues and obstacles; and
Intangible factors affecting the municipal
bond market
Higher bond ratings will produce lower inter-
est rates to paid to bond holders and, there-
fore, lower costs to the City and its taxpayers
or utility rate payers.
2. Economic Demographic Factors:
It does not take an advanced degree in economics
or statistics to understand that the following cities
have vastly different economic environments:
(population estimate Washington State Office of Finan-
cial Management 2010 Total Population)
Mountlake Terrace
Camas
Tukwila
Port Angeles
Mill Creek
Ellensburg
2010 Population Estimate
The 2010 population variance from the City of
Port Angeles ranges from 871 more residents in
Mountlake Terrace to 864 less residents in El-
lensburg.
A quick examination of some of the most obvious
economic data below makes it abundantly clear
that not all cities are created equal.
19,909
19,355
19,107
19,038
18,244
18,174
Property Tax Sales Tax General Fund Total City
Collection Collection Budget Budget All
2012 2012 2013 Funds2013
$4,072,644 $1,442,321 $23,967,224 $49,150,885
9,144,000 2,155,867 16,642,052 58,873,423
13,933,250 14,882,653 57,931,826 125,400,582
4,109,716 2,708,666 18,724,000 124,303,000
5,316,410 1,928,847 10,225,317 21,790,445
2,691,520 3,263,614 12,459,399 60,933,503
$4,396,995 1 $23,324,970 1 $73,408,640
For instance, even though the City of Tukwila and the
City of Port Angeles are very close on a population
basis, they are miles apart on property tax collection
and sales tax collection Tukwila's property tax col-
lection is 339% of what the City of Port Angeles col-
lects. And Tukwila's sales tax collection is 549% of the
sales tax collected by the City of Port Angeles.
When we start to look at the data related to house-
hold income we can begin to appreciate the challeng-
es facing the City of Port Angeles and our citizens re-
garding ability to pay.
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Household Income Range
Less than $10,000
$10,000 $14,999
15,000 $24,999
$25,000 $34,999
35,000 $49,999
$50,000 $74,999
$75,000 -_$99,999
$100,000 $149,999
$150,000 $199,999
$250,000 or more
Nearly 6 in 10 Port Angeles households have income
below $50,000 compared to 4 in 10 for the statewide
Working Draft Subject to Revision
fable
H,'ousehold Income
Washington State Washington State
Est. of Est. of
Households Households
155,477 5.97 %1
112,068 4.31 %1
234,459 9.01 %1
248 9.56 %1_
353,286 1 13.57 %1
502,735 1 1932 %I
357,494 1 _13.74%1
383,442
136,439 5.24 %1
118,412 1 4.55 %4
a 1
So,'urce U Cen... ur rip„ 07 2 1 American communitySunrev5„Year, Estimate
7
In looking at the statistics collected in the U.S. Census
Bureau 2007 2011 American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimate, we see that
Median household income in Washington State is
44.26% higher ($18,068) than in Port Angeles.
(For reference, the median is the number that divides
the household income data with half of the incomes
greater than the median and half of the incomes less
than the median.)
Mean household income in Washington State is
44.58% higher ($23,592) than in Port Angeles.
(For reference, the mean is the average of the house-
hold incomes in the sample.)
kx
Estimates
City of Port
Angeles Est.
of Households
704 1 8.35%
625
1,345
919
1,260
1,671
962
723
104
City of Port
Angeles Est.
of Households
7.42%
15.96%
10.91%
14.95%
19.83%
11.42%
8.58%
1.23%
T 1.35%
00 0 0 0 5 0 5 o 5 0050 00 0 0 0 ,0 o c e
taN' 4 c; Co 3 b, t 4� X00, 44 4
��4% 000 y00 y00 y00 000 X00 000 000 0000
NS' y C ,y 4,, t247 yoo, y yo 41
Washington State Est. of Households City of Port Angeles Est. of Households
average. At the same time, Port Angeles has substan-
tially less high income households that can help drive
B. DEMANDS PRESSURES:
Port Angeles finds itself in a difficult, but not unique,
position among Washington cities. The challenges
facing Port Angeles are very similar to challenges being
faced by nearly every city and county in the State
local government revenues are either declining or
stagnant while costs and demands for service are ris-
ing at a substantial rate.
What is, perhaps, unique to Port Angeles is the fact
that multiple very large -scale capital projects are com-
ing due at the same time. Unfortunately, part of the
reason for confluence of projects were decisions or
lack of decisions by city leaders to address problems as
they became known, instead they chose to delay ac-
tion in hopes that the problem may go away or that
"better times" would produce a source of cash to pay
for the problems.
It should not come as a surprise that procrastination
and delay in addressing major capital and operating
problems rarely serves to either reduce the cost or
eliminate the problem.
1. Resource Demands:
The demands on available resources within the
City of Port Angeles are fairly limited both within The decline in assessed value has also produced
the General Fund as well as the other funds of the an increase in the levy rate an increase of $0.783
City. per $1,000 of assessed value from the low levy
Property Tax
I 1 f I I 4
Assessed_ Value_ 51,064,490,502 51,148,440,5221 51,281,703,518 1 51,595,493,428 51,952,176,500 51,994,259,5741 51,757,276,293 51,735,945,788 1 51,595,868,974 51,519,228,137
Ta x Collection 3,283,728 3,432,128 I 3,426,375 I 3,790,294 I 3,875,336 3,959,8741 4,035,888 4,067,613 1 _4,112,977 4,2
Levy Rate Regular 31365 3 0552 i 2 1051 23875 19985 2 0129 2 2918 2 3561 2 5752 2 781$
Lew Rate -Bonds 0 6688 i 0 6065 I 0 5351 1 0 4258 I 0 3483 I 0 3414 I 0 3626 i 0 3962 j 0 2615 I 01962
52,500,000,000
5
51,000,000,000
5500,000,000
50
54,50
54,000,000
53,500,000
53,000,00
52,500,000
52,000,000
51,500,000
51,000,000
5500,000
$0
Table Property Tax Assessed'Pro6ertY Values
2004 Actual) 2005 Actual 2006 Actual) 2]07 Actual) 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Budget)
Working Draft Subject to Revision
2004 Actual 2005 Actual 20 O6 Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual
Assessed Value
Tax Collection
2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Ac ual 2008 Actual
Sourer Milan, CounlvAssessies ORln
8
In the General Fund, the three primary tax reve-
nue sources have limits imposed either by state
law or political reality.
A citizen initiative that initially imposed a 1% in-
crease limit on property tax collection was re-
authorized by the State Legislature following a
State Supreme Court decision that overturned the
initiative. For Port Angeles, the 1% increase is
worth approximately $40,000 annually. To gain
more than the 1% increase in property tax, the
City would have to seek a voter approved levy lid
lift that would increase the levy rate from its cur-
rent $2.7815 per $1,000 of assessed value up to a
maximum of $3.6000 per $1,000 of assessed val-
ue. Would voters be inclined to raise their proper-
ty taxes to support City government is a question
that is open to great speculation.
An equally large challenge for the City is the nearly
25% decline in assessed value within Port Angeles.
Current assessed property values for 2013 tax
collection are less than the assessed value of prop-
erty for tax collection in 2007 a Toss of over
$475,000,000 since the high point in 2009.
2012 Actual 2013 Budget
2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Budget
Perhaps even more interesting is the amount of real
property in Port Angeles that is exempt from taxation.
State law (RCW 84.36) provides for a myriad of exemp-
tions from the obligation to pay property tax, among
them are the following:
All property belonging exclusively to the United
States, the state, or any county or municipal cor-
poration, all property belonging to any federally
recognized tribe located in the state, if that prop-
erty is used exclusively for essential government
services.... (RCW 84.36.010)
Each parcel of real property, and each personal
property account, that has an assessed value less
than five hundred dollars is exempt from taxation.
(RCW 84.36.015)
The following real and personal property is ex-
empt from taxation:
(1) All lands, buildings, and personal property re-
quired for necessary administration and mainte-
nance, used, or to the extent used, exclusively for
public burying grounds or cemeteries without
Working Draft Subject to Revision
9
discrimination as to race, color, national origin or
ancestry;
(2) All churches, personal property, and the
ground, not exceeding five acres in area, upon
which a church of any nonprofit recognized reli-
gious denomination is or will be built, together
with a parsonage, convent, and buildings and im-
provements required for the maintenance and
safeguarding of such property....(RCw 84.36.020)
The following real and personal property shall be
exempt from taxation:
(1)(a) Property owned by nonprofit organizations
or associations, organized and conducted for non-
sectarian purposes, which shall be used for char-
acter- building, benevolent, protective or rehabili-
tative social services directed at persons of all
ages....(RCW 84.36.030)
The map below shows the exempt properties within
Port Angeles. It is based on 2009 data from the
Clallam County Auditor.
Mantua]» amp.num
1001 Asses*, data
Sales tax collection in the City has fallen in recent years to a
level approximately $577,000/20.9% less than the high water
mark of 2007. Over recent years, the City has seen large pro-
ducers of sales tax move out of the City to the urban growth
area or beyond. With that transfer of business, the ability of
the City to gain sales tax from an improving economy is ex-
tremely limited. Auto dealers, Wal -Mart, Safeway and others
Sales Tax
Sales Tax -PA 2,633,330 12,8
Sales Tax- -EUGA 0 0I
Total Sales Tax $2,633,330 i $2,822,760
Change from Prior Yr. 1 189,430
Chg. From Prior Yr. I l 7.19%I
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Source. Cityo/PortAnaeles Finance Department
Utility Tax
Combined
s
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
so
Total
Change from Prior Yr.
