HomeMy WebLinkAboutItems Submitted at the Meeting
Return Address:
City of Aubum .
City Clerk
25 West Main ~ s~ ~o t P~~g aDev A9 &
Aubum, WA 98001 option to Purcnase
- Submitted bv:_Director of HR
Above this line reserved foc.recording information.
. ~ JOINT PARKING.DEVELOPMENT,AGREEMENT,.
. AND . . .
OPTION TO PURCHASE '
Reference # (if applicable):
Grantor/Borrower: KING COUNTY RURAL LIBRARY DISTRICT;
DBA THE KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM . Grantee/Assignee/Beneficiary: CITY OF AUBURN
Legal Description/STR: `
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#:
, Additional legal in Exhibit A.
.
This Joinfi Parking Development Agreement and Option to Purchase
("Agreement") is entered into on the day of January, 2011, by the
City of Aubucn ("City"), and the King County Rural Library District, doing business
as the King County Library System ("KCLS").
RECITALS
1. The: City owns and operates Les Gove~ Park (the "Park"). Pursuant
to a land lease (the ``Lease"), dated April 29, 2010, the City currently leases certain land within the Park (the "Library Leased Park Property") to KCLS to
; operate a public library. KCLS operates an existing library facility and 60 stalls of
related parking on the Library Property (the "Existing Rarking"). The remaining
parking stalls at the Park ere,owned by fhe City (the ~City..Parking") and are
operated by the City as described in Section 20 of the Lease.
2. KCLS intends to expand its existing library facility. (as so expanded,
: the "Library"). Based on the City Code requirement of one parking stall per 250 .
gross square feet of floor.area for library uses (ACC 18.52.020) and the initial
information provided by KCLS on the size of the library expansion, KCLS needs
Joint Parking Developmenf Agreemenf and Option To Purchase Page 1 of 7
to develop 20 stalls of additional parking and replace any displaced packing stalls
that will be lost as a result of the expansion of the Library. .
3. There are currently two parcels located at 1018 - 1022 Auburn
Way South, Aubum (the "Subject Property"), adjacent to the Park eampus, that..
are availablefor purchase. The Subject Properfy, which is legally described in
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, subject>fo
the City's analysis and determination, appears to be adequate to accommodafe
the additional parking capacity necessary for the KGLS's expansion needs.
JOINT PARKING DEVELOPMENT ~For valuable consideration, including:the, promises contained in this
Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged;';the. City and KCLS
agree as follows with respect to the acquisition of the Subject Properly and the
development of the required additional parking thereon (collecfively, the
"Project"):
1. General. The Project will be undertaken in the following two.
phases: .
Phase 1. KCLS will acquire the Subject:, Property.. As detailed
belowthe City will contribute financially to the purchase of the Subject
. Property in return for (i) the perpetual right to use any available parking .
stalls, (ii) the right to review and comment on the design and configuration
of the Project; and (iii):an option to purchase the Subject Property if KCLS
ever stops operating a public library on the Park campus. Phase 1 will .
commence upon exeeution of this Agreement. The City and KCLS.shall each haVe equal riglifs to the parking spaces on the Subject Property. .
Phase 2: After obtaining.any and all required permits and approvals from local, regional, state or federal agencies, as may'be applicable, KCLS will demolish the existing structures on, will remove the
fencing around, and will undertake other necessary code 'improvements
to, the Subject. Property in order to provide the parking and pedestrian
access to`the-Library. Phase 2 will be completed during the construction of the expansion and.renovation of the Library. 2. Citv's Responsibilities. The City shall:
a. Contribute a portion, of the funds required for the purchase of
the Subject Pcoperty in an amount up to $262;500. Such arriounf shall be
reimbursed to KCLS by depositing the City's contribution into escrow upon
receipt of KCLS`s written request therefor accompanied by a fully
executed copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement and a cop.y of the
closing instructions. Joint Parking Development Agreement and Option To Purchase
Page 2 of 7
b. Provide timely review and comment on, and to the extent
required by law, approval of the plans for the Project.
3. KCLS's Responsibilities. KCLS shall:
a. . Negotiate and consummate the purchase of the Subject
Property; "
b. Submit to the City a request for the City's contribution to the
purchase price for the Subject Property;
c. Submit to the City the plans for the Project for review and
comment;
d. Manage the design of the Project;
e. Manage the demolition of existing improvements on the
Subject Property and the accomplishment of the Project;
f. Pay the costs of the Project, subject to reimbursement from
the City as set forth in this Agreement;
g. Comply with all City codes and conditions of approval during
and after construction for the Project and associated improvements;
h. Obtain prior City authorization including receipt of any
permits and approvals, as needed, for any future physical changes to the
Project area; .
i. Operate the Project; and
j. Maintain the Project.
OPTION TO PURCHASE
As part of the consideration for the parties' execution of this Agreement,
KCLS hereby grants the City an irrevocable option to purchase the Subject
Property (the "Option"). The term of the Option shall commence as of close of
KCLS's escrow to purchase the Subject Property, and shall be perpetual. The
City may exercise the Option only if the City has terminated the Lease because
KCLS has ceased to operate a public library on the Library Leased Park Property
as required thereunder. Upon receiving notice from KCLS that KCLS intends to
stop operating a public library on the Library Leased Park Property, the City shall
give KCLS not less than seventy-five (75) days advance written notice of its
intent to exercise this option. Within five (5) days after the City's exercise of the
Joint Parking Development Agreement and Option To Purchase
Page 3 of 7
Option, the parties shall cause an escrow, ("Escrow") to be opened at a Title
Company. The title insurance herein required shall be furnished by the Title
Company. Time is 'of the essence'. If the Option is exercised, the Purchase Price shall be determined by ;
taking the fair market value of the property and reducing the price pro rata based
upon the ratio of-the Gity's contribution to KCLS' 'purchase price of the Subject
Property. Fair market value shall be determined by an independent appraisal
perFormed by an appraiser mutually agreed upon by the City, and KCL8. If the
parties cannot agree`upon a mutually agreed upon appraiser, _KCLS shalF select
one appraiser and the City shall select another appraiser, and' those two
appraisers shall select a third appraiser, and thethree-appraisers shall determine
the fair markef value.
At the close of Escrow, KCLS shall: -
a. Convey the Subject Property to the City,, or the City's ,
designee, by statutory warranty deed subject to any title exceptions
provided in the -title report for the Subject.Property obtained by the City,
and such matters as shall hereafter be approved by the City; and.
b. Assign to the City; or to the City's designee, all assignable
construction, e.quipment, and supplier warranties pertaining fo the Subject.
' Property: KCLS shall surrender possession: of the Subject Froperty at the
Close of Escrow: Concurrent with..the. KCLS:'Close of Escrow for the
Subject Property, the City and KCLS shall execute and record this
Agreement in the public records of King County, Washington.
This Agreemenf and the Option shall run with the land, shall be recorded
with the King County Recorder's Office against of the above.property, and shall
be binding upon the Grantor and its successors, assigns, and any subsequent
purchasers.
REMEDIES
In case of a breach the parties reserve all remedies availa6le under the law .
including but not limited tofunds provided under this Agreement, or specifc
performance of any act required under this Agreement. .
Joint Parking Development Agreement and Opfion To Purchase
Page 4 of 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and KCLS have executed this
Agreement effective the day of 2011:
CITY OF AUBURN KING COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT,
doing business as the KING COUNTY
LIBRARY SYSTEM By: Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
By: William H. Ptacek, Director
Attest:
- DanfDaskam; City Clerk
Approved asto form: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney
STATE OF V1/ASHINGTON ) - ) ss.
GOUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or.have`satisfactory evidence that Peter B. Lewis is the
person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/She signed this instrument, on oafh sfated that he was authorized to execute the ,
instrument and.acknowledged ;it as the Mayor of the CITY OF AUBURN,,a -
Washington municipal corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such party
for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. _
DATED:
(Seal or stamp) ' Notar
y Signature Print/Type'Name
Nofary Public in and for the State of
Washington,
residing at _ My appointment expires
J.oint Parking Development Agreement and Option To Pucchase :
Page 5 of 7
.
.
,
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
.
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING j
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that William H. Ptacek is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledgetl that heLshe
" signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the Director of KING COUNTY RURAL
LIBRARY DISTRICT doing business as the KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM,
a Washington public corporation; to be.the free and voluntaryact of such party `
for the uses and purposes ment'roned in the instrument.
