No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-23-1997 Special Council Mtg CITY OF AUBURN SPECIAL MEETING OF THE AUBURN CITY COUNCIL June 23, 1997 6:30 PM Minutes The Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council convened at 6:30 p.m., Monday, June 23, 1997 in the Council Work Area at Auburn City Hall. Those in attendance included Mayor Booth and the following members of the City Council: Rich Wagner, Trish Borden, Stacey Brothers, Sue Singer, Jeanne Barber, Gene Cerino, and Fred Poe. Staff members present included Planning and Community Development Director Paul Krauss, Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued, Senior Planner Bob Sokol, Associate Planner Bea Sanders, Finance Director Diane L. Supler, Parks and Recreation Director Dick Deal, Fire Chief Bob Johnson, City Engineer Dennis Dowdy, Traffic Engineer Steve Mullen, Transportation Planner Nick Afzali, and City Clerk Robin Wohlhueter. I. Introductions Mayor Booth explained the purpose of the special meeting is to review and discuss impact fees, specifically parks and transportation impact fees. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss added that the Council previously held meetings to discuss general concepts of concurrency management and levels of service. This evening's meeting will focus on discussion of transportation and park impact fees based on the law, Council policies, and level of service standards. No action will be taken this evening with regard to the information presented, and further discussion of impact fees is expected at subsequent meetings. Mr. Krauss introduced the City's consultants who will present information of impact fees. Mr. Donald R. Samdahl of BRW, Inc. will present information on transportation impact fees and Mr. Bill Henderson of Henderson, Young and Company will present information on park and recreation impact fees. II. Development Mitigation Fees A. Transportation Mr. Don Samdahl distributed a handout containing an overview of the transportation program. Mr. Samdahl explained the basic process for developing impact fees for transportation using the requirements of the Growth Management Act. The process begins with a project improvement list, as contained in the Special Meeting ofthe Auburn City Council June 23,1997 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan, and a review of land use growth from present up to a future year. A forecast is developed utilizing the City's traffic model. Projects due to existing deficiencies are then isolated from those projects due to growth. Mr. Samdahl explained that impact fees cannot be charged for existing deficiencies. The City has very few existing transportation deficiencies for the projects identified, and therefor most of the cost can be charged to impact fees. Mr. Samdahl then reviewed the impact fee schedule and impact fee project list contained in his handout. The projects were identified as either level of service dependent, near level of service threshold, or new facilities which are new road links needed for general circulation and which may help with level of service. The total cost over the projected build-out period is approximately $67 million. Anticipated growth for the main land use categories of residential, office, retail, and industrial were examined. The expected growth is utilized in the calculation of the impact fees. Mr. Samdahl noted that the City expects sizable growth in residential single-family and multi-family categories and less in other categories. Mr. Samdahl also noted that a considerable amount of the impacts on the City's street system is coming from outside the city. Without agreements from neighboring jurisdictions for collection of impacts fees for the City's projects, impact fees cannot be collected for the trips impacting the City's transportation system. The Growth Management Act provides that cities can only consider roadway facilities that add new capacity to the transportation system. (The cost of safety, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities cannot be included in the calculation of impact fees.) The cost of the portion of the capacity projects due to new growth are allocated to impact fees. Mayor Booth inquired whether the Academy Drive project can be considered a new facility or a project to alleviate an existing deficiency. Mr. Samdahl responded that the Academy Road project helps fix a level of service problem on another road. He agreed a direct connection can be made that the project alleviates an existing deficiency; however, his analysis considered the capacity and the need on the individual facilities and classified the project as a new facility. Mr. Samdahl explained that from the project list consisting of $67 million in improvements, only $400,000 in deficiencies were identified. Therefore, the City can justify new growth paying for up to $66 million of the facility needs. The next step in the analysis requires a determination of what Special Meeting ofthe Auburn City Council June 23,1997 Page 3 portion of the facility needs is due to growth within the city versus growth outside the city. Based upon trip patterns, approximately 85-90% or $58 million of the facility needs is due to