FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	DOF Analyst/Phone:
Legislative Department	G. Saroja Reddy 684-8147	Cheryl Swab, 4-8053

Legislation Title:

AN ORDINANCE relating to regular property taxes; providing for the submission to the qualified electors of the City at a special election called on September 14, 2004, of a proposition authorizing the City to levy regular property taxes for up to seven years in excess of the 101% limitation and any other limitation on levies in Chapter 84.55 RCW for the purpose of providing City services, including providing Seattle School District public school students, Seattle youth, and their families with educational and developmental services; authorizing the creation of a new subfund; creating an oversight committee; and authorizing implementing agreements.

· Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation would place on the ballot a renewal of the 1990 and 1997 Families and Education Levies. The proposal is a $116.8 million package that focuses resources on early learning, family support, family involvement, out-of-school time, middle school support services, support for middle- and high-school-age youth who are at risk of dropping out, student health services and school crossing guards. Program areas are tied to improving the chances of academic success for children. There are specific goals for evaluation and accountability. The overall goal is to give every child and every family a chance for success in school.

The Families and Education Levy proposal would focus resources in the areas where the City of Seattle can have the most positive effect on improving and supporting student academic success. Educational and Developmental Services (EDS), funded by Proceeds, are services designed to help address the needs of Seattle’s public school children and Seattle’s youth and families, with the intent of promoting learning, supporting academic achievement, increasing access to services and the administration of those services. Initially, EDS would be provided through 9 program components.

These anticipated program component descriptions are only illustrative examples. In the annual City budget or by separate ordinance, the City shall from year-to-year determine the budget and allocations among the nine program components, add or delete program components or program elements within a program component, change the scope of activities or the emphasis, and, within a budget year, reallocate unexpended and unencumbered funds from one program element or program component to another. Proceeds and appropriations unexpended at the end of any budget year shall automatically be carried over to the next budget year.

1. Preschool and Early Childhood Education  - $3,944,254

• Plan and establish neighborhood-based early learning networks in low-income areas of the city that take a systemic approach to helping children be ready to succeed in kindergarten.
• Major program elements include preschool for low-income four year olds, access for low-income families to high-quality childcare; school readiness support of children in home day-care situations, including home visits; a career wage ladder program; and preschool to kindergarten transition services.
• $3,003,000 for preschool w/1/2 day childcare for 4 yr olds (350 children). Initial funding is anticipated for 350 children, living at 110-300% of fpl, to participate in the preschool/childcare program for four year olds. Increasing the allocation to the preschool/childcare program to increase the number of participating children to 400 four year olds shall be a priority for any reallocation of unexpended and unencumbered levy funds.
• $125,000 for Parent Child home visits.
• $74,000 for preschool/ kindergarten transition.
• $279,254 for program management (8%)
• $250,000 for supporting childcare quality  (ages 0-3)
• $213,000 for career wage ladder program

2. Family Support -  $2,330,248

• Major program elements include school-based family support functions for elementary schools.
• $2,330,248 for 50 FTE family support workers plus annual inflation adjustment.  (Includes 7% program management)

3.  Family Involvement - $500,000

• Major program elements include family involvement projects.
• $500,000 allocated as follows: $250,000 to continue the school-based Family Partnership program and $250,000 to community-based organizations, chosen through RFP. (Includes 10% program management)

4. Middle School Support - $1,000,000 (including program management)

• Major program elements include school-based mental health and social/emotional support counseling and truancy/dropout prevention during school hours.  Services in this component should be coordinated with services in the out-of-school activities and support for high-risk, middle and high school age youth components
• Middle school support program funds shall include:

a) Directly involving school/community team members in identification of specific local barriers to learning and in selection of appropriate programs to address these barriers;

b) Implementing tested and effective programs that address local barriers to learning and have a proven track record of: reducing truancy, drop-out, delinquency, substance abuse, or violent behavior; or of improving student behavior; and

c) Allocation for personnel to provide training and technical assistance to create and empower teams of middle school and community stakeholders to develop and implement action plans to reduce the most prevalent risk factors and elevated barriers to learning in the local youth population.