DATED:
(Seal or stamp) -
. IVotary Signature
-
PrintlType Name
Notary Public in antl for the State of
Washington,
, • residing at
- My appointment expires "
I Joint Parking Development;Agreement and Option To Purchase ~
, Page 6 of 7
' EXHIBIT A . '
Subiect Propertv , f LeQal description to be attachedl,
Joint Parking Development Agreement and Qption To Purchase
Page 7 of 7
ParkMgSummary current ProPosed ~9181
Libra Use dedicated) 60 SI PARCEL t! 192105 • . ' , . / °
SharedUse 55 55 : ~ . , . . . . AUBURN LIBRARY
Adacenl Pacel 41 . . '
TOTALAVAILABLE 115 147 ' _ FF'ilE
RFSTRIPIPIG 0/(E) ASPHALT (TYP) TO RFF
DEFINE PP,RKII~dG SPACES & VEHICLE ' ~ 38 i 39 i 40 ~ 41~.~ ~~9p~~ PHR~,EL B~U[!li,1
CIRCULATIGN '
I - r ~
PEDESTRIANACCEc~ TG
ADJACENT LIBRARY P, ~
~ . . • ~ , ~
~l
NEW LAfJDSCAPING A,REA 1^iITHIN
EUILDIIVG FOOiPP,INT (SHRUBS, LIGHTED PEDESi Fi?fi
TURf.&GRASSESW4'BERMING) /r - - - _ ` ~ • - ~ ``J/, - ~ WAYFIPIDINGSIGNNGE
I; .
~J~. I _ I • . y _ ~ v. 8'WIDEPEDESTRIAPJ
'
~ CR05SNALK
FOOTPRINT OF (E) UNITED ~ 26 CONNECTION TO
A,UBIJRfV!:`A`fS
RENTALS COMMERCIAL I 25 27
%
33 QUILDING (TO BE 28/
GO 24
37~ ..i ~ ~ DEMOLISHED) ~ ~ _
~ ,36\. 3? _23 29~: ; •
35 ~L 22
34X,. 30
J' - 21 DJE'ld UIPJDSCAFEG ~RE4
(fREES. SHRUBS _E;F
- h
' .RL U Pi C
07 os 09 lo Ll j ,
(E) ASPHALT PAVING TO REMAIN (iYP)
I 1. ~ 30'-0'O.C. 14 15 16 17 13 19 i20
^ ^ \ ~ :Ol 0~_-~ f13. 0~1 05.= OSy~, lYP X`~i_
,
,
•
i
t. . . ~i"
~ISIINj Eil"~SIG!
~ - • I ~I / _
/ ~ r /1 I '
/ ~.-J~` . ~ . . • i Y.i . .~-L • ~ vL-~_ y .L` /I~~..._ . . , I1El^ i~fllIll)
O . S . . . .
~ PARCEL# 1921059237 & 192105-9122 AUBURN WAY SOUTH
IPlFILL (3) EXISTING DRIVEWkY CURQ
CUTS TO INIPROVE SAFEiY -
- NEwTIMIDELANDSCpPEBUFFEROPJ REMOTE PARKING SCHEME F-~,
PARCELTO IPlCLUDE TREES AWD TURF
schachf I aslani
a"'„'e°ts NEv;~ &siDEwnLKVdiTHiN R.aY,. AUBURN LIBRARYADDITION & RENOVATION
7 FEBRIIARY 2011 r`uimt; Lilrarv Syster.
PCDC 2.14.11 Pa A9 &
V.B. Joint Parking Dev
p tion to Purchase
R
p ~ pirector of H
Parking Summarp Current Propc►sed ~ ~ i Submlitedbv.
/ , ;
Libra Use dedicated 60 51 PARCEL #192105-9181
Shared Use 55 55
AUBURN LIBRARY
Adjacent Parcel - 41 T4TALAVAILABLE 115 141 PROPERTI' LINE
~ ! . ~ ~ ~ i • : I
RESTRIPING 0/(E) aSPHALT (TYP) TO (E) TREES TO REMAIN RT
DEFINE PNRKING SPACES &VEHICLE ~ ~ ~~i~~~ • ~ ~~9 ~ PARCEL BOUNDARY
~ l 38 39 40 41
CIRCUTATION
PEDESTRIAN O
ADJACEN L
i , ~,R , , ~ ~ T I RY PRRCE
NEW LNNDSCAPING AREA WITHIN LIGHTED PEDESTRIAN
BUILDING FOOTPRINT (SHRUBS,
/ 1, _ _ _ _ - ~ ~ = ~ ~
TURF, & GRASSES W/BERMING) WAYFINDING SIGNpGE
8' WIDE PEDESTRIRN
~
CROSSWALK
\
~ o X, ~ - ; i y
~FOOTPRINT OF (E) UNITED ~ I 26 CONNECTION TD
RENTALS COMMERCIAL 25 RUBURN WAY S
BUILDING (TO BE I 28
33 24
DEMOLISHED)
"N 32 29
36 23
31
35 22
34 30 21
NEW LANDSCRPED AREA
(TREES, SHRUBS, NND
GROUNOCOVER)
07 08 09 10 1 12 1
(E) ASPHRLT PNVING TO REMAIN (TYP)
.,30'-0"O,C, -14 15 16 17 18 19 20
_
04 05 TVP
,
'
-
EXISTING ENTRY SIGN
_ , _ _
- - - - - -
(TO REMAIN)
o - -
60 PARCEL # 192105-9237 & 192105-9122 i ' AUBURN WAY SOUTH
, INFILL (3) El(ISTING DRIVEWAY CURB
CUTS TO IMPROVE SAFETY
\ NEW 7' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON
PARCEL TO INCLUDE TREES AND TURF REMOTE PARKING SCHEME F-A
schachtlaslani
architects NEws'siDEwaLKwiTHiNR.o.w. AUBURN LIBRARYADDITION & RENOVATION
7 FEBRUARY 2011 King County Library System
PCDC 2.14.1I Pa~ts: 2
Item: V.B. Joint Parkinh De%Ahreement & Option to Purchase Submittcd b.%: Hcincman
~
G ---i
~ ~i~i+ ~O~~g9~
r~i,.~'d ~VO ,o yE•~
.1
~ . P
• ~ R
yB
a. .
~ . \ ~~p x ♦
. .
'9 I x `
R
I y~ll ♦
I
a
o ~ ry~ .
Y•. A I I mx B ` .
~
+3
00,
• d., o ~fC
x (46, DEC_ 72~7 72/7 0 /
~ 6
. ~ • A X ~xi o~ 6 GyF~, ~'9
, p N0 . ~ ~ c, I •A, .~,F ~9l0,. 0~ ° ~SF,yy~
`9n ~O y~l a r ~9
a~~~~~ fl .
j' R / ( o oip iy
Sfl i~ /t i~V4'~,p I 0. ~ 1~ '
6 ~9~ • p ° ~ ~ ~p? N / 6
'i.: : - , ~~~i'yo / / • / 30
, W x ~ / ~ / T \
I x ~ } / z / t ~ : s' ° \
. I I I I I I I ~ I I ...a'C~J'e~•:• '
I y 0 . •}4.
i • ~ ~ W ~ + ° 8' ~ ~ ~y ~ o
/
6 t~ . I I ~ Y , J ' / /O
<
C-
'9P
40.58
y}F9'g4° ~ • ' .
e~ 26~ s~yFy99j~
e~',/~
0 9
F~'95~~0 ~ 9 ~ •
.
0
d. ' ~ Gi 65S Q
9l ~ WtY / ~ ~ . . .
\ 1 B.
' ~ ` ~ ~c~. ' ~
` ' ° ~ ~ ~ •~a` ° ~
° oec.
♦ ° De _ 'oJ °s'~` ~ :
I ♦ / e~ r ~~o o ~ \ ~.9~~ ~ ~
y
r^- oeC_ '4?
sf',~'Fyt q,, o'
'~',~4i~~~ a" s• ~ o c 8 ,l ~ ~ / . \ \ \ ~ ~ o
~ , ~ a. . .
PCDC 2.14.11 pgs: 29
Re: V. I. Resolution No.