growth outside the city. Approximately 13-14% of the growth is attributable to growth within Auburn. Therefore, funding for $58 million of the facility needs attributable to outside the city will need to come from grants, city revenues or other funding sources. The remaining $8.5 million attributable to city growth is then divided by the growth of the trips within the city to determine a citywide cost per PM peak hour trip of $1,144. For example, a new development which generates one new afternoon peak hour trip would pay $1,144 in impact fees. Each land use development has a different impact fee rate. The different impact fee rates are determined by land use type, trip generations, percent of new trips, and trip lengths. Councilmember Wagner suggested that an impact adjustment needs to be made for the type of vehicle, such as a car versus a truck. Mr. Samdahl responded that his analysis accounted for the amount of traffic in an industrial area. He advised if the data can identify traffic by vehicle type, an adjustment can be made. In response to a question from Mayor Booth, Mr. Samdahl advised that on the average, a single family residence generates approximately one trip in the PM peak hour. Each unit of a muFti-family complex generates approximately one-half trip in the PM peak hour. Mr. Samdahl directed the Council's attention to the draft Impact Fee Schedule included in his handout. Councilmember Cerino inquired whether the number of bedrooms per multi-family unit should be considered in determining the impact fee. Mr. Samdahl advised that the current data does not include the distinction for number of bedrooms; however, if Council determines it is an important consideration, a potential adjustment can be calculated. Mr. Samdahl also pointed out that the law provides that an applicant has a right to conduct an independent study if they believe their land use is not represented in the fee schedule. In response to a question from Councilmember Brothers, Mr. Samdahl advised that trip rates and new trip percentages are based on national figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers which is a commonly used and accepted reference in the industry. Trip lengths are based upon Florida information. The cost per trip is specific to Auburn. Mr. Samdahl presented a comparison of single family dwelling unit impact fees in the region compared to the proposed impact fee for Auburn. Special Meeting ofthe Auburn City Council June 23,1997 Page 4 When compared to impact fees adopted by King County, Snohomish County, and the cities of Bellevue, Olympia, Bothell and Redmond, the single family dwelling unit impact fee for Auburn falls within the range of impact fees assessed by the other jurisdictions. Levels of service were also noted as part of the comparison. Mr. Samdahl explained that the City of Bellevue's impact fees were previously at a higher level; however, they recently reduced their project improvement list which resulted in lower impact fees. Mr. Samdahl explained that King County uses various zones for assessing different impact fees. Councilmember Brothers inquired about the recently adopted impact fees adopted in Federal Way. Mr. Samdahl did not have City of Federal Way information. Councilmember Borden requested additional comparisons for other land use types. Councilmember Wagner requested a comparison with a jurisdiction that is more distribution oriented or includes more truck traffic. Mr. Samdahl agreed to investigate further. B. P~rks Mr. Bill Henderson distributed information relating to impact fees for parks and recreation. Mr. Henderson reported that his firm recently completed a draft parks and recreation impact fee study for the City. The study includes impact fees for three categories of parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, and linear parks. For his presentation this evening, Mr. Henderson focused on calculations for community park impact fees. Six steps are used to calculate impact fees for the City of Auburn. The proposed impact fees are based on a six year plan developed by the Parks and Recreation Department and the Planning and Community Development Department. The plan identifies specific projects with specific sizes and facilities which are costed out. Level of service standards have also been identified, as required by the Growth Management Act and to determine current deficiencies. The levels of service drive the need for the projects, the cost, and the impact fee. Mr. Henderson presented sample impact fee calculations for community parks. Two community park projects have been identified as capacity projects. Capacity projects are those projects which contribute to and enhance the inventory of parks to accommodate new growth over the next Special Meeting ofthe Auburn City Council June 23,1997 Page 5 six years. The projects are the 15 acre Academy Area Park acquisition and development and the 13 acre North Auburn/Green River Park acquisition and development. The capacity costs of the parks are $2.1 million for the Academy Area Park and $1.9 million for the North Auburn/Green River Park. Other revenue sources which have been identified to help pay for the projects are deducted from the total capacity