5. Out-of-School Time - $3,100,000

• Major program elements include academically focused after school programs for middle school students, middle school athletics and childcare subsidies.
• $2,520,000 for Partnership for Student Success (PSS).
•  $330,000 for after school activities.
• $250,000 for program management (8%)

6. Support for High-Risk Middle and High School Youth - $1,195,700

• Major program elements include case management services for high-risk youth. Strategies may include school-based prevention and early intervention for truancy prevention, skill-building services to address student truancy and to reduce other barriers to learning, such as, discipline, mental health and substance abuse issues. These strategies should not unnecessarily take resources away from case management services.
• $1,100,000 for case management.
• $95,700 for program management (8%)  

7. Student Health Services - $3,671,077

• Major program elements include school-based student health clinics and nursing services at clinic sites.
• $2,605,000 for school-based health clinics.
• $699,300 for 11 FTE school nurses.
•  $366,777 program management (10%)  

8. Evaluation - $200,000

• Major program elements include evaluation of the individual programs and the overall effects of Educational and Developmental Services funded by Proceeds.

9. School Crossing Guards - $513,900.

• Major program elements include school crossing guards. This program element is funded for three and a half years.

10. Central Levy Administration - $500,000

• Capped at 5%.

11. Program Administration – Overall program management is budgeted at 8%. 

12. Oversight Committee

• Establishes an Oversight Committee.
• Advises City Council on Implementation and Evaluation Plan, Partnership Agreement, review expenditure of Proceeds, advise on expenditures and allocations, make recommendations on program implementation, reallocation of Proceeds, and evaluations.
• 12 members: Mayor, School Superintendent, Chair of Council Education Committee, School Board member, four (4) citizens who are not employees or board members of organizations having projects or programs eligible to be funded from the Proceeds, and four (4) citizens from the diverse constituencies served by and interested in the projects and programs to be funded by the Proceeds. The Mayor shall appoint two (2) of the four (4) members from each of the above two (2) categories of citizen Committee members, and the City Council shall appoint the balance.
• Members serve 3-year staggered terms.
• Members serve without pay, but may be reimbursed their expenses including payment for childcare during meetings.
• Consistent with applicable law, members who hold a position or have an interest in an entity receiving EDS Proceeds may serve on the committee but must disclose any such relationships and shall not vote on any matter in which the interest of the entity is directly involved. This provision does not apply to the Superintendent of the Seattle School District or the representative of the Seattle School Board.
• Committee will select a Chair and may adopt procedural rules.
• Committee will make annual reports to Mayor and Council and a mid-point report to Seattle citizens.
• City Office for Education will staff the committee.
• Committee to exist through December 2011 unless continued by ordinance.  

13. Implementation and Evaluation Plan

• Proceeds may be spent only in accordance with an Implementation and Evaluation Plan (Plan) approved by ordinance.
• Plan may be amended by ordinance.
• Plan will set forth criteria, measurable outcomes and methodology by which programs will be selected and evaluated.  Evaluation methodology will measure both individual programs and overall effects of EDS.
• The achievement of all stated outcomes will be evaluated and no one component will be determinative of an individual program’s effectiveness or overall effectiveness of the EDS.
• Program selection should be informed by data on the specific needs of each population intended to be served. These data may include student surveys and local assessments identifying risk and protective factors, parent survey data, and school district student data. Program selection criteria should include, but not be limited to, best practices, research-based tested and effective programs, financial feasibility, cultural competency, and necessary program adjustments to meet the needs of particular populations. Student surveys also will be conducted every two years to ascertain the effects of levy-funded programs on student behavior, achievement and overcoming barriers to learning.

14. Implementing Agreements 

• EDS may be implemented by City Staff, or by agreement by other entities.  Mayor is authorized to enter into Implementing Agreements.  City will outreach to small, economically disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by women and minorities, and City agreements will encourage entities to employ a workforce reflective of the region’s diversity.

15. City of Seattle/Seattle School District Partnership Agreement

• The City and Seattle School District will develop a Partnership Agreement establishing the roles and responsibilities of the parties in developing the Implementation and Evaluation Plan, in implementing the EDS and achieving the desired outcomes. 
• The Agreement may cover items including, but not limited to, data sharing necessary to implement program evaluations; standards for family support services, facility use, health service operating practices; and evaluating the feasibility of developing and implementing a school-readiness measurement system. A school-readiness measurement is important to assess the effectiveness of the preschool program. this program. It is Council’s intent and expectation that an appropriate school student readiness measurement be developed and implemented.
• The City Council and School Board must approve the Agreement, and any amendments.  Proceeds may be spent on School District programs or functions only in accordance with the Agreement.