" 6341, Fee Deferrals
Submitted by: P& D Staff
r 1Y ~Y .
e c
R
E '
I. 1D .
Analysis of Impacts of Moclified Tirniing of School Impact Fee Paym'ents
Submitted to:
Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties
Submitted 6y:
Washington Center for Real Esfate Research
College of Business
Washington State University
PO Box 644844
' . Pullman, WA 99164-4844
509-335-7080,
wcrer@wsu:edu
February 2011
`/`TASI IINGTON $'~'I'E
- - .
~JN~RSTTX
. 411w
Wor1d Class. Face to Face.
Analysu o f Impacts o f Modified T:ming o f School Impact Fee Payments
Introduction
The Washingfon Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER), on behalf of the Master Builders Assodation of
King and Snohomish Counties, has conducted an impartial evaluation of the impact on selected setiool
districts if the collection of impact fees were delayed from the point of issuance of building permits to the
point of sale or oceupancy of the residential units. To complete this evaluation WCRER requested detailed.
- financial infomnation from tliree school districts: Kent, Issaquah and Lake Washington. WCRER requ.ested
any records reflecting the riming of collection and expenditure of impact fees from the last four, fiscal years
. (fiscal years ending in 2007 through2010): Researchers also sought any budgets, fiscal reports, andCapital .
Facilities Plans reflecting the use of impact fees from the designated time period. Kent and Lake Washington
School Districts both required the submission of public records request, prior to providing this information; Issaquah provided the information absent a formal request but the information proyided may be less
accurate and/or official as a result. ~ Authority for the Col9ection of Impact Fees
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides the authoriry for the collection of impact ,
fees in Washington.' The GMA imposes planning requirements on counties (and the cities within them)
meeting size and, population growth thresholds; counties may also opt to plan under the GMA by adopting a
resolution indicating their intenrion to be bound by the GMA reguirements. "Counties; cities, and towns
that are required or choose to plan undei RCW 36J0A.040 are authorized.to impose unpact fees on
development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, provided that the financing for system
improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance lietween impact fees and other sources
of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees."2
Each county and/or city seeking to coliect impact fees, in addition to adopting a local ordinance by which
the iinpact fees are imposed, must adopt a comprehensive plan in,compliance with RCW 36J0A.070.3 .
Collecting jurisdictions must also approve a capital faciliries plan; completed on a yearly basis, which
demonstrates the need for impact fees to addiess increase demands on public facilities caused by new
development and which explains how impact fees will be used to address these increased demands.4
In 2009 section 82.02.070 of the Revised.Code of Washington was amended to extend the time limit for the
expenditure of school iinpact fees from sixyears to ten years. s The amendment requires that the Office of, the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) develop criteria, for extending the use of school impact fees from.
six to ten years. This extension must require an evaluation for eacYi respective school board of the
appropriateness of the extension.b The local ordinances authorizing the collection of impactfees for all
collecting jurisdictions within the ezamined school districts stiIl state that school impaet fees shall be
expended or encumbered by the district for a permissible use within six years of receipt by the collecting
jurisdiction. _
Many collecting jurisdictions require the,payment of fifty percent of an impact fee upon final plat approval :
and the other half when building permits are issued.' If the fee was not paid during platting; the total fee is
generally due upon issuance of the building permit.e Of the ten jurisdictions that rurrently collecf impact
fees on behalf of the three studied school districts, six require.an initial impact fee payment upon plat
approval; King County, and the cities'of Bellewe, Issaquah;, Neweastle, Port Blakely (in Issaquah), and
Sammamish. Two jurisdictions currently collect the entire iinpact fee upon issuance of a building:permit; the
cities of Kent and Renton.' In Covington the collection schedule varies depending on the circumstances
sunounding the plat set-up.10 In 2009, the city of Redmond amended their unpact fee regulations to allow
' Wazh. Rev. Code 36J0A010 - 36.70A.903 (1990).
' Wuh. Rev. Code 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 (2009); specifically § 82.02.050(2).
' id. at § 82.02.050. ,
' Id. at § 52.02.050(4).
5 Id. at § 82.02.070(3). See Extension of Impact fee Expenditure Deadline section for further discussion.
" Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.110 (2009).
' See Bellewe Ciry Code 22.18.050, Issaquah Municipal Code 3.63.700, King Counry Code 21A43:050, Newcastle Municipal Code 16.10.050, and
Sammamish Municipal Code 21A.105.060.
° Id.
° See Kent Municipal Code 12.13.100, and Renton Municipal Code 4.1.160.
'°See Covington City Code 18.120.050.
Washington Center for Real Estate Research l
Analysis of Impacts of Modi fied 7-iming o f School 7mpact Fee Payments ,
fees to be paid af.the time of drywall inspection instead of building permit issuance." The amendment has a
two year sunset date; as of November28, 2011 impact fee payments will again be required uponbuilding.
permit issuance.12
Capital Facilities Plans . ,
"Impact fee(s) shall be based on a capital facilities plandeveloped by the district and approved by tlie school
board, and adopted by reference by the cbunty as part of the capital facilities element of the coinprehensive
plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program." 13 '
~
Each school district that receives impact fees must submit a capital faeilities plan to the collecting -
jurisdictions as well as fo the School Teciinical Review Gommittee creafed pursuant to section 21A.28.154. "
Distrirts are also required to submit the following which are usually incorporated into the capital facilities
plan:
• The district's enrollment projections over the next six years, its current enroIlment and the district's
enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year.
o The district's standard of service. • An inventory and evaluation of district facilities which address the district's standard of service.
• T'he district's overall.capacity over the next six years,~which shall be a funrtion of the distriet's
. standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed in distriet facilities. 'S
Nlanagement of ompact Fees
School districts that receive impact fees are required to dorument the amount of impact fees reeeived, and
the interest eamed from the fees; as well as the ultimate expenditure of -the fees,16 "If an impact fee ordinance
has been adopted on behalf of a school district, the district shall also submit an annual report to the City
showing the capital improvements which were financed in whole or in part by the impact fees." :
Additional accounting requirements state that "[i]mpact:fee receipts shall be earmazked specifically and
_ retained in- special interest-bearing accounts... All interest sliall be retained in tlie aecount and expended for
the purpose or purposes forwhich the impact fees were imposed..." "
Information Provided
Ralph Fortunato, the Financial Project Accountant for Kent School District,. who is in charge of Capital
Projects financial monitoring, requested that WCRE,R'submit a formal public records request before he could
provide specific information on impact fees. In response to 4VCRER's formal request,. Mr: Fortunato provided
financial records reflecting the monthly receipt of impact fees from each collecting jurisdiction, specific
information on the timing of expenditure of impact fees, as well as budget information hom the specified
time period. In addition to the information provided by Mr. Fortunato, WCRER also obtained ttie last five
Capital Facilities Plans produced by.the school district (2006 through 2010) as well'as the Budgets and
Annual Financial Reports provided to the OSPI. '
Martin Turrmey, Director of Finance for Issaquah School District, agmed to provide information without
requiruig a formal public iecords request. However, the information he pro.vided seems less specific and/or
official. He provided information on the annual receipt of impact fees as well as the annual spending of
impact fees. He also provided information on the total costs of individual capital projects completed in the
" Redmond Communiry Development Guide 20D.60J 0-030; Redmond, WA, Ordinance No. 2501. (2009). 5ee Delayed Collection of Impact.Fees by the
Ciry of Redmond section of this paper for further discussion.
"Id.
„ Id. at § 21 A.43.020.
Id. at§21A.28.152.
" King County Cade § 21 A28.152
16 Covington Municipal Code §18.75.110
" Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(1). See also CMC §18J5.110; "Impact fee receipu shall be eartnarked specifically and reWined in a special interest-bearing
account established by the Gry wlely for the districYs school impact fees. NI interest shall be retained in the account and-expended for the purpose or
purposes identified in subsection (2) of this section." See also KCC § 21 A43.090.
2 Washington State University
- Analysis o f Impacts o f Modi fied rming o f School Impad Fee Payments
last four years. WCRER also obtained the last five Capital Facilities Plans produced by the school district
(2006 through 2010). ,
Lynne Pyke, Budget Manager for Lake Washington School District, requested a formal public records request
and referred the request to. Kathryn M. Reith, D'uector of Communications for the distrid. In response to its
. request WCRER received spreadsheets reflecting the monthly ¢ollection of unpact fees from 2007.to p;esent
and the annual collection for the years prior to 2007 as well as basic expenditure information. WCRER also
received the last five Capital Facilities Plans'produced by the school district (2006 through 2010) as well as
the Capital Projects Fund Budget Summary from the last five yeais.1e To supplement the information provided in response to the reguests of each school district, WCRER also
obtained the Budgets and Annual Financial Reports provided by each district to the OSPI from the last four
years.. .