Che From Prior Yr.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Budget
3,254,674 1 3,338.476 1 3,181,450 1 2,736,567 1 2,779,435_ 2,832,116 2,708,666 2,679,000
0 1 0 1 28,375 1 27,059 1 97,665 44,487 75,077 1 80,000
53,254,674 1 53,335,476 1 $3,209,825 1 $2,763,626 1 $2,877,100 $2,876,603 $2,783,743i $2,759,000
431,914 1 83,802 (128,651) (446,199) 1 (497) (92,860) (24,743)
15 30%1 2' 57%I 3.85 %1 13.90 %1 4.11% 0.02 3.23 %F 0 89%,
2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Actual
Sales rax PA
Utility excise tax, the tax on the gross receipts of all utilities
provided within the City, also has significant constraints that
are mostly political in nature. With the exception of the utility
excise tax on the electric utility capped at 6.0 all other utili-
ties have no legal limit on the amount of tax that can be im-
posed. The lack of a legal limit can, in no way, be confused with
2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Budget
Table Sales Tax History
Table Utility Tax Combined History
10
generate substantial sales tax from City of Port Angeles resi-
dents. Unfortunately, even with the revenue sharing agree-
ment with Clallam County regarding sales tax in the Eastern
Urban Growth Area (EUGA), the City only receives $80,000 in
annual sales tax from the substantial business development
that has occurred in that area.
❑Sales Tax EUGA
2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Budget
the limit imposed by the political (and economic) reality that
consumers can afford only so much. We are seeing emerging
trends developing in many of our utilities that show consumers
reducing consumption, either voluntarily or through conserva-
tion, as a means of off setting price increases.
1 i I I 1
52,684,405 1 52,655,291 i 52,884,604 53,257,780 1 53,3 1 53,506,126 1 $3,743,657 1 53,800,137 I 53,781,229 $4,048,000_
(29,114) 229,313 373,176 95,543 152,803 23 1 56,480 1 (18,908)1 266,771
-108%1 8 64%1 72.94 %1 2.93 l 4.56 %i 6 77%1 151 %1 0.50 7.06%
J
2004 Actual 2005 Actual 2006 Actual 20(17 Actual 2008 Actual 2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Budget
Source: Cityo/PortAngeles FlnanceDeoartment
Crude oil
SUSibarrel
14638
133,94
121.50
109 06
96.63
84.19
71,75
59.31
46.88
34 44
22.00
Crude 01
USA Average
Fees and charges, whether building /permit fees in the General
Fund or utility rates, must also weather the impact of political
and economic reality. What the public can afford to pay for
residential, commercial or industrial fees and charges is greatly
restricted by the political and economic environment of Port
Angeles.
A good example of that fact is the price of gas. In 2012, Port
Angeles consumed gallons of gas and diesel fuel at a total
cost of While families may be able to make some ad-
justments on the amount of driving they do to reduce the
amount of gas they need to buy for the family car, it is very
difficult for a City to restrict the number of miles driven by a
police vehicle on patrol, the garbage truck making its pick -up
rounds, or the ambulance making an emergency run.
O UY GD N
2004 2005 2006
Working Draft
a. Operating Budget:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
b. Capital Budget:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
2. Expenditure Demands:
The City of Port Angeles is very much like any oth-
er city, business or family when it comes to man-
aging costs some costs can be tightly controlled,
other costs have a limited ability to control and
some costs are beyond the ability of Port Angeles
to control.
2007 2008
Date (Month/Day)
Subject to Revision
11
The City can and does make choices when replacing a vehicle to
factor in gas mileage but, in many instances, there is a limited
number of choices for many vehicles due to their specific usage
requirements.
The price of gas also has another significant impact on the City
as gas prices go up disposable family income goes down re-
ducing the amount of retail sales (and sales tax) generated in
the community. While specific information related to gas price
history in Port Angeles is not readily available, the internet
website GasBuddy.com can give us some general information.
The GasBuddy.com chart below clearly shows the nearly contin-
uous increase in gas prices for Seattle, Washington State and
USA Average
Historical Price Charts
Quick charts:1 Month 1 3 Month 1 6 Month 1 9 Month 1 1 Yea(( 16 mon(h 1 2 Years 1 3 Years 1 4 Years/ 5 Years 1 8 Years! 9 Years 1
10 Years 1 11 Years
120 Month Average Retail Price Chart
Seattle
Washington
2009 2010
Regular Gas
Price (US $/G)
951
8.71
7.90
7 09
6 28
5.47
4.66
3.86
3 05
2.24
1 43
2013
2011 2012
3. The Costs of Delay Procrastination:
a. History of Current Capital Projects:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
b. What Could Have Been Reduced Impact
Projection:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
II. FINANCIAL PLAN:
A. GOALS OBJECTIVES:
The Goals Objectives for the City's Long -Range Fi-
nancial Plan (LRFP)are relatively simple and straight-
forward create a forecast of future revenues and
expenditures that are most likely to occur in the next 5
–10 year period.
But that simple statement requires a tremendous
amount of research, analysis and work to evaluate
economic and political factors that are frequently well
beyond the control of City government or the citizens
we serve. The City, just like our citizens and business-
es, are subject to whims and unpredictable actions by
the State Legislature or Congress that can positively or
negatively impact how we operate in Port Angeles.
While there is no way the City can create a scenario
that is guaranteed to occur, the City can project with
some degree of certainty a range of possible out-
comes regarding revenues and expenditures that can
help the City plan future actions. It is the planning of
future actions, either to mitigate adverse impacts or to
take advantage of positive impacts that can give the
City the best opportunity to grow and succeed in the
future.
Creating the forward look was important for the City
for an even more important reason planning for the
future. The City could also regain stronger control of
its destiny. Previous actions by prior Councils and ad-
ministrations (and many other cities as well) focused
on the current day -to -day challenges allowing external
factors to gain influence beyond what it should have
been.
The focus on the day -to -day horizon helped foster a
sense that the City should wait for "better times" be-
fore tackling major capital and operational issues that
had been long recognized by political leaders and citi-
zens alike.
The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) project was not
something that was recently discovered. Neither was
the deteriorating condition of the City's streets and
alleys. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom was cen-
tered on keeping taxes and fees as low as possible in
hopes that "better times" would permit the City to
tackle these large- scale, seemingly overwhelming pro-
jects.
Gaining consensus from Council and senior staff on
the need for the forward look was easy. Making sure
that everyone understood what the outcome should
be was a bit more challenging. Council, with guidance
from the City Manager and Chief Financial Officer,
Working Draft Subject to Revision
12
quickly agreed on the following components that
needed to be included in the Long -Range Financial
Plan:
Financial Forecast a "5 5" forward look to pro-
ject citywide revenues and expenditures for the
next five years in detail and an additional 5 years
in a more summary fashion to be updated prior to
the start of the next budget process;
Reserve Analysis analyze and recommend ap-
propriate levels of reserves (fund balance) for all
funds;
Fiscal Policies a review and analysis of current
financial policies to identify any needed revisions,
amendments or new policies to be developed;
Debt Analysis a review and analysis of existing
and planned debt obligations including voter
approved bonds, limited tax general obligation
bonds, revenue bonds, Washington State Public
Works Trust Fund loans and Washington State
Revolving Fund loans;
Criminal Justice Cost Analysis review and analy-
sis of the rapidly expanding cost and need for
General Fund subsidy of operations related to
adult detention, public defender and court costs;
Single Source Revenues review of the potential
exposure and impact of single source revenues
within the General Fund and the City's utility
funds;
Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) in coordination
with the City's public utilities, integrate the find-
ings from the City's contracted, third -party report
on utility Cost of Service on the operating budget,
capital budget and ability to pay concerns for resi-
dents and businesses;
Capital Projects a review of current and future
obligations related to capital projects, the sources
of revenues for current and future capital projects
and the current financial status of approved capi-
tal projects;
General Fund Services a review and recommen-
dation regarding short -term potential solutions to
aid in balancing the 2014 Budget;
Debt Service obligations a review of current and
pending future debt issuances to aid in develop-
ing a clearer understanding of the City's total debt
burden, the impact on taxes and utility rates and
the overall ability of residents and businesses to
pay for the current and future debt.
Economic Development Fund a review of the
historic funding sources and their use in financing
economic development projects. Recommenda-
tions regarding identification of potential dedicat-
ed funding sources for the Economic Development
Fund will be included in the Program and Services
Plan to be developed in 2014; and
Self- Insurance Fund review and analysis of the
self- insurance fund and the various retained self
insurance obligations. Recommendations regard-
ing any proposed changes in self- insurance re-
serves or changes in operations will be included in
the Program and Services Plan to be developed in
2014.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS:
To help move the City forward and to guide the devel-
opment of the future budgets, City Council should con-
sider implementing the following recommendations as
part of the Long -Range Financial Plan:
Revenues Resources:
A.01 Council should consider the overall impact on
the community and its ability to pay against
the need to enact any tax, utility rate or fee/
charge increase.
A.02 Council should not use reserves /fund balance
as a funding source for on -going operations
except in an emergency, short -term basis.
i. Any use of reserves /fund balance should
include a repayment plan that designates
future revenues to first repay the funding
taken from reserves /fund balance.
ii. Funding from reserves /fund balance
should not be utilized for on -going pay-
ments for debt service other than for an
emergency.
A.03 Council should implement the 1.0% property
tax increase allowed under state law.
A.04 Council should consider utilization of the
property tax banked capacity that resulted
from not imposing the 1.0% in previous years
beginning starting with the 2015 Budget to
help facilitate implementation of the Program
Services Plan to be developed in 2014.
A.05 Council should not consider any general in-
crease to the current utility tax rates earlier
than for the 2018 Budget.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
13
A.06 Council should consider implementing a
"phase -out" of General Fund subsidy for the
Street Fund and Medic 1. The phase -out
should be over a period of at least three years
but no longer than five years.
i. Replacement funding for the Medic 1
utility shall come from an upward adjust-
ment in utility rates to cover the costs of
those who consume the services provid-
ed by the Medic 1 utility.
ii. Replacement funding for the Street Fund
will need to be coordinated with a crea-
tion and development of a Transporta-
tion Benefit District. (See Recommendation
A.10)
A.07 Fees and charges related to building permits
should be considered on total cost recovery
of direct and indirect expenses.
i. Continuous, on -going comparison of simi-
lar fees and charges imposed by cities
and counties on the Olympic Peninsula
may be considered if Council wishes to
make adjustment to the market rate.
ii. Council should identify the source of
funding for any subsidy needed as a re-
sult of adjustments made as noted in
Recommendation A.04.