16. Reporting

• The Director of Office of Education will submit an annual progress report to the Council and Mayor on the implementation of the programs and the actions taken as a result of the Partnership Agreement.

· Background: (Include brief description of the purpose and context of legislation and include record of previous legislation and funding history, if applicable):

In April 1990, then-Mayor Norm Rice convened an education summit to recognize the City's role in supporting students outside the classroom. Participants recommended a special emphasis on services that ensured children and youth are safe, healthy, and ready to learn. In the fall of 1990, Seattle voters passed the first Seattle Families and Education Levy, which raised $69.2 million over seven years. Programs and services funded by the first Families and Education Levy included:

· Early childhood development;

· School-based student/family services;

· Comprehensive student health services; and

· Out-of-school-time activities.

In 1997, Seattle voters renewed their commitment to strengthening schools, families, and communities by approving a second seven-year, $69-million Families and Education Levy. The 1997 Levy invested in the same key areas with a greater emphasis on supporting middle school students.

The 2002 and 2003 State of Children and Youth in Seattle reports show that Seattle’s children and youth are not doing equally well. The data from both years show unacceptable disproportionality in educational outcomes for children and youth by race, income and across geographic areas of the city. Youth of color and youth living in poverty are overwhelmingly in Southeast and Southwest Seattle. These are also the areas of the city showing higher concentrations of unexcused absences and failure to meet Washington Assessment of Student Learning standards (WASL).

In 1993, the Legislature passed the education reform law, which mandated academic standards and statewide assessments, including the WASL. The class of 2008 must pass the WASL in 2006 in order to graduate from high school. The federal No Child Left Behind Act further requires all students to meet state standards and for schools to reduce disproportionality in test scores.

Economic success in life is correlated to the number of years a child attends school. The need to support Seattle’s children so they can succeed in school has clearly been demonstrated.

· Please check one of the following:

____ This legislation does not have any financial implications. (Stop here and delete the remainder of this document prior to saving and printing.)

__X_ This legislation has financial implications. (Please complete all relevant sections that follow.)

Appropriations: This table should reflect appropriations that are a direct result of this legislation. In the event that the project/ programs associated with this ordinance have appropriations that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below.

Fund Name and Number	Department	Budget Control Level*	2004 Appropriation	2005 Anticipated Appropriation
TOTAL

*See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.

Notes: This legislation does not appropriate funds to specific City departments. This legislation would place on the September, 2004 ballot a $116.8 million renewal of the Families and Education Levy. Should the ballot measure pass, the Executive will present an implementation and evaluation plan for Council approval by ordinance.

Anticipated Revenue/Reimbursement: Resulting From This Legislation: This table should reflect revenues/reimbursements that are a direct result of this legislation. In the event that the issues/projects associated with this ordinance/resolution have revenues or reimbursements that were, or will be, received because of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

REVENUES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Note: This table assumes a 99 percent collection rate. The interest rate is based on the average Seattle CPI.

Total Regular Positions Created Or Abrogated Through This Legislation, Including FTE Impact: This table should only reflect the actual number of positions created by this legislation. In the event that positions have been, or will be, created as a result of previous or future legislation or budget actions, please provide details in the Notes section below the table.

Position Title and Department*		Fund Name	Fund Number	Part-Time/ Full Time	2004 Positions	2004 FTE	2005 Positions**	2005 FTE**
	N/a, see note
	TOTAL

* List each position separately

** 2005 positions and FTE are total 2005 position changes resulting from this legislation, not incremental changes. Therefore, under 2005, please be sure to include any continuing positions from 2004

Notes: the implementation process mentioned above will determine Positions.

· Do positions sunset in the future? (If yes, identify sunset date):

N/a

Spending/Cash Flow: This table should be completed only in those cases where part or all of the funds authorized by this legislation will be spent in a different year than when they were appropriated (e.g., as in the case of certain grants and capital projects). Details surrounding spending that will occur in future years should be provided in the Notes section below the table.

SEE ATTACHED TABLE– Ed Levy Summary

* See budget book to obtain the appropriate Budget Control Level for your department.