CompYiance with. Ptegulations
T'he autYioriry for collection of impacfi fees was granted to counties and cities along with strict requirements for the management and use of impact fees. Based on the information received from these three school
districts, it appears that the school districts do complywith these regulations to the extenf'that th,ey submit
annual Capital Facilities Plans; maintain records of the fees and submit the mandatory reports to the
collecting jurisdietions regarding the use of fees.19 However, it seems that the detail and precision in these
reports does not always reach the level orie_ would expect after reviewing the regulations. Throughout ttie
process of reviewing the documents provided, WCRER discovered inconsistencies in numbers reported as well
as some missing detaiT regarding the experiditure of impact fees. It seems thaf while the districts do see _
impact fees as very important in providing the necessary school facilities; management of the fees which
equal a relatively small percentage of the overall capital projects:budget, is not a priority focus.
Irnpact Fee Collection and Expenditure
The following section outlines the proeesses for collection and e,zpenditure of impact fees, as well as the
amount of impact fees collected: and expended by each district: The process for receiving fees from each
collecting jurisdiction is similar among the districts. The process and_timing of the expenditure of impact
fees, however, is quite different in each jurisdiction.
Kent School District
Impact Fees are collected on behalf of Kent
School District by King County, the ciry of Kent, Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures
and the city of Covington. The fees are held by Kent School Distritt
the colle¢ting jurisdiction until the end bf the Recei ts Interest Ex enditures
month at which time they aze transferred to an interest bearing holding account maintained.by FY 06-07 82,619;7 38 82-, _$309,76636 ,_51;3.57;424:78
King County. King Gounty maintains the fees in FY 07-08 52,5411024 61 $144,743.61 $3,864,358.89
these accounts (separated by collecting FY 08-09 E1;053,418 62: E(72,032:6~•. ES;123;914:55.'
jurisdicrion) until the District has an expense FY 09-10 $1,466,308.62 $34,444.87 5219,775.80
for which it plans to use the fees. The district $7,679,890.67 $416,922.17 $10,565,474.02
•In 2008, q numtier of King County's investmenu losf va/ue, the rnunty spread
does not recognize the impact fees as revenue these losses over nl/ school districcs in the county,~ the negative interest numbers
until they are transferred out of the holding refled this oction.
accounts for expenditure, they do however keep
an accounting of the timing of receipt and
expenditure of impact fees. Kent School District has been receiving iinpact fees from King County since 1993, from the city of Kent since
1996, and from the city of Covington since 1999. In the fiscal years 2006-2007 through 2009-2010 Kent ,
School District received a total of.$7,679,890.67 in impact fees, has collected $416,922.17 in interest and has
WCRER also received balance sheets from the Lake VVashington School District accounts at,King County which were indecipherable.
19It is worth noting that WCRER submitted fomial request for`copies of the required jurisdictional neports from both Kent and Lake Washington School
Districts; while both districtr provided some of this infortnation, Kent only provided one report percoliec[ing jurisdiction (from inconsistent time periods).
take Washington did provide severel of these reports but was also unable to locate several of them. Washington Center for Real Estate Research 3
Analysis o f Impads o f Modified Timing of School Impact Fee Payments • ,
spent a total of $10,565,474.02 in impact fees. As of early October 2010, Kent reported an impact fee balance
of $.1,681,354.40.
Of the districts contacted, Kent provided the most detailed information on impact fee collection and
expenditure. The district provided WCRER spreadsheets that reflect the monthly receipt of impact, fees and
the monthly accrual of interest, as well as the actual spending of iinpact fees, or, rather, the date the, fees were
requested hom King County by the district'for expenditure.
' Kent School District Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-By Collecting Jurisdiction _
It would appeaz from an examination of the monthly collection and spending segregated by the collecting
jurisdictions that the spending of impact fees by Kent-School District is somewhat sporadic.?A Of the fees
collected and spent within King Gounty between the 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 fiscal years, the majority of
spending occurred betweenJuly 2007 and Apri12008. The district did not spend any King County impact
fees between Febntary 2009 and August 2010. Impact fees collected by the city of Kent were spent in spurts
with as long as nine.months between expenditures. The district only made one withdrawal of impact fees
from the city of Covington account during the foui years examined (in Apri12009; $526,400.00).
It is also appazent from this detailed information that Kent allows unpact fees to accumulate before the.
district focuses the'ir expenditure on a chosen projert. Most of the expenditures in a given year are forused on
one or two projects. For example, in the 2006-2007 fiseal year Kent spent a total of $221,783.67 in impact
fees collected by the city of Kent on two projects; $103,492.74 on the Meadow Ridge Portable, and
$118,290.93 on the.Neely-0'Brien portab1e.21 In the 2007-2008 fiscal year, all but $100,000 of ttie impact fees
expended by the district (those collected by the ciry of Kent as well as King County) were spent on the
Kentlake Gym and Classroom Addition.
As of early October ZO10, Kent School District reported an impact fee balance of 1,681,354.40; ttiis amount is
equal to more than the annual receipts for each of the last two years; azguably this balance would provide
Kent with a buffer in the event the collection of:impact fees is delayed.
Because the spending of impact fees in the Kent School District does not occur on a regular basis, with delays
in spending of up to six months; a six month delay in the collection of impact fees might have very iittle
effect on the spendirig practices of the school district. A delay of nine months or 12 months might fiave
more of an impact. However, the district did not make a withdrawal from the Covington accbunt for several
years, and in other jurisdictional accounts there were periods of more than ten months between withdrawals;
a delay of nine or 12 months might not have any significant impact on spending practices.
issaquah School District ,
Along with King County, the following cities collect impact fees on behalf of Issaquah School District:
Bellewe, Issaquah, Newcastle, Port Blakely, Renton and Sammamish. King County acts as Treasurer for :
Issaquah School Disfiict and therefore any impact fees collected by the County aze traiisfened directly into
the Capital ProjectsFund. The other collecting jurisdictions typically hold the money in a trusfi for a few days
before transferring it electronically to the district's accounts at the Counry: The District's Finaneial D'uector
(Martin Tumey), asserts that Issaquah School District uses impact fees almost as soon as they are received. The district usually has severaTongoing projects for which they have.existing/outstanding balances. ~
Whatever amount the district receives in impart fees is promptly applied toward whatever vendor payment is
due at the time the fees are received; the rest of the vendor payment is fulfilled with tax money, bond
money, etc..
Mr. Turney provided WCRER detailed information on collection and expenditure of fees collected by.King
County. He also provided information on the yearly collection and spending of fees from.the remaining
jurisdictions. He originally provided the information on the yearly collection.and spending by the remaining
jurisdictions by the calendar year. Upon request, he also provided this informat'ion in a fiscal year form.
Apparently providing the numbers in calendar year format had actually required a conversion of the :
numbers normally dociunented by fiscal year. Mr. Tumey kindly made this conversion under the
misassumption that the calendaz year numbers were prefened.
30 Please see Appendix A for monthly receipu and expenditure of impact fees.
" See the Capital Projectr section of this paper for an analysis of the percentage of total project expenditures funded by impact fees.
4 Washington State University
Analysis of Impacts of Modi fied Timing o f School Impact Fee Aayments
The fiscal year collection numbers showed an
increase in impact fee collections by the city of Annual Impact Fee Collection
Bellevue during the 2008-2009 fiscal year. This and Expenditures*- Issaquah School District
perplexing spike in impact fee collection All urisdictions-6 Calendar Year
prompted uncertainty about the accuracy of the
numbers. A comparison of the calendaz year and RecdOts dtt°res
fiscal year figures revealed inconsistencies between CY 2006 $3,005,554.00 $3 005 554.00
the numbers provided. Mr. Tumey concluded that CY 2007 81 915,195.00 E1,915,195.00
an error had occurred in the process of converting n' 2008 81,238,942.00 $1,238,942.00
the numbers from the fiscal year to the calendar CY 2009 E756 904.00 f756,904.00
year form. He provided conected calendaz year $6,916,595.00 $6,916,595.00
numbers and offered assurance that the fiscal ear `fnformation from annual coflection/expenditures tables provided by the
~ y Issaquah Schoo/ District - see discussion of impad fees mlleded by King
numbers were correct. Upon comparison of these Counry for mmporison with detailed report
new numbers, however, the difference between
the calendar and fiscal yeazs were in fact greater than before. However, the new calendar year numbers were
more consistent with expectations based on real estate market trends; reflecting a general decrease in the
collection of impact fees. The calendar year numbers have therefore been used for purposes of this analysis.