A.07 Fees and charges for parks and recreation
programs should be based on a cost recovery
hierarchy whereby adult program and ser-
vices help to subsidize programs for children,
youth and special populations.
i. Fees and charges for adult programs
should seek to recover all direct costs
including costs for field /facility mainte-
nance and operations.
ii. Fees and charges for youth programs
should seek to recover no Tess than 50%
of all direct costs including costs for field/
facility maintenance.
iii. Fees and charges for programs designed
for special populations should seek to
recover no less than 25% of all direct
costs.
iv. Fees charges for programs for seniors
should seek to recover no Tess than 75%
of all direct costs including costs for field/
facility maintenance and operations.
v. Rental of City -owned facilities for business or
commercial use should charge an amount no
less than 100% of all direct and indirect costs
plus an amount to be reserved for future ma-
jor maintenance or replacement of assets
utilized by the rental.
A.09 Utility rates should be designed to reflect the
underlying nature of costs for each respective
utility.
i. Preference should be given to a rate
structure that approximates the same
general allocation of base charge versus
consumption charge on billings from the
Bonneville Power Administration to
better enable the utility to have adequate
revenues and reserves to cover operating
and capital needs.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
ii. Similar consideration of the allocation of
base charge versus consumption charge
should be given to those utilities with
large capital infrastructure needs and
requirements.
iii. Utility rates need to consider the neces-
sary costs associated with capital repair
and replacement of utility assets to assist
the utility in meeting the service demands
of current and future utility customers.
A.10 Council should consider the formation of a
Transportation Benefit District with a voter
approved 0.2% increase in sales tax to fund
repairs and renovations to the streets within
the City of Port Angeles.
i. Funding that could be derived from a
Council approved $20 "car tab" would not
provide sufficient revenues to make any
headway in repair City streets and would
create an incorrect impression among
citizens and businesses that the City had
taken the necessary steps to begin imme-
diate repair of City streets.
A.11 Council should consider identification and
implementation of a dedicated funding source
for the Economic Development Fund to pro
vide for stable, long -term funding to attract
and retain businesses inside the City of Port
Angeles.
A.12 Council should consider giving preference to
more frequent small, incremental increases to
fees, charges, utility rates and taxes rather
than larger, less frequent step increases to
allow individuals, families and businesses
greater opportunity to manage their on -going
14
costs for services provided by the City.
A.13 Council should consider options to increase
the City's current tax base; including analyzing
the cost benefit of any potential annexation
and its impact on current City services.
A.14 The Council should consider selling of the
Niichel property, and potentially other unused
City properties, to allow the City to have the
Onecessary resources to meet the obligations
of the 2005 Limited Tax General Obligation
Bond (and the $1,000,000 balloon payment in
2021).
{MORE TO BE DEVELOPED}
Expenditures Use of Debt:
B.01 Council should, prior to the issue of any gen-
eral government or utility debt, consider the
overall impact of the City's ability to pay the
debt obligation from either taxes or utility
rates.
B.02 Council should consider a policy requirement
that significantly restricts the use of highly
volatile funding sources such as the Real Es-
tate Excise Tax as a source of funding for capi-
tal expenditures but not as a source for debt
service nor maintenance and operation cost.
B.03 Council should consider establishing a policy
requirement that the minimum threshold for
the General Fund un- assigned fund balance
"Reserve be set at 25% of the authorized
General Fund expenditures for the current
year.
i. To provide the necessary funding to
achieve the minimum threshold shall first
assign any savings that may accrue in the
General Fund at year end.
ii. Should savings not prove sufficient to
achieve the 25% threshold within a five
(5) year period, Council should dedicate
the necessary tax revenue to achieve the
25% minimum threshold for the following
three (3) year period to achieve the mini-
mum 25% requirement.
B.04 Council should consider establishing a policy
requirement that precludes the use of re
serves from the General Fund or any other
fund for the purpose of paying recurring ex-
penses except in the case of an emergency.
i. Prior to authorizing the use of reserves to
pay for recurring expenses, Council
should declare an emergency noting the
reason for requiring the use of reserves
for paying for recurring expenses and the
establishment of a plan to replace the
reserves that were utilized within a three
(3) year period from their use.
B.05 Council should consider a policy requirement
that prohibits the use of one -time revenues
or other sources of funding for recurring op-
erating expenses in any fund.
i. Prior to any authorization to use one-
time funding and /or grant funding for
recurring operating expenses, Council
shall require the development of a plan
that details how the City would maintain
funding for any recurring program once
the one -time or grant funding is no long-
er available.
B.06 Council should consider a policy requirement
that commits the City to paying fair and equi-
table salaries and benefits to its employees
based upon both an internal comparability
and an external market analysis. The internal
comparability and market analysis shall be
conducted at least every five (5) years.
i. The goal of the internal comparability
would be to establish a system that re-
wards performance and pays for in-
creased value based on job complexity,
accountability and consequences of any
decisions or responsibilities associated
with the position.
ii. Council should consider a "total cost of
compensation" approach to establish the
salaries, wages and benefits to be paid to
employees of the City of Port Angeles.
111. The Council should consider the develop-
ment of benchmark criteria for use in
establishing comparisons between sala-
ries, wages and benefits paid to City of
Port Angeles employees versus similar
employees in other cities.
iv. The goal of the external market rate com-
parison would be to establish that the
City would pay salaries and benefits at a
level to attract and retain a highly quali-
fied workforce recognizing the market
where we live. The goal of the City
should be neither be the leader of the
comparison group nor the laggard city
but in the mid -point range.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
15
v. For the Long -Range Financial Plan, Coun-
cil should consider that future (2014
2018) Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA)
and health insurance cost increases
should approximate the same general
range as incurred in the period of 2009
2013.
vi. Determination of the impact on Program
and Services Plan and the ability to pay
consideration shall be included as an in-
tegral part of the annual review of the
Program and Services Plan.
B.07 Council should consider a policy requirement
that all employees should contribute to their
health insurance for the individual employee
as well as any family coverage that may be
provided.
B.08 Council should consider implementation of a
requirement that all payments made by the
city, whether for payroll or accounts payable,
should be made via electronic funds transfer
(EFT) rather than printed check.
B.09 Council should consider development of poli-
cy requirements that would require analysis
of all public works contracts prior to bidding
for economically feasible segments or phases
of projects that can be targeted to encourage
local contractors to bid on projects that are
more in line with their economic resources
and capabilities.
B.10 Council should consider implementing the
following policy recommendations regarding
the funding of capital projects:
i. First priority for capital project funding
should be given to those projects de-
signed to preserve and maintain existing
infrastructure.
ii. Council should give consideration to rank
ordering the following to provide further
guidance on capital projects.
1. Legal or statutory requirements or
mandates provided realistic and
affordable sources of funding are
available to the City.
2. Continuation of multi-year projects
provided that realistic and affordable
sources of funding are available to
the City
B.11
3. Capital funding should be given to
those projects that leverage City
funding with grants from state or
federal agencies.
4. Capital funding should be given to
public private partnership projects
whereby the City can leverage its
contribution with private dollars to
enable a more economically diverse
project with the primary risk for the
long -term financing is transferred to
a private partner.
Council should consider implementing the
following policy recommendations for debt
financing of projects:
i. If Tong -term debt financing is proposed,
an financial analysis shall be required
prior to any approval of the project that
analyzes the long -term sustainability of
funding from City resources as well as the
overall impact to the Crty's total debt
General Fund
REVENUES:
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Utility Tax
Allocation to Utilities
Building Permits /Fees
Recreation Permits /Fees/
Rentals
Grants
EXPENDITURES:
Salaries Wages
Health Insurance Premiums
Retirement Costs
Office /Operating Supplies
Gas /Diesel
Utility Costs
Working Draft Subject to Revision
2014
16
obligation.
ii. Any maintenance and operation costs
(M &O) associated with the completed
project must be identified along with the
proposed source of funding for the M &O
costs prior to approval of the project.
{MORE TO BE DEVELOPED}
C. COMMUNICATION PLAN:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
D. EXISTING POLICIES PRACTICES:
1. Tie -in with Other Plans Policies
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
E. HISTORY FORECAST PROJECTION FACTORS:
1. Inflation Factors:
To develop our forward look, we examined a num-
ber of reference materials; forecasts from local,
state and national economists; projections by the
State Office of Financial Management; City of Port
2019 2023
..IGENERALFUND
k s ;I Revenue
Expenditures
Net
The City used MuniCast, a software analysis tool, to
aid in the development of our projections and the
creation of scenarios for financial modeling. With the
aid of MuniCast, we downloaded the City's actual
financial results for the period of 2004 2012 plus
the adopted 2013 Budget.
We then examines various scenarios that allowed us
to examine the effect on the City's projected budget
if we varied revenues, costs or when revenues would
come in or expenditures would occur.
In the end, the forecast we determined "most likely"
will serve as our initial model for balancing the 2014
Budget.
We will continue to monitor, month by month, our
actual activity to determine if any new trends are
emerging whether positive or negative. Once iso-
lated, we will then revise our forecast to take into
account the new data. Once that is done, we will
recommend potential changes either to the develop-
ment of the 2014 Budget or potential amendments to
the 2013 or 2014 Budget as necessary.
20041
Actual!
I
Un- Assigned Fund Bal. 1 3,917,941 1 3,909,502 1 3,730,202 1 4,949,255
20141 20151 20161 2017
i I
11GENERAL FUND
Revenue
Expenditures
1Net
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
$0
So C ei,a AnaelPSiFlno`nce ttair rt ra
Working Draft Subject to Revision
2. General Fund:
Tattle q�= General F.und(Revenues Excentl'ture HstovY& P,roiection
20051 20061 2007 20081 2009
Actual! Actual Actual! Actual
t I
$17,127,924 517,707,257 1 517,114,568
15,908, 879 18,164,115 1 17,239,440
$1,219,045 (5456,858)1 ($124,872)
1
4,398,023 I 4,273,149
Actual!
17
Going forward, the General Fund will be challenged
to balance revenues with expenditures without either
revenue enhancement or expenditure reduction; pri-
marily by structural change to reduce the expendi-
ture base in the future.
In the short term, the beginning projections for 2014
show the General Fund out of balance $461,000 that
will need to be corrected and brought into balance
prior to submission of the City Manager recommend-
ed budget to Council in October 2013.