Notes:

· What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation? (Estimate the costs to the City of not implementing the legislation, including estimated costs to maintain or expand an existing facility or the cost avoidance due to replacement of an existing facility, potential conflicts with regulatory requirements, or other potential costs if the legislation is not implemented.)

The 2002 and 2003 State of Children and Youth in Seattle reports show that Seattle’s children and youth are not doing equally well. The data from both years show unacceptable disproportionality in educational outcomes for children and youth by race, income and across geographic areas of the city. Youth of color and youth living in poverty are overwhelmingly in Southeast and Southwest Seattle. These are also the areas of the city showing higher concentrations of unexcused absences and failure to meet Washington Assessment of Student Learning standards (WASL).

Economic success in life is correlated to the number of years a child attends school. The need to support Seattle’s children so they can succeed in school has clearly been demonstrated.

· What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives? (Include any potential alternatives to the proposed legislation, such as reducing fee-supported activities, identifying outside funding sources for fee-supported activities, etc.)

The alternative is to fund these program areas through other than City funding.

· Is the legislation subject to public hearing requirements: (If yes, what public hearings have been held to date, and/or what plans are in place to hold a public hearing(s) in the future.)

The development of this proposal began with the Levy Oversight Committee (LOC), which is a seven-member panel serving three-year terms, established by ordinance to advise the Mayor and City Council on levy spending and policy.

The LOC drafted a policy framework for renewal of the levy, which was developed with expert and community input. It outlined the goals of the levy, the role of the City of Seattle in education and the recommended areas in which the Levy could invest (called “strategic areas of investment.”)

The City’s Office for Education then conducted a process to help the LOC refine the framework. Input from community meetings, expert panels and a community survey (translated into multiple languages) all contributed to the final framework.

After the LOC adopted its policy framework, Mayor Nickels convened a Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) to advise the LOC by recommending services in which the new Levy should invest. The 42-member CAC engaged more than 2,500 people in its decision-making.

The LOC took the CAC’s recommendations seriously and, through a set of work sessions over the course of 5 months, came to agreement on a recommendation to the Mayor. The Mayor’s proposal, follows the LOC’s and CAC’s recommendations.

The City Council has held eight Committee of the Whole meetings and a public hearing on this legislation. Over 100 citizens who came to express their ideas and concerns on strategies that would effectively support student’s academic achievement, attended the public hearing.

· Other Issues (including long-term implications of the legislation):

Please list attachments to the fiscal note below:

1. Ed Levy Summary
2. Cost per homeowner
3. Investment Areas
4. Interest Rate Calculation
5. Collection Estimates

Attachment 1: Ed Levy Summary
Projected Expenditures for seven year levy
EXPENDITURES	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Investment Area	2005 Budget	2006 Budget	2007 Budget	2008 Budget	2009 Budget	2010 Budget	2011 Budget	2012 Budget	Total
Early Learning Networks	$1,242,109	$2,594,788	$3,310,118	$4,025,554	$4,085,937	$4,147,226	$4,209,435	$2,518,341	$26,134,000
Middle School Support	$330,000	$1,015,000	$1,030,225	$1,045,678	$1,061,364	$1,077,284	$1,093,443	$743,596	$7,397,000
Out of School Time	$747,426	$2,084,261	$2,743,582	$3,146,500	$3,193,698	$3,241,603	$3,290,227	$2,237,519	$20,685,000
Middle & High School Youth	$400,500	$1,231,840	$1,250,318	$1,269,072	$1,288,108	$1,307,430	$1,327,042	$902,455	$8,977,000
Student Health Services	$1,232,097	$3,789,631	$3,846,475	$3,904,173	$3,962,735	$4,022,176	$4,082,509	$2,776,310	$27,616,000
Family Support	$768,982	$2,365,202	$2,400,680	$2,436,690	$2,473,240	$2,510,339	$2,547,994	$1,732,763	$17,236,000
Family Involvement	$161,420	$496,487	$503,935	$511,494	$519,166	$526,953	$534,858	$363,730	$3,618,000
School Crossing Guards	$513,900	$521,609	$529,433	$268,687	$0	$0	$0	$0	$1,834,000
Levy Administration	$165,000	$507,500	$515,113	$522,839	$530,682	$538,642	$546,722	$371,798	$3,698,000
Evaluation	$66,000	$200,000	$200,000	$200,000	$200,000	$200,000	$200,000	$134,000	$1,400,000
Total Expenditures	$5,627,000	$14,806,000	$16,330,000	$17,331,000	$17,315,000	$17,572,000	$17,832,000	$11,781,000	$118,595,000
REVENUES	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	2005 Budget	2006 Budget	2007 Budget	2008 Budget	2009 Budget	2010 Budget	2011 Budget	2012 Budget	Total
Levy Legal Allocation (per Ordinance)	$16,684,000	$16,684,000	$16,684,000	$16,684,000	$16,684,000	$16,684,000	$16,684,000	$0	$116,788,000
Estimated property taxes to be collected	$16,272,000	$16,516,000	$16,573,000	$16,614,000	$16,619,000	$16,619,000	$16,620,000	$349,000	$116,182,000
Investment Earnings Net	$77,000	$226,000	$283,000	$345,000	$429,000	$596,000	$393,000	$67,000	$2,416,000
Total Revenues	$16,349,000	$16,742,000	$16,856,000	$16,959,000	$17,048,000	$17,215,000	17,013,000	$416,000	$118,598,000
FUND BALANCE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	2005 Budget	2006 Budget	2007 Budget	2008 Budget	2009 Budget	2010 Budget	2011 Budget	2012 Budget	Total
Total Revenues	$16,349,000	$16,742,000	$16,856,000	$16,959,000	$17,048,000	$17,215,000	$17,013,000	$416,000	$118,598,000
Total Expenditures	($5,627,000)	($14,806,000)	($16,330,000)	($17,331,000)	($17,315,000)	($17,572,000)	(17,832,000)	($11,781,000)	($118,594,000)
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures	$10,722,000	$1,936,000	$526,000	-$372,000	-$267,000	-$357,000	-819,000	-$11,365,000	$4,000
Difference in Summit
Year Ending Fund Balance	$10,722,000	$12,658,000	$13,184,000	$12,812,000	$12,545,000	$12,188,000	$11,369,000	$4,000	$4,000
Expenditure Assumptions
1. Early Learning spends 44% of half of one year of annualized costs in 2005; 60% in 2006; 80% in 2007
2. OST - existing services are fully funded in 2005, new services are funded at 33% of annualized cost in 2005 and 60% in 2006 and 85% in 2007
3. Middle & High School assumes funding an existing program for three months of 2005, funded by the past levy (33% of total in 2005)
4. Health assumes on-going program of which four months of 2005 will be funded by past levy; this assumes 33%; $200K in 2005 and $100K in 2006 is added to the new levy amount in order to start the clinics out at the past levy levels.
5. School-based health centers are reduced by $200,000 to reflect increased third party billing.
6. Family Involvement is funded at 33% of annualized cost in 2005 due to funding from previous levy.
7. Assumes OFE is funded at 3.2% of services.
8. Assumes 1.5% inflation
9. School crossing guards are funded for 3.5 years.
.
Revenue Assumptions
1. Assumes approximately 99% collection rate
2. The interest rate is based on the average Seattle CPI

Attachment 2: Cost per Homeowner

			Total Levy Amt	$116,788,000
			Average Annual Amount Collected
			at 7 years
			$16,243,000		Estimate
	Assessed Value	AV Growth	Rate	Annual cost to owner of avg priced home	Median
Tax Year	Estimate	Assumption	at 7 yrs		Value
2004	83,269,907,982			at 7 yrs	$346,080
2005	$87,017,053,841	1.045	$0.19		$356,462
2006	$90,932,821,264	1.045	$0.18	$68	$367,156
2007	$95,024,798,221	1.045	$0.18	$67	$378,171
2008	$99,300,914,141	1.045	$0.17	$66	$389,516
2009	$103,769,455,277	1.045	$0.16	$65	$401,202
2010	$108,439,080,765	1.045	$0.15	$65	$413,238
2011	$113,318,839,399	1.045	$0.15	$64	$425,635
2012	$118,418,187,172	1.045		$63	$438,404
2013	$123,747,005,595	1.045		Annual cost to owner of avg priced home	$451,556
2014	$129,315,620,847	1.045			$465,103
			Total amount per household for the life of the levy			$458
			Average per year over the life of the levy			$65