Please see Appendix B for the fiscal year numbers.
According to the Distrirt's Financial Director, the district does not maintain records of interest collected from
impact fees because the fees are spent before they can accrue significant interest. For the calendar yeazs 2006-
2007 through 2009-2010 Issaquah School District reported the receipt of a total of $6,916,595.00 in impact
fees and spent a total of $6,916,595.00, resulting in a remaining balance of zero dollars ($0.00) in impact
fees.
Issaquah School District Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-by Collecting Jurisdiction
Kirig Courity
While Mr. Tumey claims that the district spends impact fees as soon as they are received, it appears that
occasionally a month or two passes between receipt and expenditure of the fees. The table below reflects this
slight delay. However, it appears that the district does spend impact fees shortly after receipt. Please see
Appendix C for detailed information on Issaquah
School District's collection and expenditure of Annual Impact Fees Collected by King County
impact fees collected by King County. from Detailed Re ort From CY Table
The numbers in the annual collection/expenditure Collection/
tables provided by the district and the numbers in CoRect1on Expenditure Ex enditure
the detailed spreadsheet on the use of impact fees CY 2006 $616,200.71 $616,200.71 $613,565.00
collected by King County reflect a difference of ~~7 $646,961.15 $619,283.77 E510,873.00
$139,719.05 in the four year totals which suggests CY 2008 8300,796.90 $326,066.92 E299,853.00
that the tables provided by Martin Tumey may CY 2009 $72,266.29 $74,673.65 872,215.00
not be predse. $1,636,225.05 $1,636,225.05 $1,496,506.00
Other Collecting Jurisdictions
Because the numbers provided by Mr. Tumey for impact fee collection and spending in all other collecting
jurisdictions were the same, the numbers below represent both collection and expenditure.
Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures-By Calendar Year
Bellewe Issa uah New Castle Port Blake Rerrton Sammamish Total
CY 06 $141,171.00 8372,344.00 E490,358.00 S686,282.00 E245,272.00 E456,562.00 $2,391,989.00
CY 07 $29,601.00 $297,178.00 $228,031.00 $261,222.00 $313,295.00 $274,995.00 $1,404,322.00
CY OS E84,294.00 E290,667.00 E41,610.00 843,964.00 E119,537.00 E359,017.00 $939,089.00
CY 09 $177,929.00 $46,761.00 86,136.00 $47,818.00 $28,501.00 $377,544.00 $684,689.00
CY Total $432,995.00 $1,006,950.00 $766,135.00 $1,039,286.00 $706,605.00 $1,468,118.00
a Mr. Tumey attributed the increaze in Bellewe impact fees to a planned development for which a large number of building pertnits were obtained.
WasMington Center for Real Estate Research 5
Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timlng of School Impcut Fee Payments .
Beeause the monthly collection and spending numbers reflected in the detailed King County report did not
match exactly, the fact that the numbers from other collecring jurisdictioris do match exactly may indicate
that this information is overly general. However, as with those fees collected by King County, it is apparent
that the school district does spend these fees shortly after their collection.
Lake Washington School District ' .
According to Lynne Pyke,.impact fees aze collected on behalf of Lake Washington School District by King
County, the ciry of Redmond, and the city of Saznmamish. Impact fees collected by Sammamish and
Redmond are held by the individual jurisdictions until the end of the collecting month at which time the
jurisdictions send a check to the school district which is deposited into the interest bearing accounts
maintained by the school district. Impaet fees collected by King Counry are. held in interest bearing accounts
maintained by King County until the district has a use for: fhem.
According to' Lynne Pyke, before the district undertakes a capital projectbudget they determine'the amount
of impact fees available to fund capital projects. The projects are then fr ont-funded with bond money: At the .
completion of the project the district transfers the budgeted.funds from the imgact fee account to reimburse
bonds that were spent. This "joumal entry process" simplifies the necessary repqrting of impact fee usage by
reducing the number of required entries; rather than transferring small amounts on a monthly basis they
only have to transfer one lump sum. The reports provided to WCRER by the district depirt this transfer of
fees by providing the date the fees were "reclassed.",
Perhaps because of ttiis simplified process, the reports Annuaf Impact Fee Collection :
provided by the district reflect very general information and Ezpenditures
on the expenditure of impact fees. While the information Lake Washin ton School:District -
provided technically answered the request for
information on the spending of impact fees, some of the ~~~~'a`tures :
2006 CY $626,173.80 $5,085,624.48
information was not tied to a specific yeaz and/or was 2007 Cy ;.g542,81&26 ..82;69.1;650:48:
somewhat ambiguous.2' The district also provided some 2008 CY $464,924.25 ' $343,033.35
of the reports the district is,required to file with the 2009 CY 81_80 T59:21 :"8235 481'.61',
collecting jurisdictions reporting the annual expenditure g1,814,070.52 $8;355;789.92
of impact fees, but several of these reports were •For purpases of tracking unriual spendin~ the expenditure
unavailable. amr'bured co'200612007' was divided equally between the hvo
yean.
Lake Washington School Districfi has received unpaet fees
through King County since 1993, from the city of Sammamish since 1999, and from the city of Redmond
since 2006. For calendar years 2006 through 2010 Lake Washington School District. has received a total of
$1,814;070.52 in impact fees, and has spent a total of $8;355;789.92. At the end of August 2010, the Ending
Fund Balance from all three collecring jurisdictions was $566,964.73. 'Lake Washington School Distrid.lmpact Fee Colledion Annual ImpaCt Fee Collection
and Ezpenditure-by Collecting Jurisdiction
and Expenditures.
tc;iig cou,tty Impact Fees Collected by King County
As of August 2010,. the ending fund balance for impact Total IF Revenue' Ex enditures
fees collected by King County was $87,845.63. This
amount is considerably less than the amount of fees 2006 CY $406,167.14 ~ - collected in 2006 through 2008, more than the amount 2007 CY $225,583.83 $5,383,300 95;
collected in 2009 and almost equal to amount collected 2008 CY S] 2b,779.67 so faz in 2010: 2009 CY $54,034.40 ~$81 365:04:.~;, 7
$S'383-300.95.
The 2008 ezpenditures on the:reporh provided to WCRER 2010 CY** 884,944.68 . $437 640.83
($1,986,617:21) did not match the amount reported to $2,884,126.93 $5,820,941J8
King County as part of. the District's annual reporting •King County tracks tKe interest but the dutrid only receives a
requirement ($829,445.62). After WCRER discussed the reponofrherorairevenue.
••Numbers for the 2010 Ca/endar year on/y represent fees
discrepancy with John Love, the Capital Projects Fund collected through August 2010.
Analyst for Lake Washington Sehool District, Mr. Love
"One of the incidenu where funds were "reclassed" was attributed to a two year period (2006l2007); another reclassification occurred over "various" time
I periods. .
6 Washington Stafe University
Analysis o f Impacts o f Modi fied Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments
. reported that an accounting error was responsible for the discrepancy. The $1,986,617.21 on the report
' proyided to WCRER was the correct amount. Mr. Love explained that this enor was not critical because
providing the reports to the collecting jurisdictions is merely a formaliry and does not have any effect on the
actual transfer of funds.
- Because this high amount of impact fees seemed excessive for colle¢tion in 2008, when one would expect a
deerease in the collection of impact fees, WCRER sought additional explanation from Lynne Pyke, Budget
Manager for the district. Ms..Pyke explained that the
$1,986,617.21 actually represented the value..of land Annual Impaet Fee Expenditure-From
provided to the school district by a contiactor in lieu of Report PrOVided to King County
impact fee payments for a.new development: Because this
niimber does not actually represent the receipt or Ex enditures
expenditure of impact fees, the numbei has been excluded 2006 CY ~iiiiavailabie
from both values for purposes of this evaluation. Because 2007 Cy Re ort unavailable `
John Love reported that the $829;445.62 ezpenditure 2008 CY E829,445:62.
reported to the district was the result of.an accounting error 2009 CY $430,738.86 .
and the number does not factor into the balance sheet $1,260,184.48
.
provided to WCRER by the district, this number has also
been excluded hom this evaluation.