The table below summaries the projected revenues,
expenditures and fund balance prior to budget devel-
opment and negotiations that will bring the 2014
Proposed Budget into balance.
2010
Actual
$18,307,728
17,022,644
$1,285,084
4,242,794
20181 2019 2020
1
20111 20121 2013
Actuall Actual! Budget
$18,489,825 1 $17,880,007 1 $18,766,000
18, 370,403 1 18,451,335 1 18,724, 000
$119,422 1 ($571,328)1
4,421,105 1 3,528, 995 1 3,570,995
20211 20221
$42,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bud. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
2023
1 $18,971,000 1 $19,161,000 1 $19,522,000 1 $19,922,000 $20,337,000 1 $20,894,000 $21,473,000 $22,073,000 1 $22,696,000 1 $23,361,000
1 19,432,000, 20,127,000 I 20,862,000 I 21,640,000 22,462,000 I 23,322,000 24,200,000 25,061,000 I 26,025,000 I 27,074,000
1 ($461,000)1 (5966,000)1 (51,340,000)1 (51.718.000)1 (52.125.000)1 ($2,428,000) ($2,727,000) ($2,988,000)1 ($3,329,000)1 ($3,713,000) `1
1 I I I 1 q
Un- Assigned Fund Bal. 1 3,109,995 1 2,143,995 1 803,995 1 (914,005) 13,039,005)1 15,467,005)1 (8,194,005) (11,182,005) 1 (14,511,005) I (18,224,005)
GENERAL FUND
i'
GENERAL FUND
Revenue
For the near -term, future revenues within the
General Fund are projected to stay relatively flat.
The recovery from the most recent recession has
and will continue to be exceedingly slow for the
City of Port Angeles. In no scenario examined by
staff, we do see any kind of robust economy that
may have been seen in the early 2000's.
In the near -term, Port Angeles will continue to
struggle shifting its economy away from heavy
dependence on timber- related activity. Shifting
to an economy lead by tourism and, potentially,
the high tech composite industry will take some
time combined with significant private invest-
ment. The demands for workers to staff the
tourism and composite jobs are also significantly
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
Revenue
Change from Prior Year
change from Prior Year
LI. TX
20041
Actual)
515,499,782 1 515,981,731
20141
Forecast)
2005
Actua
481,949
I I
1 $18,971,000 $19,161,000 1 $19,522,0001 539,922,000 1 $20,337,000 1 $20,894,000 1 $21,473,0001 $22,073,000 1 522,696,000 1 523,361,000 1 f
Change from Prior Year 1 205,000 1 190,000 1 361,000 1 400,000 1 415,000 1 557,000 1 579,000 1 600,000 1 623,000 1 665,000 1p;
change from Prior Year' 1 09% 1 1.00%1 1.88%1, 2 05%1 2 08% 1 2.74%1 2.77% I 2.79%1 2.82% I 2.93%1
$25,000,000
3.11%
20151
Forecast)
Wr .ie p r i
Sourc aGity, of,P,orbAngel es�tFinarnc'e,Deaoi2men t
In looking at General Fund revenues, we have seen a
significant shift over the last number of years. in the
1980's and 1990's property tax for Port Angeles was
a primary driver of new revenue; especially when the
"old" rules permitted a 6% annual increase rather
than the current 1% growth. More recent history has
Working Draft Subject to Revision
l
Ta61etl Geneiaf al dift
Y evenuelHistory P,rojecfionil
20061 20071 20081 20091 20101
Actual) Actuall Actual) Actual) Actual)
I I I I 1
516,233,6591 $='7,600,721 518,090,405 1 $17,596,8681 518,790,027 1
251,928 1 1,367,062 I 489,684 1 1493,537)1 1,193,159 1
1.58%1 8.42%1 2.78%1 -2.73% 6.78%1
1 1 1 1
20161 20171 20181 20191
Forecast) Forecast) Forecast' Forecast)
1
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bud. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
18
different than many jobs in the past and will re-
quire extensive worker training and re- training to
build a workforce that will match future jobs
available in Port Angeles.
The forecast above shows very modest gains in
total General Fund Revenue for the period of
2014 2016 and then only slightly greater reve-
nues through year 2023. We do not see a signifi-
cant improvement in revenues for a number of
factors:
Lack of significant new retail development
that would include "big box" retailers or new
automobile dealerships.
{Add other factors}
20201
Forecast)
20111
Actual)
I
518,972,124 1 518,232,965 1
182,0971 (739,159)1
0 97%1 -3.90%1
1
20211
Forecast)
20121
20131
Actual) Budget
1
$18,766,000 1
533,035 l
2.92% 1
1
20221 20231k,
Forecast) Forecastl
ARSV7Fte0MitiM St ISM daVitaf:C
transformed property tax to a very slow growing rev-
enue source and our projections through 2023 do not
project any change from that pattern as noted below;
PROPERTY TAX Gen. Fund!
Tax Collection
Change from Prior Year
change from Prior Year
PROPERTY TAX Gen. Fund
Tax Collection
Change from Prior Year
change from Prior Year
C1C11
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
20041
Actual)
53.283.728 1
20141
Forecast)
$4,291,000
63,000
1.49% 1
so s +q5.s. :wan..°�•^'rt,":, 'ru,kC: Y. a �°tc, ^G e.+
So'' ur," ceim v- o P, ort 'YAnge lestF,mancedDe" uart men ta
Working Draft Subject to Revision
T iee.I Prod;getiiti)i,- aGenergklind Re enue ais itIkii i oi'ection
20051 20061 20071 20081 20091
Actual! Actual) Actuall Actual!
Actual!
i I
53.432.128 1 53,426,375 1 53.790.294
148.400 1 15.753)1 363.919
4.52%1 1 -0.17% 1 10.62%
I I
20151 20161 20171
Forecastl Forecast! Forecast)
I
54,356.000 1 54,421,000 1 54,487,000 1
66,000
1.49% 1
65,000 I 65,000 1
1.51 %1 1 49%1
Sales tax, by far the most volatile of General Fund
revenues, is not projected to have significant growth
for a number of years as was noted earlier. The lack
of any significant growth of retail business will limit
19
53.875336 1
85,042 I
224 %1
2018
Forecast
54,555,000
68,000
1.52%
53.959.874
84.538
2.18%
20191
Forecast!
$4,623,000 1
68,000 1
1.49% 1
F
2010! 20111 20121
Actual! Actual! Actuall
54.035.888 1 54.067.613 1 54.112,977 1
76,014 I 31.725 I 45,364 I
1.92 %1 0.79 1.12 %I
r
20201 20211 20221
Forecast! Forecastl Forecast!
54,692,000 1 $4,763.000 1 54,834,000 1
69,000 1 71,000 71,000 I
1.49 %1 1.51% 1.49 %1,
20131
Budget-
54.228.000
115,023 r
2.80%
2023
Forecast
54,907.000
73,000
1.51% 1,',
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bud. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
growth of sales tax revenue to any potential growth
in disposable income. Unfortunately, some of the
growth in disposable income will be consumed by
higher gas /diesel prices, utility rate increases and
SALES TAX Gen. Fund
Port Angeles
EUGA
Total Tax Collection
1 Change from Prior Year
change from Prior Year
SALES TAX Gen. Fund
Port Angeles
EUGA
Total Tax Collection
Change from Prior Year
change from Prior Year
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
Source CityofP.breit'ngeles:F inbnc eUeoartment'^
Working Draft Subject to Revision
G •:llik ea tGne l)
��Ta lileAil Sal' esiATaiiI( PortsAnRelesl.+ �Ea�c4" e" ch�U' rliah( cowthArm,; E .U,G °A)�-- era FundlRevenue Hisfory P•,rojectiog,n .,'S
zoom 20051 20061 20071 20081 2009 20101 20111 20121 2013°
Actual) Actual) Actual) Actual) Actual) Actual Actual) Actual) Actual) Budget
I
3,254,674 1 3,338,476 3,181,450 1 2,779,435 1
0 1 0 28,375 1 97,665 1
53.254.674 53.338,476 53,209.8251 52.877,1001
431,9141 83,802 (128,651)1 113,4741
15.30 %l 2.57% -3 85 %l 4 11 %1
2,633,330 1
o I
52.633.330 1
1
2,822,760 1
o I
52,822,760 1
189,430 1
7.19 %1
20151
Forecast)
20141
Forecast)
2,679,000 I 2,679,000 1
80,000 1 80,000 1
52.7 59.000 1 52, 759.000 1
of oI
0 0000 1 0.00 %1
20161 2017
Forecast) Forecast
2,679,000
80,000
$2,759,000
0
0 00%
2,701,000
82,000
52,783.000
24,000
0.87%
CI Port Angeles
Utility tax is the one revenue source that has per-
mitted the City to maintain some ability to off -set a
portion of the rising costs in the General Fund. Over
the recent years, we have had a variety of rate in-
creases for our utilities. Normally an increase in rates
would drive an increase in utility tax collection but
that is not always the case in recent years. Consum-
ers, whether residential or commercial, are making
20
2,736,567
27,059
52.763.626
(446,199)
13.90%
U EUGA
2,832,116 1 2,708, 666 1
44,487 1 75,077 1
52,876,6031 52.783.7431
(497)1 (92.860)1
-0 02 %I 3.23 %1
2,679,000
80,000
52.759.000 1
(24.743)
-0.89%
20181 20191 20201 20211 20221 2023
Forecast) Forecastl Forecast) Forecast) Forecast) Y Forecast
2,725,000 I 2,751,000 1 2,778,000 I 2,804,000 1 2,831,000 1 2,866,000
84,000 1 86,000 1 88,000 1 90,000 1 92,000 1 94,000
52,809,0001 52,837,0001 52,866,0001 52.894,0001 52.923,000 52,960,000
26,000 1 28,000 1 29,000 1 28,000 I 29,000 1 37.000 1
0.93 %I 1.00 %I 1.02 %1 0.98 %I 1.00% 1.27% 1
ry "'w'�` f e
�ir
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20L1 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bud. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
substantial efforts to curb utility consumption as a
means of off setting rate increases as well as control-
ling costs in general. Further moves towards energy
saving electrical appliances, increased use of compact
fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, flow restrictors on showers
and water faucets and other activities will only in-
crease the impact of consumption reduction.