Attachment 3: Investment Areas
Strategic Areas	Program	2004 GF allocation	2004 Ed Levy Adopted Budget	GF Recommendations for 2005	Ed Levy Full Annual Expenditure	Net difference for GF	Net difference for Ed Levy	Current investment (GF & Ed Levy)	Proposed investment (GF & Ed Levy)	Difference between proposed and current investments
Early Learning	Comprehensive Child Care (subsidies)	119,905	915,424	1,035,329	480,228	915,424	(435,196)	1,035,329	1,515,557	480,228
	Preschool for four year olds				2,530,588	0	2,530,588	0	2,530,588	2,530,588
	Supporting Child Care quality (ages 0-5)	1,040,140	438,869		250,000	(1,040,140)	(188,869)	1,479,009	250,000	(1,229,009)
	Parent/child home visits				125,000	0	125,000	0	125,000	125,000
	Preschool/K transition				74,000	0	74,000	0	74,000	74,000
	Career wage ladder				213,000		213,000		213,000
	Program management				279,254	0	279,254	0	279,254	279,254
	Subtotal Early Learning	1,160,045	1,354,293	1,035,329	3,952,069	(124,716)	2,597,776	2,514,338	4,987,398	2,473,060
Family Support & Involvement	Family Support Workers	1,380,927	1,058,484	0	2,330,248	(1,380,927)	1,271,764	2,439,411	2,330,248	(109,163)
	Family Involvement Strategies				499,950			0	499,950	499,950
	Family Support Centers	457,689	813,793	1,271,482	0	813,793	(813,793)	1,271,482	1,271,482	0
	Family Partnerships		348,906	0	0	0	(348,906)	348,906	0	(348,906)
	Immigrant/Refugee Family Support	239,839	30,158	269,997	0	30,158	(30,158)	269,997	269,997	0
	First Place Counseling	0	62,905			0	(62,905)	62,905	0	(62,905)
	Subtotal Family Support	2,078,455	2,314,246	1,541,479	2,830,198	(536,976)	16,002	4,392,701	4,371,677	(21,024)
Middle School Support	Middle School Support		1,103,760	0	1,000,000	0	(103,760)	1,103,760	1,000,000	(103,760)
	Subtotal Middle School	0	1,103,760	0	1,000,000	0	(103,760)	1,103,760	1,000,000	(103,760)
OST	After School Activities		1,210,163		330,000	0	(880,163)	1,210,163	330,000	(880,163)
	Community Learning/PSS (middle school)	49,500	295,150		1,470,000	(49,500)	1,174,850	344,650	1,470,000	1,125,350
	Community Learning/PSS (elementary school)				850,000	0	850,000	0	850,000	850,000
	PSS Extra Costs				200,000		200,000		200,000
	School Age Care subsidies (5-12 years old)	191,437	632,536	623,973		432,536	(632,536)	823,973	623,973	(200,000)
	Summer scholarships	118,362	179,042		0	(118,362)	(179,042)	297,404	0	(297,404)
	Program management				250,000	0	250,000	0	250,000	250,000
	Subtotal OST	359,299	2,316,891	623,973	3,100,000	264,674	783,109	2,676,190	3,723,973	1,047,783
High Risk Middle & High School Youth	Youth Development Svcs	849,231	69,911		0	(849,231)	(69,911)	919,142	0	(919,142)
	Coordinated Case Management	484,909	807,743	0	1,195,700	(484,909)	387,957	1,292,652	1,195,700	(96,952)
	Youth Employment	1,213,503	0	1,213,503			0	1,213,503	1,213,503	0
	Subtotal Middle & High School	2,547,643	877,654	1,213,503	1,195,700	(1,334,140)	318,046	3,425,297	2,409,203	(1,016,094)
Health	School-based health centers ( See Note 2)		1,656,819	0	2,605,000	0	948,181	1,656,819	2,605,000	948,181
	School Nurses		766,545		699,286	0	(67,259)	766,545	699,286	(67,259)
	Health Education		139,371		0	0	(139,371)	139,371	0	(139,371)
	Pilot		0			0	0	0	0	0
	Youth Mental Health Services	758,317		758,317
	Program management	527,000			345,973	(527,000)	345,973	527,000	345,973	(181,027)
	Subtotal Health	1,285,317	2,562,735	758,317	3,650,259	(527,000)	1,087,524	3,848,052	4,408,576	560,524
School Crossing Guards	School Crossing Guards				513,900
	Subtotal School Crossing Guards				513,900
	Totals	7,430,759	9,425,819	5,172,601	16,242,127	(2,258,158)	4,802,458	16,856,578	19,900,828	3,044,250
Other	Effective Schools		500,000					500,000	0	(500,000)
3.17% administration		539,389		500,000	0	0	539,389	500,000	(39,389)	(39,389)
Evaluation		100,000		200,000	0	0	100,000	200,000	100,000	100,000
Grand Total		7,430,759	10,565,208	5,172,601	16,942,127	(2,258,158)	4,802,458	17,995,967	22,114,728	4,118,761