cost of the projects. For each of these community parks, it is recommended that $100,000 in real estate excise tax and $200,000 in anticipated Interagency Community grants are allocated to the projects resulting in unfunded capacity costs for the projects. The unfunded costs are the basis for the calculation of the impact fees. In response to a question from Mayor Booth regarding the availability of real estate excise tax and grants for development of the parks, Mr. Henderson explained that prior to adopting the impact fee schedule the City Council must adopt a plan and commit to specific levels of funding for specific years during the term of the plan. One of the major requirements of the Growth Management Act is that the six year plan is based on funding commitments. From the unfunded capacity cost of the Academy Area Park and North Auburn/Green River Park projects, a per acre cost is determined. The unfunded cost per acre of the two parks is $121,779. The unfunded cost per acre is then divided by the level of service standard per 1,000 population. The level of service standard for community parks is 5.40 acres of park per 1,000 population. The calculation results in a $657.60 per capita cost for community parks. Mr. Henderson expanded the calculation to include neighborhood and linear park components which resulted in a total unfunded cost per capita of $787.69. From the unfunded per capita cost, unfunded costs per dwelling unit can be determined by multiplying the per capita cost by the average persons per dwelling unit. The Planning and Community Development Department provided the information on the average persons per dwelling unit for single and multi-family residences. The average person per dwelling unit for single family residences is 2.8 and the average person per dwelling unit for multi-family residence is 2.4. The unfunded cost per single family dwelling unit is $2,205.54 and the unfunded cost per multi- family is $1,890.46. If a bond issue is utilized to help pay for the parks, the debt service fees would be deducted from the unfunded cost per dwelling unit. Special Meeting ofthe Auburn City Council June 23,1997 Page 6 Councilmember Borden questioned the effect of an unanticipated bond issue for park purposes on park impact fees already paid. Mr. Henderson explained that the impact fees can be adjusted for future residents but not for those residents who previously paid impact fees based on no anticipated bond issue. Mr. Henderson agreed to provide the City Council with comparisons of park impact fees with other jurisdictions. III. Discussion Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that staff will furlher investigate issues brought up this evening and will refine the impact fee schedules prior to submitting them to the Council for adoption. Councilmember Singer questioned whether the impact fees are new and additional fees or in lieu of other fees the City is already collecting. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised the City currently collects fees for both transportation and parks; however, they are negotiated individually depending on the project and its location. Councilmember Brothers questioned the level of service standards for transportation and parks identified in the proposed impact fee schedules. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss advised that the level of service standards for transportation were taken from the new Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The level of service standard for parks is the existing level of service. In response to a question from Mayor Booth regarding the expenditure of the impact fees within the term of the plan, Mr. Samdahl advised that the fees must be returned if not used. He also advised that the Growth Management Act allows the funds to be pooled and used for the most urgently needed project. Mayor Booth expressed concern that the projected growth may not occur and insufficient impact fees will be collected to fund the projects. Mr. Henderson added that the proposed impact fees are not based on zones of the city; therefore, location is not an issue. The issue is growth and the rate of growth. If the projected growth doesn't occur, the cost to maintain the level of service will reduce and not as many acres of park will need to be developed. If after the plan and impact fees have been adopted the Council foresees that the growth rate will not occur as anticipated, the Council can amend the plan to reduce the number of projects. However, the impact fee will not be affected. Special Meeting of the Auburn City Council June 23, 1997 Page 7 There will simply be less new residents to pay the impact fee, and the City will have less money to accomplish the projects. The City is required to make a good faith effort to achieve their goal of having a certain level of service within six years. Mayor Booth pointed out that the acquisition and development of a certain acreage of park land will require commitment to purchase, and development of the park must relate to capacity. IV. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Approved on the ~ f'~ day of (~(~. ,1997. Charles A. Booth, Mayor Robin Wohlhueter, City Clerk 97M6-23.DOC