After several discussions with John'Love and Lynne Pyke of LWSD who could not provide much clarity as to
why the numbers in the report provided to WCRER did not match the numbers reported to the collecting
jurisdictions; it became apparent that the documentation of impact fee expenditure is not exactly at the top
of the Lake Washington Scfiool District Budget Office list of priorities.
City of SammamislT
At the end of August 2010, the ending
fund balance of the city of Sammamish Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures .
impact fee account was $176,232.00. This Impact Fees Collected by the City of Sammam.ish
number surpasses the amount of impact -
fees collected in 07-09 but is close to the Recei ts : Interest Total Revenue __..Eic enditures*
amount collected so far this yeaz. However, 2006 CY S118,50830~:_81,498:T6.' -:,822D;OU6.66;~-82;393,974:00=
it appears that as ofDecember 2009 the 2007 CY 5107,788.00 $8,122.11 $115,910.11
district had committed all impact fees 2008 CY :8124;877:50 ' 53,029:51 ~ 8127;907:01' - 8343033:35
collected up to that.point; the ending 2009 CY $32,988J8 $28,974.11 8611972:89: _
balance reflects. only the impact fees -5484;162_78 •:::.541,623:89_ _$525-796:67" : 4Z`737,007:35 '
collected in 2010.
2010 CY* ~78:: . 8506:00 . 8176;232:00 ' : ~;867,697:82
The report provided by ttie district.on the $659,889.56 542,129:89 $702,028.67 52,804,705.171
SPfS1d1IIg Of lII1P8Ct fE25 CO11eCt2d by t$e 'Numbers for the 2010 Co/endar yeor on/y represent fees colleded through August
city of Sammamish was somewhat zoio.
ambiguous as to the date of expenditure of
some impact fees. The amount attributed to 2006 expenditure in the accompanying table was listed under
"various" for the reclassed (expenditure) date in the report provided by the district. Because this amount was
listed as an anticipated expenditure in the Capital Facilities Plan prepared in June 2006 and the same amount
was listed as expended prior to August 31, 2006 in the Capital Projects Budget, assuming the reports were
conect, WCRER determined thaf this money was spent between June 26, 2006 and August 31, 2006: The
amount attributed to the 2010 expenditure within the accompanying table was listed by the district as spent
on the Carson Portables without a date of expenditure. Wtiile the Garson Portables were eompleted in-fall
2008, for purpose of this analysis, this amount was listed under 2010 expenditures because the impaet fees
necessary for this expenditure had nof been collected untiT December 2009.
The school district was unable to provide any copies of the annual spending reports the district was required
to submit to the city of Sammamish. WCRER did not endeavor to obtain the reports directly from the city.
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 7
Analysfs of Impacts of Modi fied Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments ' City of Rednrond
At the end of August 2010 the ending fund Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures
balance for impact fees colleded by the city of Impact Fees Collected by the City of Redmond
Redmond was $302,887.10; which is more than
has been collected on behalf of the district in Recei ts Interest Total Revenue Ex enditures
any single year. 2006 CY - - -
2007 CY $197,260.00 $4,064.32 $201 32432
The report provided to WCRER reflecting the 2008 CY E208 025.94 $2 211.63 8210 237.57 -
' receipt and expenditure of impact fees collected 2009 CY $57,521.54 86,625.38 864,146.92 8235,481.61
by the aty of Redmond only reflected the $462,807.48 $1Z901.33 E47 708.81 $247,570.79
reclassification of fees on two occasions;
$73,739.31 on Einstein Elementary, and 2010 CY 572,753.22 E1 995.86 E74 749.08 ?
$173,831.48 on Redmond Elementary, for a $535,560.70 $14,897.19 $550,457.89 $247,570.79
total Of $247,570.79. The report did not reflect 'Numbers for the 2010 Ca/endar year only represent fees co!lected through
the date the funds were reclassed. The district's Augusrzoto.
only report to the city of Redmond which
reflected the expenditure of impact fees stated that $235,481.61
was spent in 2009. Assuming the rivo reports refer to the same qnnual Impact Fees-From Report
expenditures, it is not clear why these numbers do not match. provided to City of RedmOnd
Neither John Love nor Lynne Pyke could explain the difference.
It appeazs from the vagueness of the records provided that the Collection/Ex enditure
2006 n,
district's record keeping process for impact fees is not 2007 CY Report Unavailable
particularly precise. Also, they appazently do not maintain a 2008 CY -
detailed record of impact fee spending reports as several were 2009 CY $235,481.61
missing from their response to the public records request. $235,481.61
Considering the lack of detailed information provided in
response to a very detailed records request one might assume 2010 CY ?
that impact fees are afforded little attention within the financial $235,481.61
offices of the district; erhaps a delay in collection would not
warrant much notice. "
As previously stated, Lake Washington School District front funds capital projects with bond proceeds and
waits to apply impact fees until a project is completed; at which time they reimburse the bond fund with the
budgeted impact fees. This may indicate some flexibility on the district's part as to when they need access to
impart fees. Because they have access to enough bond money to front-fund capital projects for
reimbursement at a later date it may not be much of a hardship if that reimbursement were delayed;
especially if, as Mr. Love indicated, the transfer of impact fees (from King County at least) is already a slow
unpredictable process.
Capital Projects Fund .
Per the OSPI Accounting Manual for Public School Districts, impact fees are reflected within the Capital Projects
Fund.u The Capital Projects Fund provides "finanrial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction
of major capital facilities."26 "The Capital Projects Fund can be used for the acquisition of land or existing
facilities, construction of buildings, purchase of equipment, conducting energy audits, making capital
improvements, which are cost effective as determined by energy audits, and implementing technology
systems.j27 The Capital Projects Fund is generally financed from the proceeds of the sale of bonds, state
matching revenues and special levies (impact fees make up a very minor portion of the fund revenues).
Developer Impact/Mitigation fees are restricted to growth projects specified in the Capital Facilities Plan.
"However, it is likely the district maintains records with more specific information about impact fee spending and they decided not to provide WCRER with
tha infortnation.
0 School Apportionment and Financial Services, State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, The Accounting Manual for Public School
Districts in the State of Wazhington, 9-17. (2009).
"Neither The Accounting Manual for Public School Districts in the State of Washington nor the Administrative Budgeting and Financial Reporting Handbook
available through the OSPI website appear to provide a specific definition of a"major capital facility."
"The Accounting Manual for Public School Districts in the State of Washington, at 9-16.
8 Washington State Univenity
Analysis of Impacts o f Modi fied Timing o f School Impact Fee Puyments
Impact fees, under the Growth Management Act, are also restricted to spe cif'ic schools impacted by the
development.23
WCRER obtained information on the capital project revenues and expenditures of each of the three districts
. through the Annual Financial Statements (AFS) available on the OSPI website." These statements present the
annual revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for each fund as well as a compazison of the
budgeted expenditures and actual expenditures by each district. WCRER extracted numbers hom the Capital
Projects Fund section of these statements for comparison with the impact fee collection and expenditure
numbers provided by the school districts. The tables below reflect the actual expenditure numbers for each of
the last four years as well as the budgeted numbers for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.30 ,
Kent School District
In 2006 the distrirt received voter approval for a$106 million bond issue; the district's annual use of bonds is
reflected in the accompanying table under the "Total Other Financing Sources" heading: " Impact fees aze
included under the "Total Revenues" heading in the accompanying table. At the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal
year the district reported a Capital Projects Fund ending total fund balance of $26,713,159.87. The impact
fees collected on behalf of Kent School District in 2009-2010 aze equal to 5.49 percent of this ending fund
balance. The impact fees expended in the 2009-2010 fiscal yeaz are equal to 0.82 percent of this ending fund
balance. The total Capital Projects Fund expenditures in the 2009-2010 fiscal year are equal to 50.19 percent
of this ending fund balance.