Attachment 4: Interest Rate Calculation

Levy Cash Flow
Levy Cash Flow					Interest Rate Assumption (annual rate compounded monthly)
	In	Out	Balance	Interest
1/1/2005						2005	3.25%
2/1/2005						2006	3.50%
3/1/2005						2007	4.25%
4/1/2005						2008	5.50%
5/1/2005						2009	5.50%
6/1/2005						2010	5.50%
7/1/2005	$8,136,000	$207,018	$7,928,982	$18,171		2011	5.50%
8/1/2005		207,018	7,740,134	17,738		2012
9/1/2005		1,303,349	6,454,523	14,792		Balance	$4,327
10/1/2005		1,303,349	5,165,965	11,839
11/1/2005		1,303,349	3,874,455	8,879
12/1/2005		1,303,349	2,579,984	5,912
1/1/2006	8,136,000	1,233,833	9,488,064	25,697
2/1/2006		1,233,833	8,279,927	22,425
3/1/2006		1,233,833	7,068,518	19,144
4/1/2006		1,233,833	5,853,829	15,854
5/1/2006		1,233,833	4,635,850	12,555
6/1/2006		1,233,833	3,414,572	9,248
7/1/2006	8,258,000	1,233,833	10,447,986	28,297
8/1/2006		1,233,833	9,242,450	25,032
9/1/2006		1,233,833	8,033,648	21,758
10/1/2006		1,233,833	6,821,572	18,475
11/1/2006		1,233,833	5,606,214	15,183
12/1/2006		1,233,833	4,387,564	11,883
1/1/2007	8,258,000	1,360,833	11,296,614	32,948
2/1/2007		1,360,833	9,968,729	29,075
3/1/2007		1,360,833	8,636,971	25,191
4/1/2007		1,360,833	7,301,329	21,296
5/1/2007		1,360,833	5,961,791	17,389
6/1/2007		1,360,833	4,618,347	13,470
7/1/2007	8,286,500	1,360,833	11,557,483	33,709
8/1/2007		1,360,833	10,230,359	29,839
9/1/2007		1,360,833	8,899,365	25,956
10/1/2007		1,360,833	7,564,488	22,063
11/1/2007		1,360,833	6,225,718	18,158
12/1/2007		1,360,833	4,883,043	14,242
1/1/2008	8,286,500	1,444,250	11,739,535	41,578
2/1/2008		1,444,250	10,336,862	36,610
3/1/2008		1,444,250	8,929,222	31,624
4/1/2008		1,444,250	7,516,596	26,621
5/1/2008		1,444,250	6,098,968	21,601
6/1/2008		1,444,250	4,676,318	16,562
7/1/2008	8,307,000	1,444,250	11,555,630	40,926
8/1/2008		1,444,250	10,152,306	35,956
9/1/2008		1,444,250	8,744,012	30,968
10/1/2008		1,444,250	7,330,731	25,963
11/1/2008		1,444,250	5,912,444	20,940
12/1/2008		1,444,250	4,489,134	15,899
1/1/2009	8,307,000	1,442,917	11,369,116	52,108
2/1/2009		1,442,917	9,978,308	45,734
3/1/2009		1,442,917	8,581,125	39,330
4/1/2009		1,442,917	7,177,538	32,897
5/1/2009		1,442,917	5,767,519	26,434
6/1/2009		1,442,917	4,351,037	19,942
7/1/2009	8,309,500	1,442,917	11,237,562	51,505
8/1/2009		1,442,917	9,846,151	45,128
9/1/2009		1,442,917	8,448,363	38,722
10/1/2009		1,442,917	7,044,168	32,286
11/1/2009		1,442,917	5,633,537	25,820
12/1/2009		1,442,917	4,216,440	19,325
1/1/2010	8,309,500	1,464,333	11,080,932	50,788
2/1/2010		1,464,333	9,667,387	44,309
3/1/2010		1,464,333	8,247,362	37,800
4/1/2010		1,464,333	6,820,829	31,262
5/1/2010		1,464,333	5,387,758	24,694
6/1/2010		1,464,333	3,948,119	18,096
7/1/2010	8,309,500	1,464,333	10,811,381	49,552
8/1/2010		1,464,333	9,396,600	43,068
9/1/2010		1,464,333	7,975,334	36,554
10/1/2010		1,464,333	6,547,554	30,010
11/1/2010		1,464,333	5,113,231	23,436
12/1/2010		1,464,333	3,672,333	16,832
1/1/2011	8,309,500	1,486,000	10,512,665	48,183
2/1/2011		1,486,000	9,074,848	41,593
3/1/2011		1,486,000	7,630,441	34,973
4/1/2011		1,486,000	6,179,413	28,322
5/1/2011		1,486,000	4,721,736	21,641
6/1/2011		1,486,000	3,257,377	14,930
7/1/2011	8,310,000	1,486,000	10,096,307	46,275
8/1/2011		1,486,000	8,656,581	39,676
9/1/2011		1,486,000	7,210,257	33,047
10/1/2011		1,486,000	5,757,304	26,388
11/1/2011		1,486,000	4,297,692	19,698
12/1/2011		1,486,000	2,831,390	12,977
1/1/2012	8,310,000	981,750	10,172,617	46,624
2/1/2012		981,750	9,237,492	42,339
3/1/2012		981,750	8,298,080	38,033
4/1/2012		981,750	7,354,363	33,707
5/1/2012		981,750	6,406,320	29,362
6/1/2012		981,750	5,453,933	24,997
7/1/2012	349,000	981,750	4,846,180	22,212
8/1/2012		981,750	3,886,642	17,814
9/1/2012		981,750	2,922,705	13,396
10/1/2012		981,750	1,954,351	8,957
11/1/2012		981,750	981,559	4,499
12/1/2012		981,750	4,307	20
1/1/2013
	116,182,000	118,594,433		2,416,760
		118,598,760		2,416,000
Levy Cash Flow		4,327