UTILITY TAX Gen. Fund 1
Tax Collection 1
S Change from Prior Year'
change from Prior Year'
UTILITY TAX Gen. Fund
Tax Collection
"1 Change from Prior Year!
change from Prior Year'
I
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Source: City ofPortAnaeles Firiance;0"eoartm en t'
T.alile's #t c #Utility Tax Combined;;= iGerieralFund Revenue yistoaiP,roiectiona 's „j
20041 20051 20061 20071 20081 20091 20101
Actual! Actual! Actual! Actuall Actuall Actuall Actual!
I
52,684.405 1 52.655,291 1 52.884,604 1 53.257.780 1 53,353,323 1 53.506.126 1
1 09.114)1 229,313 1 373,176 I 95.543 1 152,803 I
I 1.08 %i 8.64 %1 12.94 %1 2.93 %1 4.56 %1
I I I I I I
20141 2015! 20161 20171 20181 20191
Forecast! Forecast! Forecast! Forecast! Forecast! Forecast!
1 I
54.145.000 1 54.245, 000 1 54, 347, 000 1 54.451,000 1 54, 558,000 1 54,776.000 1
97.000 1 100,000 I 102,000 I 104,000 I 107,000 1 218,000
2.40 2 41 %1 2.40 %I 2.39%1 2.40 %1 4.78 %1
The three primary revenue sources, property tax,
sales tax and utility tax, account for nearly 60% of
total General Fund revenues in 2013. Another 24.76%
($4,767,550 2013 Budget) of the General Fund reve-
nue comes from allocation of costs to Utilities and
other Funds for services rendered. All told, the three
primary tax sources plus allocation total over 84% of
total General Fund revenues.
That leaves $2,934,000 in fees and charges and other
revenues. At a worst case scenario where our fees
and charges are undervalued to the market, we esti-
mate that variance is most likely 5% 10% below mar-
ket. If that is the case, and assuming we raised fees
and charges to a market rate, we could potentially
generate new revenue of $146,000 $295,000 if there
was no opposition to the fees and charges increase.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
21
Bud. Est.
20111
Actual!
53.743, 657 1 53, 800.137 1 53.781.229 1
237.531 I 56.480 I [1830811
6.77 I 1.51 %l -0.50
20201 20211 20221
Forecast! Forecastl Forecast!
55,006,000 1 55,246,000 1 55.498.000 1
230,000 1 240,000 I 252,000
482 %1 4 79% I 4.80% I
20121 2013
Actual! Budget
Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
54,048.000
266,771
7.06%
2023
Forecast Y
55.762,000 I
264,000 1
4.80%
rx'SrycvXa«N ,�,a
Expenditures within the General Fund are heavily fo-
cused on salaries, wages and benefits which account
for nearly 70% of the General Fund. In 2011 and
2012, employees did not receive a Cost of Living Ad-
justment (COLA). Council did authorize a 2.0% COLA
for all employees except for Police and Firefighters
(Council did authorize an offer of a 2.0% COLA) whose
contract are currently under negotiation.
To help off -set the cost of the COLA, the employee
share of health insurance premiums rose an addition-
al 2.5% from 10% to 12.5% for most City employees.
In the tables below, you can see the history and fore-
cast of salaries, wages and benefits for all employees
in the General Fund including full -time, part -time and
seasonal employees.
SALARY WAGES—G.F. 1 20041 20051 20061 20071 20081 20091 20101 20111 2012
1 Actuall Actual! Actuall Actuall Actual' Actuall Actuall Actual' Actual
I 1
Salaries Wages 1 56,949,855 1 57,110,580 1 57,540,653 1 58,375.020 1 58.570,623 1 58,885,674 58.987.382 1 59,225,207 1 59,230.227
Change from Prior Year1 1 160,725 1 430,073 1 834,367 1 195,603 1 315,051 101,708 1 237,825 1 5,020
change from Prior Yearl 1 2.31%1 6.05% 11.06% 2.34%1 3.68% 1.14%1 2.65% 0.05%
I I
SALARY WAG ES--G.F. 1 20141 20151 20161 20171 20181
1 Forecastl Forecast' Forecast' Forecast! Forecast!
I
Salaries Wages 1 59,062.000 1 59,407,000 1 59,785,000 1 5 L0,201,000 1 510.658,000 1 511,159,000 1 511.683.000 1 512.232,000 1 512,807,000
Change from Pnor Year 1 (273,000)1 345,000 1 378,000 1 416,000 1 457,000 1 501,000 1 524,000 1 549,000 1 575,000
change from Prior Year' -2.92% 1 3.81%1 4.02941 4.25% 1 4.48% 1 4.70% 1 4.70% 1 4.70% 1 4.70%
-4: 7,4
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
so
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
so
Working Draft Subject to Revision
22
20191 20201 20211 20221
Forecast' Forecastl Forecast' Forecast
2013
Budget'
59.335.000 k:
104,773
1.14%
20231(;:,
Forecast
513,525,000
718,000 1
5 61% l
11111111
II II 11 111
14111111111111
NEM
.11111
arunior mewl
1111
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bud. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
socree:icii0:80.1111Aitclete'svaarice're'lideaVitieLT441.VIV'PaittiCYLA:',L"-:' ;it4.SIIIIIAMI 6
11'. ;:A-liVAMEngtiV.1 7.Z .4 1 71. g cla ki‘ ialLiiintE 1 A 1 ,1 1.1i a lirelfi1 -rd s gr eariiO 3 ,0gfliko sjilli ffit*Y 8 NOMIt a gi 7 .0] 1 4,111.111 ,1 1] ,,..i1"' ;11111i1 T ,,:1
BENEFIT COSTS--G.F. 20041 20051 20061 20071 2008 20091 2010 20111 20121 2013
Actuall Actuall Actual' Actuall Actual Actual] Actual Actuall Actuall Budget
1 1 1 I I
Employee Benefits $2,231,257 1 $2,174,376 1 52,351,458 1 $2,804,339 1 52,976,666 53,059,216 1 $3,144,935 53,514,732 1 53,451,832 1 53,541,850 1
Change from Prior Year 1 (56.881)1 177,082 1 452,881 1 172,327 82,550 1 85,719 369,797 1 162.90011 90,018 1
change from Prior Year 1 -2.55% 1 8 14% 1 19.26% I 6.15% 2.77% 1 2.80% 11.76% 1 -1.79% 1 2 61%1
1 1 1 1 1
BENEFIT COSTS—G.F. 20141 2015 20161 20171 2018 20191 2020 2021 20221 2023
Forecast1 Forecast Forecast' Forecastl Forecast Forecast] Forecast Forecast Forecastl Forecast
1 1 1
Employee Benefits $3,746,000 1 $3,968,000 54,207,000 1 54,465,000 1 54,743,000 55,042,000 1 55,364,000 55,710,000 $6,082,000 I 56,488,000
Change from Prior Year 204,150 1 222,000 239,000 1 258,000 1 278,000 299,000 1 322,000 346,000 372,000 1 406,000
change from Prior Year 5.76%1 5.93% 6.02%1, 6 13%1 6 23% 6.30% 1 6.39% 6 45% 6 51%1 6.68%
is t- To'r.lz7y ...r:-.. soilovogmw,,,
$7,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Bud. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
Source: T ,',1,:,T;Ti,‘„Wp,Z.Trp557Z3FFNT:Tigiggign.WRF
Health care expenditures are one area that requires
significant focus in both the short -run as well as for
the longer -term future. The City has been very fortu-
nate to have qualified to receive a 2.0% discount on
the health insurance costs from the Associated of
Washington Cities (AWC) due to its wellness pro-
gram. In the future, AWC plans to significantly tight-
en the requirements to qualify for the discount we
are projecting that the City will not qualify in the fu-
ture for the discount.
COURT, JAIL, PUB. DEFEND.I
1
!Revenue
Expenditures
Jail (Adult Detention)
Public Defender
Jail
Total Expenditures
IGen. Fund Subsidy
Chanae from Prior Year
l chanae from Prior Year
COURT, JAIL, PUB. DEFEND.
Revenue
Expenditures
Jail (Adult Detention)
Public Defender
Jail
Total Expenditures
Gen. Fund Subsidy
Chanae from Prior Year
change from Prior Year
1
215,321
49,134
68,160
5332,615
$0
($100,000)
($200,000)
($300,000)
($400,000)
($500,000)
($600,000)
($700,000)
($800,000)
($900,000)
Source ti of ,PoibAnaelesFinanieDeoartment.
224,168
44,768
65,438
5334.374
(595,860) ($120,979)
125,119)
I 26 20%
2014) 2015
Forecast) Forecast
$0 $0 $0
O 0 0
O 0 0
O 0 0
50 50
50 50 50
696,500 0 0
100.00% #DIV /01 #DIV /0!
Working Draft Subject to Revision
,a 4., ,P,Z,mx I.., Ti8ble/# ik=r6urtwJailP &$P,u61 ic.5e(enderJRevenuea Ex ndlture /History &VP,rolections,X as`=3„
20041 20051 20061 20071 2008 2009 20101 20111
Actual) Actual) Actual) Actual) Actual Actual Actual' Actuall
I 5236,7551 5213,3951 5266,7661 5270,5651 5256,744 $286,223 5258,796
346,738
39,665
74,739
5461.142
321,092
35,894 1
72,566 1
5429,552 1
(5194,376) 15158,987)
(73,397) 35,389
60.67 %1 18.21 %1
20161 2017
Forecast) Forecast
5o
0
0
0
$o
50
0
#DIV /0!
Gen. Fund Subsidy
23
338,322
33,642
108,306
5480,270
($223,526)
(64,539)
40.59%
2018
Forecast
$0
0
0
0
S o
5o
0
#DIV,Ol
An additional area in the General Fund has seen ex-
plosive growth over the last few years Criminal
Justice which includes court, public defender and jail
costs. As is clearly evident from the table below, the
subsidy from the General Fund exceeded $800,000 in
2012 and, unfortunately, that trend appears to con-
tinuing despite extensive efforts by the City to try
and control costs.