Kent School District Capital Projects Revenues and Expenditures-As Reported to OSPI
fY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 (Bud et) FY 09-10
Total Revenues axes, IFs, Etc.) E8,129,067.70 E11,124,669.62 E74,837,249.20 $6,656,599.00 $11,861,358.41
Total Other Flnancin Sources Bonds 835,076,749.95 $16,826,004.45 $24,877,920.27 $15,000,000.00 $(223,638Z9)
Total Revenues & Other Financin Sources* E43,328,014.65 $28,063,627.82 $40,037,441.80 $21,656,599.00 E11,861,358.41
Sites/Buildin Ca ital0uda 819,171,480.93 $25,672,86432 $32,920,964.94 $32,452,356.00 $10,076,304.05
Total Ex enditures E25,271,295.96 833,048,177.50 E38,557,378.64 840,401,754.00 $13,406,650.00
•Thue numbers were direcNy transcribed from the line in the Mnual Financial Statement entitled °Totai Revenues and Other Financing Sources. " It is unc/ear why
these numbers do not consistently equal the sum of the numbers rn the "Tota/ Revenues" and the "Totai Other Financing Sources" fines.
WCRER compazed the informarion provided by the school district regazding the amount of impact fees
collected and expended annually with the Capital Projects Fund numbers reported to the OSPI.
Kent School District Percentage of Revenues and Expenditures Comprised of Impact Fees
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10
(Bud et Four Years
Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised of 32.229f, 22.8456 7.10% 22.03% 12.3696 16.7196
Im act Fee Recei ts
Percentage of Total Revenues & Other Financing 6.04% 9.05% 2.63% 6.77o/0 1236% 613%
Sources Com rised of Im act Fee Recei ts
Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised of 5.3796 11.69% 13.29% 0.54% 1.6446 93896
Im act Fee Ex enditures
' these figures ore colculoted assuming agreement between the figures provided to WCRER by Kent Schoo/ District ond those figures provided ro the
OSPI
The percentage of total expenditures comprised of impact fees has varied over the past four years, but was at
its lowest in the 2009-2010 fiscal yeaz when the district had budgeted spending $40,401,754.00 from the
capital projects fund but instead spent only $13,406,650.00. The sum of impact fees collected over the four
year period is equal to 6.23 percent of the sum of the four `Total Revenues St Other Financing Sources'
numbers from the same period. The sum of impact fee expenditures over the four years was equal to 9.58
percent of the sum of the `Total Fxpenditure' numbers.
The Accounting Manual for Public School DisVicts in the State of Washington, at 9-17.
http://www.kl2.wa.us/safs/reports.asp
10 The 2009-2010 Annual Financial Statements were published on the OSPI website on December 8, 2010.
" Kent School DisVict CapiWl facilities Plan (2009).
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 9
Analysis o f Impacts o f Modi fied Timing o f School Impad Fee Payments ' •
Issaquah School District
In 2006 voters passed a$241.87 million bond in February 2006 to fund new construction and school
expansion. The district's annual use of bonds is reflected in the accompanying table under the "Total Other
Financing Sources" heading.'2 Impact fees are included under the "Total Revenues" heading in the
accompanying table. At the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the district reported a Capital Projects Fund
ending total fund balance of $96,052,503.40. The impact fees collected and expended in the 2009 calendar
yeaz aze equal to 0.79 percent of this ending fund balance. The Total Capital Projects Fund Expenditures in
the 2009 calendar year aze equal to 98.67 percent of this ending fund balance.
Issaquah School District Capital Projects Revenues and Expenditures-As Reported to OSPI
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Bud et FY 09-10
Total Revenues axes, IFs, Etc. 88,650,669.11 $8,762,494.21 $10,088,378.18 $9,136,518.00 $14,806,665.02
Total Other Financin Sources (Bonds $75,083,375.00 860,181,050.25 830,205,525.00 $29,870,000.00 $30,113,018.10
Total Revenues & Other Finandn Sources' $83,734,044.11 E68,943,544.46 840,293,903.18 $39,006,518.00 E44,919,683.12
Sites/Buildin Ca italOutla $7,874,354.68 $11,730,606.81 $54,928,739.30 $121,550,000.00 $83,902,645.73
Total Ex enditures $13,256,40332 E13,808,063.77 E58,918,578.82 $138,200,000.00 $94,772,188.84
'These numben were direcUy uansaibed from the line in the Annua/ Financia! Statement eniiUed "Total Revenues and Other Finandng Sources. "/n the smtements
provided by issaquah School D'atrict these numbers ,d4 consistently equol the sum of the numbers in the "Total Revenues" and the "Total Other Finandng Sources"
lines.
WCRER compazed the information provided by the school district regazding the amount of impact fees
collected and expended annually with the Capital Projects Fund numbers reported to the OSPI.
Issaquah School District Percentage of Revenues and
Expenditures Comprised of Impact Fees
FY 06-07 FY 67-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Fy 09-10 Four Years
Bud et
Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised 347496 21.8696 12.2846 8.28% 5.11 % 16.35%
of Im att Fee Recei ts
Percentage of Total Revenues & Other
Financing Sources Comprised of Impact 3.59% 2.78% 3.07% 1.94% 1.69% 2.91 %
Fee Recei ts
Percentage of Total Expenditures u 674b 12.12% 21096 0.55% 0.80% 3.784b
Com rised of Im ad Fee Ex enditures
•This Tab/e reflecGS a Comparison of Revenues ond Toto/ ExpendiWres during Fiscal Year with Receipts and Expenditure of Impact Fees from Colendof
Years
' These figures are caiculated assuming agreement between the figures provided to WCRER by lssaquah Schoo/ Datrict and those figures pravided to the
OSPI
The percentage of total expenditures comprised of unpact fees decreased consistently over the past four years,
but was at its lowest in the 2009-2010 fiscal year when the district actually spent the most on capital projects
in the subject four year period. The sum of impact fees collected over the four year period is equal to
2.91percent of the sum of the four'Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources' numbers from the same
period.l'he sum of impact fee expenditures over the four years was equal to 3.78 percent of the sum of the
`Total Expenditure' numbers.
Lake Washington School District
In 2006 voters approved a bond issue to fund the modemi2ation of 10 schools throughout the school
district.33 In February 2010, voters rejected a$234 million bond issue. The district's annual use of bonds is
reflected in the accompanying table under the "Total Other Finandng Sources" heading. Impact fees aze
included under the "Total Revenues" heading in the accompanying table.
Issaquah Sthool DisUict, 2009 Capital Facilities Pian.
2009 Lake Washington School DisUict Capital FaciliUes Plan
10 Washington State University
Analysis o f Impacts o f Modi fled Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments
At the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the district reported a Capital Proj ects Fund ending total fund
balance of $183,995,410.03. The impact fees collected on behalf of Lake Washington School District in 2009-
2010 aze equal to 0.10 percent of this ending fund balance. The impact fees expended in the 2009-2010 fiscal
yeaz aze equal to 0.13 percent of this ending fund balance. The total Capital Projerts Fund expenditures in
the 2009-2010 fiscal year are equal to 37.33 percent of this ending fund balance.
Lake Washington School District Capital Projects Revenues
and Expenditures-As Reported to OSPI
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 (Bud et) Fl' 09-10
Total Revenues axes, IFs, Etc. E24,201,077.92 520,744,65838 819,769,260.73 $20,941,120.00 $19,045,152.32
Total Other Financin Sources Bonds 881,159,325.01 $81,378,883.71 $76,639,564.61 $100,000,000.00 $40,204,378.95
Tota1 Revenues & Other Finanan Sources' 8105,360,929.95 E102,123,542.09 E100,425,350.73 8120,941,120.00 E59,279,648Z7
Sites/Bufldin Ca ital0utla 818,929,248.04 $36,020,112.49 $46,950,192.82 $83,635,039.00 857,051,35139
Total Ex enditures 827,410,374.51 $44,856,871.25 857,923,703.73 $95,670,433.00 E68,679,641.78
'Thae num6en were directly transcribed from the line in the Annua/ finoncial Statement entitfed "Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources. " It is undear why these
numbers do not consistently equol the sum of the numbers in ihe "Total Revenues" and the "Total Other Financing Sources" lines.
WCRER compared the information provided by the school district regarding the amount of impact fees
collected and expended annually with the Capital Projects Fund numbers reported to the OSPI.