Attachment 5: Collection Estimates										Total
										annual
			2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	collections
Amount levied			16,684	16,684	16,684	16,684	16,684	16,684	16,684	116,788
Amount due (after reduced tax base)			16,621	16,621	16,621	16,621	16,621	16,621	16,621	116,344
Amount Collected (See assumption		2005	16,272							16,272
on collections of delinquent taxes)		2006	244	16,272						16,516
		2007	58	244	16,272					16,573
		2008	41	58	244	16,272				16,614
		2009	4	41	58	244	16,272			16,619
		2010	1	4	41	58	244	16,272		16,619
		2011	0	1	4	41	58	244	16,272	16,620
		2012	0	0	1	4	41	58	244	349
		2013		0	0	1	4	41	58	104
		2014			0	0	1	4	41	47
		2015				0	0	1	4	6
		2016					0	0	1	1
		2017						0	0	1
Subtotal, amount collected through 2011			16,620	16,619	16,619	16,614	16,573	16,516	16,272	115,834
Subtotal, amount collected 2012 to 2017			-	0	1	1	6	47	104	159
Totals			16,620	16,620	16,620	16,620	16,620	16,620	16,620	116,341
Assumptions
Tax base loss each year		0.38%	Reflects 3 year experience (1997 to 1999) of "excess of cancellations over supplements" in tax base.
Delinquency rate		2.10%	Reflects 3 year experience (1997 to 1999)
Delinquency collections	Year	Rate
	1	70.0%	Reflects approximate 3 year experience (1997 to 1999)
	2	55.0%
	3	87.0%
	4	70.0%
	5	37.0%
	6	40.0%
	7	40.0%

Total

ta