436,084
80,594
112,765
5629,443
($343,220)
(119,694)
53 55%
2019
Forecast
$0
0
0
0
5 0
50
0
#DIV /01
593,395
104,100
112,928
5810,423
20201
Forecast
50
0
0
0
S o
50
0
#DIV /0!
$241,257 1 5209,946 1 5245,000 I'
599,518
122,467
115,759
5837,744
$551,627) ($596,487)
(208,407) (44,860)
60 72% 8.13%
2021
Forecast
$0
0
0
0
S o
50
0
#DIV /0!
20121 2013
Actual) Budget'4
796,311
104,438
117,704
51,018,453
700,000
107,500
134,000
$941.500
(5808.507)
(212.0201,
35.54 %1
20221
Forecast)
$01 50
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.
(5696,500)
112.007
-13.85%
O 0
O 0
is
O 0
SO 50
50 50
O 0
#DIV,01 #DIV /0!
2023 a.1
Forecast y'3
4'i
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
Of critical importance to the overall financial
health of the City, is the un- assigned fund balance
"Reserves the City needs to maintain for cash
flow needs and to help fund emergencies within
the City. Over the years, the un- assigned fund
d ;,rte d(F i-� raT
z L'..'...',.: L'..'...',.: .w 'rTiable GerralFun�U,n ®Assigneu'nd Balance �Lf�
UN- ASSIGNED FUND BAL. 1 20041 20051 20061 20071 20081 20091 20101
1 Actual) Actual) Actual) Actual' Actual) Actual) Actual)
I I I
Un- Assigned F.B. (Reserves)1 53,917,941 1 $3,909,502 1 53,730,202 1 54,949,255 1 54,398,023 1 54,273,149 1 $4,242,794 1
Change from Prior Year 1 1 (8,439) (179, 300) j_ 1,219,053 I (551,232)1 (124,874)1 (30,355)1
change from Prior Year' 1 -0.22% -4.59% 32.68%1 -11 14% -2.84%
of Gen. Fund Expend. 1 28 64 %1 26.29 %1 23.27 %1 31.11 %1 24.21 %1 24.79 %1
I I I I I I
'I UN- ASSIGNED FUND BAL. 1 20141 20151 20161 20171 20181
Forecast) Forecast) Forecast) Forecastl Forecast)
I 1 I I
3. Street Fund:
Un- Assigned F.B. (Reserves)
Change from Prior Year (3,570,9951 0 0
change from Prior Year l «NAL UE! I «VALUE! 1 «VALUE! 1
1 1
of Gen. Fund Expend. 1 o,00 4
$6,000,000
0.00 %I
Working Draft Subject to Revision
0 00 %I
«VALUE!
1
0.00 %1
UM Fund Balance Amt. (Left Axis)
0
Source:Zik:of.Poit;+A 4 inanceDWaft nt agry irOT;,:°
The Street Fund has only one dedicated source of
funding the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax (MVFT).
This fixed dollar is based on the state "gas" tax of
$0.325 per gallon of motor vehicle fuel is shared
with cities receiving a little more than 10% of the
tax collection. The state allocates the MVFT on a
per capita basis and distributes it monthly.
In the 2012 State of Our Streets report from the
City of Port Angeles Public Works Utilities De-
partment, the estimated cost to bring the entire
pavement network (114 miles of street 40 miles
24
0
!VALUE! I «VALUE! 1
0.00 %I
1
0.00 %1
20191
Forecastl
balance has varied between approximately 15%
30% as shown in the table below. In the recom-
mendations to Council in the Long Range Finan-
cial Plan, we are recommending that Council
adopt a minimum threshold for the un- assigned
0
-0.71%1
24.92 %1
20201
Forecast)
20111
Actual)
0.00 %I 0.00 %1 0.00 %I
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Est Est. Est.
%of Gen. Fund Expenditures (Right Axis)
,41 EtiVilLk
20121 20131;,
Actual) Budget I:,
54,421,105 1 53,528,995 1 $3,570,995
178,311 1 1892,110)1 42,000
4.20 %1 20.18 %1 1.19%
I i
24.07 %1 18.45%1 19.07%
20211 20221 2023l1; a
Forecast) Forecast) Forecastle
0 1 0 1 0 1 0
«VALUE! 1 #VALUE! I «VALUE! 1 #VALUE!
1
0.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
of alleys) up to good condition using conventional
pavement treatments would cost $122.8 million
over the next 20 years.
The problem with the MVFT is three -fold:
Unlike sales tax that is a fixed percentage of
each eligible sale, the MVFT is a fixed dollar
amount does not vary with the price of fuel;
and
The more fuel efficient cars and trucks be-
come, the less fuel needs to be purchased
and the less tax revenue is generated; and
STREET FUND REVENUE
The increased use of alternate fuel vehicles, hy-
brid vehicles or electric vehicles contribute little,
if anything to pay for the roads and bridges over
which they travel.
In Port Angeles, the Street Fund has also bene-
fitted from contributions made by the Solid
Waste Collections fund and the Stormwater Fund
MVFT
Property Tax
Contrib. from Gen. Fund
Contnb, from Solid Waste
Contrib from Other Funds
Contrib, from REET
Other Sources
Total Revenue
Chance from Prior Year
chance from Prior Year
ISTREET FUND REVENUE
:rd
MVFT 1
Prooerty Taxi
Contnb. from Gen. Fund
Contnb. from Sohd Waste!
Contrib. from Other Funds 1
5383.000
50
5722,000
5150,000
5393,000
Contrib. from REET 1 50
Other Sources! 518,000
'ITotal Tax Collection 1 51,666,000
Change from Pnor Year' 600
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0
MVFT
2004
Actua
380.368
449.214
250.000
125.000
15,011
120,000
36.677
51,376,270
2014
Forecast
Contrib. from Other Funds
Source. ,C'tvofPort AngelesFinance Department
2005
Actual
396.108
463.480
490.000
125.000
7.383
0
50.862
51.532,833
156,563
11 38 %1
1
20151
Forecast!
5372.000 1
50 1
5722,000 1
5150.000 1
5404,000 1
501
518,0001
51,666,000 1
01
0 00 %1
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Tablerc -x5treet F.undaRevenuexHlstorv$�& P.rolectwnr, _�.r. ,;4„si.;,ttr, ra�,� a�,�.....,�
20061 20071 2008 2009 2010 2011 20121
Actual) Actuall Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual(
434.257
468,115
325.000
125.000
15.311
200.000
91.972
51.659,655
126,822
8 27 %1
20161
Forecast)
39,0051 (169,773)
2 35 -9 99%
1
20171 2018
Forecast) Forecast
1
5360,000 1 5347,000 1 5334.000
SO 1 501 50
5722,000 1 5722,000 1 5722,000
5150,000 1 5150, 000 1 5150.000
5417,000 1 5432,000 1 5448, 000
501 50 1 50
519,000 1 520,000 1 520,000
51,668.000 1 51,671,000 1 51,674,000
2,000 1 3,000 1 3,000
0 12%1 0 18%1 0 18%
Property Tax
Contrib. from REET
459,652
472,796
360.000
125.000
15.311
230,000
35.901
$1,698,660
The State Legislature is looking at increasing the
MVFT tax rate as part of the current budget ne-
gotiations. Unfortunately, based on projections
from the Municipal Research Services Center
the added revenue would only add approximate-
ly $68,000 annually to the current MVFT funding
if approved by the State Legislature.
Recommendation A.10 proposed the creation of
a voter approved Transportation Benefit District
(TBD) with 0.2% sales tax funding. Even with this
dedicated funding, revenues would be estimated
25
435.257
477.524
391.000
125.000
26.966
0
73.140
51.528.887
Contrib from Gen Fund
Other Sources
for costs paid by the Street Fund on behalf of the
other two funds. While legal and well- founded
from an accounting sense, the revenue derived
from Stormwater and Solid Waste represents
significant costs to those funds that need to be
covered by utility rate charges.
417.035 417.167 400.531
482.299 482.299 482.299
198.800 145.000 166,000
150.000 150.000 150.000
103.862 516.292 462.901
O 0 0
50.658 12.459 25.691
51.402.654 51.723,217 51.687.422
(126,233) _320,563 (35,795)
-8 26 %1 22.85% -2 08%
1
20191 2020 2021
Forecast( Forecast Forecast
1
5321,0001
50 1
5722,0001
5150,000 1
5466.000
50 1
521,000 1
51.680,000 1
6,000 1
0 36 %I
389.531
482.299
250.000
150.000
522,759
0
18.611
5308.000 5295,000 5284,000
5o SO 50
5722,000 5722,000 5722,000
5150,000 5150,000 5150,000
5485,000 5504.000 5524,000
50 50 50 50
$22,000 523,000 000 1 525,000
$1,687,000 51,694,000 000 1 51,717,000
)001 13,000
59 %1 0 76% P°
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Bud. Est. Est, Est. Est. Est Est. Est. Est. Est
Contrib from Solid Waste
2013 v
Budget V.
394.000 i' e
0 `r
722.000
150.000
382.000
17,400 'N5,
51.813.2001 51,665.400
125,778 1 (147,800) 1�!!"`
7 45 %1 -8 15% t'
l i
2022 202311,:
Forecast Forecast)
1!
5269.000 1
50
5722 000 r
5150,000 15
5551,000
2023
Est
at approximately $535,000 per year to start.
If Council adopts Recommendation A.06 and di-
rects the phase -out of General Fund subsidy of
the Street Fund (currently $482,000) over a five
year period, the new TBD will only produce a
small net gain in funding for Streets. If Council
either lengthens the phase -out period or would
decide to retain partial General Fund subsidy,
there would be even greater challenges placed
on the General Fund.
4. Economic Development Fund:
The unfortunate fact for the Economic Develop-
ment Fund is that there is no on- going, dedicated
funding. Absent the development of a dedicated
funding source, the Economic Development Fund
runs the almost certain risk of running out of its
one -time funding.
Revenues
Intergovemmental
Dept of Ecology Grant
DCTED Grant
Net Increase (Decrease) in Fund Balance
Beginning Fund Balance
Ending Fund Balance
Settlement Cash Restncted
Facade Program Cash Committed
1999
A ct ua l
3,202 19,913 2,784
8,214
To be successful, substantial on -going funding for
Economic Development must be identified.
Without an identified source of external funding,
the City may have to consider re- classifying the
fund away from a special revenue fund to, po-
tentially, a sub -fund of the General Fund.
Compounding the lack of any substantial, on-
going funding source, the Economic Develop-
ment Fund has been utilized for a variety of op-
erating and capital uses. For the 2013 Budget,
excluding the cost /re- payment associated with
the Harbor Clean -up, operating costs substantial-
ly exceed the resource contributions from utili-
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Economic Devel meM Fund Revenue 10 nd#Un Hist•
2006 2007
Actual Actual
2000 2001
Mtual Actual
ale
2002
Actual_'
2003
01541
2004
A ct ua I
2005
Actual
200:
Autuat
1 2009 2010
Actual Actual
2011 201 2013
Actual Actu I Budget
75,000
PDA
Interest on Investments
Parking Revenue
Judgments and Settlements
Miscellaneous Revenue
Transfer from
General Fund 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 40,585 35,000
Electric Utility Rural Econ Dev Fund
Electric Fund 50,000 25,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 81,254 60,000
Water Fund 100,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 30,000 48,702 30,000
Wastewater Fund 25,000 25,000 30,000 48,702 30,000
Housing Rehabilitation Fund r
1,185 772 823 2,118 9,376
10,944 8,887 9,423
Community Development Grants Fund t 37,444
HarborOean -up 200.000
Total Revenues 2 03202 1 16/22.8..). 144 304,489 157,245 389,376 8,000, 587,928 427,944 231 ,286 229, 422'. 384,000
Expenditures by ObJect
Personnel 73,736 76,115 77,787 81,824 82,980 152,925 61,102 3,322
Supplies 1,258 1,463 571 498 276 374 2,786 56
Charges For Services
Professional Services
Marketing Plan 16,361
Conference Center 300 5,000 Parking Development 6,038 4,344
E- nable Consulting 17,250 12,365
EconomicDevelopmentCoundl(EDC) 62,430 42,446 36,141 35,250 35,000 35,000 31,250 35,000
PADA Main Street Program 15,140 17,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 20,000
Oa Ilan Business Incubator (BI) 71,000
Rayon,er Property Dev &Harbor Planning 43,742
Project Support/Other 4,526 1,009 108 1,787 2,608 75,000 19,766
FaadelmprovementProgram
OtherOrargesforSennces a 3,893 3,503 2,612 2,596 2,315 2,292 2,677 11,650
Transfer to Harbor Clean-up
Transfer to OP Fund
Harborworks Loan Write -off
Total Expenditures 1 145,843 164,485 149,068 144,455 138,179 283,091 137,581 184,770
57,359 (44,572) 11,930 (7,326) 6,480 21,398 19,664 204,606
57,359 12,787 24,717 17,391 23,871 45,269 64,933
26
127
235,000
25,000
60,000
30,000
30,000
The most recent infusion of funding came as a
result of the settlement with the State of Wash-
ington over the graving yard issue in the harbor.
While producing $7,500,000 in revenues assigned
to the Economic Development Fund, the City
should have recognized the clear nature of this
one -time funding.
50,000 20,000
482
245,142 362,446 129,508 106,286 98,188 24,444 64,000
7,500,000
60,000
25,000
60,000
30,000
30,000
6,796 59,580 69,865 73,183 76,146 79,427 80,100
559 462 494 2,051 688 6,050 700
20,000
20,000
65,000
40,465
7,325
60,000
25,000
60,000
30,000
30,000
25,000
60,000
30,000
30,000
115,992
15,000 15,000
20,000 20,000
85,250 78,750
99,466 48,657
33,953
592,928 1,046,002 1,54 7,864
7,500,000 5,350,000 4,850,000
153,242
25,000
40,000
30,000
30,000
25,000
40,000
30,000
30,000
15,000 15,000
20,000 20,000
5,928 '132
157,129
60,000
30,000
30,000
120,000
86,945 115,926 35,570 200,000
32,400 22,000 95,000
19,930 39,769 25,080 60,000
16,608 5,096 6,121 9,838 9,883 12,154 12,100
200,000
2,000,000 259,730 891,337 2,300,000 811,000
570.450
176 753 2,284,854 xzzAlcl., 1,089,527 1,168,749 2739 682 1,293,900
7,823,389 (1,696,926) 155,104 (858,241) (939,633) (2,293,177) (909,900)
269,539 8,092,928 6,396,002 6,551,106 5,692,865 4,753,232 2,460,055
692,681 606,910 630,519
4,866,870 4,045,994 1,745,594
133,312 100,326 83,542
t These transfers are for the Facade Improvement grant program
HarborWorks PDA received a total of $650,000 In loans from the City ($150,000 In 2008, and >500,000 In :009) These loans have been reclassified as long -term liabilities on the financial statements (and therefore
will not be shown as expenditures in the budget)
Other Charges for Services indudes communications, travel &training advertising, utilities, repairs maintenance. and dues /subscriptions
60,000
30,000
30,000
15,000 15,000
20,000 20,000
471,619
934,994
143,542
Ending Fund Balance 57,359 12.787 24717 17391 238 45,269 64.933 269,539 8,092.928 6,396.002 6,551,106 5,692,865 4 753 232 24460255 1,550,155
ties plus interest earnings operating costs are
continuing to erode the Economic Development
fund balance to the tune of nearly $100,000 per
year.
In the Program and Services Plan scheduled for
2014, we will be going in depth on the Economic
Development Fund to make recommendations to
Council regarding the potential for future dedi-
cated revenues as well as establishing more de-
tailed policy guidelines on how the remaining
(and future) funds should be utilized.
5. Utility Funds:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
6. Equipment Services Fund:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
7. Information Technology Fund:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
8. Self Insurance Fund:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
9. Firemen's Pension Fund:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
10. Esther Webster Fine Arts Center Fund:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
11. Debt Service:
The City, for 2013, is currently paying on 23 debt
service issues related to:
Voter- approved bond Un- limited Tax Gen-
eral Obligation (UTGO) bonds;
Council- approved Limited Tax General Obli-
gation (LTGO) bonds;
Utility Revenue bonds;
Public Works Trust Fund loans (PWTF);
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans
(DWSRF);
State Revolving Fund loans (SRF); and
Capitalized long -term lease obligations
If used strategically, debt can provide a sustaina-
ble means for addressing critical capital infra-
structure needs. Debt financing allows both cur-
rent users and future users to pay for projects
that they benefit from.
Most, if not nearly all, of the City's debt involves
fairly large public works related capital construc-
tion projects. These projects provide additional
benefit to the community in creating contract/
sub contract work for local contractors, construc-
tion jobs for local workers and construction sup-
ply work for a variety of local companies.
Conversely, if the City fails to adequately consid-
er its total debt obligation it can create a reality
for residents and businesses alike whereby resi-
dents and businesses are hard pressed to be able
to sustain the higher taxes and utility rates re-
quired to pay off the accumulated debt. The City
must consider the total overall cost to its resi-
dents and businesses prior to any future issuance
Working Draft Subject to Revision
27
of debt.
In the chart below, you can see how the layers of
debt have been built -up during the period of
2001 2036. To help understand the nature of
the debt, we have color -coded the debt to group
it according to the underlying source of funding
for repayment of the debt:
Un- limited tax general obligation (UTGO)
debt green layer at bottom of graph. Debt
is paid by excess property tax levy approved
by voters. Will be fully amortized in Novem-
ber, 2015.
Limited tax general obligation (LTGO) debt
red layer immediately above the UTGO debt.
Most notable is the $1,000,000 balloon pay-
ment due in 2021 for the Niichel property.
Payments are from the General Fund.
REET -1 debt light green sliver above and
adjacent to the UTGO LTGO debt. Public
Work Trust Fund loans for street related
improvements. Debt service paid by real
estate excise tax.
Electric Revenue Bonds yellow layer. Debt
payments are from electric utility rates.
Water Wastewater Stormwater Revenue
Bonds blue layer. Debt payments are from
utility rates.
Water PWTF DWSRF loans light blue lay-
er. Debt service paid by utility rates
Wastewater Non -CSO Projects orange lay-
er. Public Work Trust Fund (PWTF) loans
related to treatment plant improvements.
Wastewater Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSO) Project magenta layer. PWTF
State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans plus esti-
mates of costs associated with future draws
from authorized loans for Phase 1 and esti-
mated PWTF loan for Phase 2.
Solid Waste Transfer Station operating debt
gray layer. Debt service associated with
the contract to operate the transfer station
and build necessary infrastructure at trans-
fer stations
Solid Waste Transfer Station Bluff Stabiliza-
tion brown layer. Estimate of revenue
bond to fund $15.5M of work at the transfer
station
$9,000,000
$8,000,000
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Table Total Debt Service
S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S
N N N N N N N N N
Un- limited Tax General Obligation IJTGO Bond (voter- approved)
Limited Tax General Obligation LTGO Bonds (Council approved)
REET -1 Public Works Trust Fund Loa ns
Electric Revenue Bonds
Water+ Wastewater+ Stormwater Revenue Bonds
Water Public Works Trust Fund PWTF and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund DWSRF Loans
Wastewater PWTF Loans Non -CSO Projects
Wastewater PWTF and State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans CSO Project*
Solid Waste Transfer Station Operating Debt
Solid Waste Transfer Station Bluff Stabilization Revenue Bond*
Source: City of Port Angeles Finance Department
O N N M in ID N. CO 0 0 .i N M tr t0 I O 01 0 r1 N M R Ln to
N N N N N N N N N .-1 N N N N N N N N N N M CO M M m 01 M
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
NOTE: "Includes estimates of future debt to be issued, loan draws to betoken or loans to be approved.
28
The voter approved debt obligation will be fully
amortized in 2015 opening the door for a poten-
tial voter approved authorization for a variety of
projects including renovations to Civic Field, Vern
Burton Center, potential police station and other
projects yet to be identifies.
Of significant concern is the $1,000,000 balloon
payment due in 2021 on the LTGO bond issued
for the Niichel property purchase adjacent to the
Transit Center. When originally conceived, the
City set aside $750,000 in reserves toward the
balloon payment and projected that interest
earnings combined with parking tax payments
would produce enough cash to make the yearly
debt payments plus allow the reserve fund to
grow to the $1,000,000 level by the balloon pay-
ment date. Unfortunately, the severe economic
recession has eroded the reserve balance where-
by we project a potential shortfall of approxi-
mately $430,000 of additional funding being
needed at the start of 2021 to make the balloon
payment.
To meet the future payment, the City will need to
start setting aside approximately $60,000 per
year between now and 2021 to have the funding
necessary for the balloon payment.
For the utility- related debt, the challenge is not so
much with the total amount but with the concur-
rent timing of all of the accumulated debt. Had
the City undertaken some of the obligations in
the 1980's or even the 1990's, the debt structure
would be significantly different. Projects that
could have started in the 1980's or 1990's would
have been paid off and funding for the landfill
bluff stabilization could have been done on a con-
tinuation basis rather than as another new layer
of debt.
With the City's current and anticipated debt
structure, especially for utility- related debt, there
is no opportunity for relief until 2029 at the earli-
est and final debt payments will not be due until
2034. Unfortunately, the current and projected
debt does not factor in future debt associated
with replace of deteriorating infrastructure in the
electric, water and sewer systems.
Much of that infrastructure is either hidden be-
low ground or for the electric system, hidden in
plain sight, where it is hard for the average citizen
to appreciate the condition, wear and tear on
electric lines, transformers and switches needed
to delivery reliable electricity to residents and
businesses in Port Angeles.
Working Draft Subject to Revision
29
F. ABILITY TO PAY ANALYSIS:
1. Defining What is Ability to Pay:
Defining what is meant by "Ability to Pay" is
not just an economic calculation. We also
need to consider demographic and political
factors.
In a traditional discussion of ability to pay, we
would look at disposable income, the income
remaining after required tax payments, as
the primary factor in determining what a
family or business could afford to pay for City
services. For Port Angeles, the term "City
Services" includes the traditional taxes paid
for public safety and general services plus the
utility rates and utility taxes paid for nearly
all of the utilities consumed by a resident or
business in Port Angeles.
Unlike most cities in this state, Port Angeles
supplies the electric, water, wastewater,
stormwater, solid waste and Medic 1 services
through a City -owned public utility. Most
other cities have a combination of utility pro-
viders that include city /county owned utili-
ties as well as privately owned utilities.
The one -stop shop for utility service in Port
Angeles has its benefits and drawbacks. Citi-
zens and businesses only have to contact the
City to gain access to a complete menu of
utility offerings without having to contact
multiple providers. At the same time, the
concentration of services also serves to con-
centrate payments to a single provider that
in other cities are spread -out to multiple pro-
viders.
The concentration of utility payments allows
citizens and business to better understand
the total cost of the utilities they are consum-
ing because they can easily monitor their
single bill on a monthly basis rather than hav-
ing to collect billings from multiple providers.
Earlier in this report, Table 2 highlighted
Household Income from the U.S. Census Bu-
reau 2007 2011 American Community Sur-
vey 5 -Year Estimate. Information from that
report highlights that nearly 58% of Port An-
geles households have annual household
income less than $50,000. In comparison,
the estimate for Washington State is that
42% of household in the state have incomes
Tess than $50,000 Port Angeles has over a
third more households having income less
than $50,000 than the state taken as a
whole.
More interesting is the comparison of Gross Rent
as a Percent of Household Income. In the chart
below, it is abundantly clear that households in
Port Angeles are spending significantly more of
their household income on rent than the rest of
the state.
Gross Rent as of
Household Income
Less than 15.0%
15.0% 19.9%
20.0% 24.9%
25.0% 29.9%
30.0 34.9%
35.0% or more
1
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Less than
15.0%
It is, probably, nearly impossible to develop a
mathematical formula that Port Angeles could
afford "X increase in utility rates or taxes but
not "Y In reality, all residents and business
are very individualized. One business may have a
better opportunity pass -along smaller cost in-
creases than another. One family might be less
able to afford a utility rate increase than another
family because the former family has to pay for
health care out of pocket and the latter is cov-
ered by health insurance.
Nevertheless, it is relatively easy to paint a pic-
ture that economic environment for Port Angeles
and its residents and businesses is very chal-
lenged by the limited amount of household in-
come compared to the rest of the State.
Port Angeles could be likened to the camel
awaiting the next straw to be added to the load.
Eventually the camel will break -down not be-
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Table 3.0 Gross; Rent as Percent of Household Income
Washington State Washington State
Est. of Est. of
Households
i 98,1601
114,952 1
119,313
11D,799
84,486
35,372
30
Households
17.43 %l
20.41 %l
21.19% j
19.68 %1
15.00 %j
6.28%
Clearly, the Tess you pay for rent, the more dis-
posable income is available for other uses includ-
ing utility payments.
City of Port
Angeles Est.
of Households
280
273
424
517'
288
1.741
16
in Washington State Est. of Households City of Port Angeles Est. of Households
Source: US Census Bureau 2007 201.t American Community Survey5 Year Estimate
Gty of Port
Angeles Est.
of Households
7.95%
7.75%
12.04%
14.67%
8.17%
49.42%
15.0% 19.9% 20.0% 24.9% 25.0% 29.9% 30.0% 34.9% 35.0% or more
cause of the last straw but because of the aggre-
gate total of straw including costs from the City
of Port Angeles, the State of Washington, the
federal government and the private sector straws
for gas, healthcare, and everything else needed
to sustain their lives.
2. Comparable Communities What are They and
Why:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
3. Demographic Economic Comparisons:
We can tell a lot about a community by the use
of statistics that chart age demographics, eco-
nomic factors, household income and a host of
other data points. And while we can chart and
graph all of this "stuff" we also need to recognize
that it is impossible to chart or graph the heart
and soul of Port Angeles.
How do you chart a community coming together
to build the new Shane Park playground? Or
what kind of graph can we use to tell the story
of
We will look at demographic and economic data
in an attempt to help us understand the challeng-
es we face as a community. Some of that infor-
mation is very easy to understand while other
information will take some thought to get to the
point of the message. As we look at this data, we
need to keep in mind that charts, graphs and
data cannot tell the whole story but we need to
build a base of knowledge that will facilitate mak-
ing assumptions and projections for the future of
Port Angeles.
One of the first factors to look at is what does
Port Angeles look like from a demographic per-
spective how many children do we have, how
many seniors do we have? With a better under-
standing of how we look from a demographic
point of view, the easier it will be to understand
what services may be increasing in demand, what
service demands may be lessening, what time of
Actual
1970
1980
1990
2000
2007
Oct. 1 Head-
count
1 4,957
4,688
1 4,978
4,832
1 4,281
It should not be surprising that school enrollment
is shrinking when we examine the number of
adults in prime parenting ages of 20's 30's.
When you combine that information together
with household income, it is easy to extrapolate
that families may be in a difficult position of hav-
ing to decide if they can afford to have another
child.
In addition, what is the impact of single parent
families on needing services from the City or so-
cial service agencies? Do we need to develop
programs and services that can assist single
parent families who may lack the flexibility to
transport children to soccer or baseball practice
or a doctor's appointment, or a dance class?
Those very same challenges may also hold true
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Projection
2008 Est.
2013 Est.
1 2018 Est.
2023 Est.
1 2028 Est.
day we may need more services and numerous
other questions.
The median age in the Port Angeles micro area is
31% older than the median age in Washington
State what does this mean for service demand
in Port Angeles? Almost 24% of Port Angeles is
age 65 and older in comparison to 12% for Wash-
ington State. Looking at that sliver of data, a
substantially older population may place heavier
demands on health care, emergency medical
services, and the need for assisted living. Addi-
tional demands may be for recreational activities
to occur during daylight hours, need for curb cuts
to allow for easier access by wheelchairs and /or
walkers, opportunities for seniors to volunteer or
"give back."
The Port Angeles School District, in their 2008
Demographic Study Enroll Projections by Keith
Bigelow and John Fotheringham noted in their
Summary of Enrollment Projections the follow-
ing:
Oct. 1 Head-
count
4,206
4,124
1 4,217
4,309
1 4,326
for a 2- parent family where both parents do not
work the same schedule. How should the City
design programs and services to factor in the
ever more common non traditional family?
In looking at educational attainment, we can
begin to see one of the challenges faced by our
emerging high tech composite industry and oth-
ers the lack of a highly trained workforce. State
-wide nearly 41% of the population has an Associ-
ate's degree or higher compared to 34% in Port
Angeles. The recent work by Peninsula College in
developing programs to help close the gap in ed-
ucation and skills will be very important to
attracting new high tech businesses to the com-
munity.
Educational Attainment
for Population 25 Years
and Over
Less than 9th grade
9 12 grade, no diploma
High school grad. or GED
Some college, no degree
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree
Grad. or Prof. degree
Working Draft Subject to Revision
Talile'Sa) EducationalAttainment
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Washington State Washington State City of Port
Est. in Age Est. of Total Angeles Est.
Group Population in Age Group
180,878
273,053
1,058,586
1,114,198
418,109
891,4;x0
500,342
.7 \o a c e e
c \o e o,�
a °e o° a ta o a B o a
Sy ca e�
ve '0' r r s e c
c,)" �Ni 0
4. What Does It Mean:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
G. POLICY REVIEW ANALYSIS:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
H. RELATIONSHIP TO BUDGET DEVELOPMENT:
I. BENCHMARKS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
J. SUMMARY CONCLUSION:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
1. Financial Plan Summary:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
2. Program Services Plan Review:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
32
4.08%1
6.15
23.86
25.11 %1
9.42 %j
20.09
11.28
Sou "e:r`uSfGeiisiist8uea ud20074L011 anYComm 'niryS`u'rvey!S =Yea�E aYea
270
708
3,782
4,008
1,415
1,860
1,338
City of Port
Angeles Est.
of Total
Population
2.02%
28.26% i..
29.95%;...;
10.57%
10.00%
Washington State Est. of Total Population III City of Port Angeles Est. of Total Population
3. Next Steps:
{UNDER DEVELOPMENT}
I11. APPENDIX:
A. FINANCIAL POLICIES
B. MUNICAST PROJECT DETAIL
C. CAPITAL PROJECT FINANCIAL STATUS