Lake Washington School District -Percentage of Revenues
and Expenditures Comprised of Impact Fees
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Fy 09-10 Four Years
Bud et
Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised of Impact Fee 259% 2.6296 2.3596 0.86% 0.9546 2.17%
Recei ts
Percentage of Total Revenues & Other Financing 0.59% 0.53% 0.46°rb 0.15% 03055 0.49%
Sources Com rised of Im act Fee Recei ts
Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised 1 g,5596 6.0096 0.59°% 0.25% 034% 4.20%
of Im act Fee Ex nditures
'This Table reflects a Comparison of Revenues ond Total Expenditures during Fisca/ Year with Receipu and Expenditure of Impact Fees from Colendor Vears
••Expenditure amounu from 1006 dr 2007 refled equal divaion of amount provided by d'utrid as redassed in 200612007.
• These rigures are ca/cu/ated ossuming agreement between the figures provided to WCRER by Loke Washington Schoo/ Distrid and those figures provided to
the OSPI The percentage of total expenditures comprised of impact fees has significantly decreased over the past four
yeazs and was at its lowest in the 2009-2010 fiscal year when the district actually spent the most on capital
projects in the subject four yeaz period: The sum of impact fees collected over the four year period is equal to
0.49percent of the sum of the four `Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources' numbers from the same
period. The sum of impact fee expenditures over the four years was equal to 4.20 percent of the sum of the
`Total Fxpenditure' numbers.
Capital Projects
"Impact fees for the district's system improvements shall be expended by the district for capital
improvements including but not limited to school planning, land acquisition, site improvements, necessary
off-site improvements, construction, engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative
expenses, relocatable facilities, capital equipment pertaining to educational facilities, and any other e7 enses
which could be capitalized, and which are consistent with the school district's capital facilities plan."
Districts are required to develop Capital Facilities Plans which reflect the district's enrollment and capacity
projections over the next six years, an evaluation of existing facilities, and the district's plans to increase
capacity over the next six yeazs. The collection and spending of impact fees is to be based on these plans.
Impact fees may only be spent to increase capaaty of schools. It is apparent from the impact fee spending
information provided the districts studied, as well as the information presented in the district's capital
" Covington Municipal Code § 18.1 Z0.090(2)
Washington Center for Real Estote Research 17
Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments •
I facilities plans that impact fee spending is generally focused on large scale capacity projects such as the
pureHase/construction of relocatable classrooms, funding additions to schools and the construction/
ieplacement ofschools.
It takes approximately three months to move a relocatable classroom (from the point when the permit for
the move is obtained until the point when the district has completed the electrical hookup). The process fbr
obtaining a new relocatable (which the d'istrict has nof done in a.few years) takes approximately two to three
months. The construction of a new school takes approximately two and one-half years (from design to
completion).'s
Kent School District
WCRER was able to sort the detailed expenditure "reports provided by Kent School District by the capital project on which the impact fees were spent: WCRER compared the project-specific expenditures with the
total cost of the capital project (as anticipated in the Capital Facilities Plan published just before the date of
expenditure). - ,
' Kent Projects Funded in-part by lmpact Fees
% Funded Date of
IF ConVibutlon Total Lost• b IFs Ex enditure
Meadow Rid e Portable _ ~5103,A92•Z4 --E106j700.00- ~ .96:99% 9/3006-11'/2006
Neel -O'Brien Portable 8118,290.93 $106,700.00 110.86% 9/20064/2007
PantherLake Property Purchase , -E90.0,000.00^ 8:4,485;01100 20:0796 : . ..712007:_. .
Kent Phoenix,Academy Parking Lot $100,000,00_ 81;650,000.00 6.06% . 11/2007
KenUake Gyrii and Classroom Add. - 84;000;000 00 '85;700,000 00-. ~ 70.1896 8L2007r4[2008': .
Panther lake Re lacemenf $3,904,550.62 $26,700,000.00 14.625'0 2/2009-
Kent-Meridian Aux. G m Additlon: E1;439,139Z3 ' E2,500,000 00 . 5757% •~117Z008=4/20T0.
$10,565,474.02 $41,248,413.00 25.61%
"Numbers reflect anticipafed mst as presented in CFPs Most of the capital projects that were funded in part by impart fees were relatively small projects sueh as
, portable/relocatable classro.,oms or additions to.existing scYiools,,therefore, impact fees were responsible for
funding a relatively significant percentage of thes.e projects. It does not appear that the district undertook
any additional capital projects during the subjecf four year peri6d.36
lssaquah School District
- From Issaquah WCRER only received detailed monthly spending information on impact fees collected by
King County. The district also provided the total expenditure of the capital projects undertaken hom 2006 to
present. The accompanying table reflects the amount of impact fees collected through King3County during -
the subject four yeaz period tYiat were applied towazd the total cost of these capital projects. WCRER
compared the numbers proyided by the district for the yearly collection and expenditure of impart fees from
all collecting jurisdictions with the total amount spent on impact fees in the four year period and,found that
the impact fees expenditures equated to 185 percent of the total cost of the four capital projects completed
in the four year period. Because the district has only used impact fees to fund larger scale projects, impact . ,
fees were: equal to a relatively low percentage of capital projects expenditures.
" Facilities Consuuction Department at Kent School District. .
Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons which reflect the changes in district capacity over the four year period.
" Between December 2009 and August 2010, the district coilected and expended an additional f62,858.04 in'impact fees collected by King Counry; the
2010 expenditures are included in the calculations in the table at Appendix C: -
12 Washington State Univenity
Analysis o f Impads of Modified Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments
Issaquah Projects Funded In-part By Impact Fees Collected By King County
% Funded Date of
Pro ect KC - IF 5 ent Total 5 ent b KC IFs Ex enditure
Grand Rid e Elementa E-14 E845,23.55 821,611,111.00 3.91% 01/2006-05/2007
Issa uah Hi h School $571567.12 $88,356,144.00 0.65% 04/2007-05/2009
Creekside Elementa E-15 $16 462.79 82 667 284.00 0.07% 12/2008-03/2009
S line Hi h School $202,671.59 847,160,975.00 0.439'0 0712007-1112009
$1,636,225.05 $179,795,514.00 0.91%
While the district anticipated expenditures for the expansion of Maywood Middle School beginning in the
2007 Capital Facilities Plan the expansion of Liberty High School in the 2008 Capital Facilities Plan, and in
each of the foIlowing~lans (including the 2010 plan), the distrirt has yet to report any expenditures for
those improvements.
Lake Washington School District
While some of the expenditure information provided by the Lake Washington School District was somewhat
ambiguous, the reports provided did indicate the projects funded by the impact fees expenditures. WCRER
compared these reported impact fee expenditures with the total cost of the capital project (as anticipated in
the Capital Facilities Plan published just before the date of the expenditure).
Lake Washington Projects Funded in-part by Impact Fees
% Funded Date of
IF 5ource Pro'ed IF Contributlon" Total Cost' b LW IFs Ex enditure
Ktng Co. Rosa Parks $5,383,300.95 E18,137,316.00 29.6856 200612007
Parks Portables $437,640.83 $500,000.00 87.53% 2009
77 Inglewood 82,393,974.00 87,625,000.00 31.4096 Various (2006)
Sammamish Carson Elem. 8343,033.35 $24,600,000.00 1.3996 10/31/2008
Carson Portables 867,697.82 $500,000.00 135495 200912010?
Redmond Einstein $73,739.31 Not Available - 2009
Redmond Elem. E173,831.48 Not Avaitable - 2009
Numbers reFlect anticipated cost as presented in CFPs
••Impact fees spent to date - incomple[e projects may receive additional impact fee funds in the future.
WCRER was unable to find any reference to Einstein or Redmond Elementary in the 2008 or 2009 Capital
Facilities Plans. For the five projects on which the total cost information was available, the total impact fee
contribution was equal to 16.79 percent.39
Interest Earned Through Impact Fee Accounts
The districts are required to maintain impact fees in special interest-bearing accounts and to spend the
interest according to the same restrictions that apply to the spending of impact fees.AO Both Kent and Lake
Washington School Districts maintain records of interest eamed through the impact fee accounts. According
to Issaquah School District's Director of Finance, the district does not maintain records of interest collected
from impact fees because the fees are spent before they can accrue significant interest."'
The reported monthly interest accrued on impart fees within Kent and Lake Washington School Districts
reflect negative numbers for July, August and September of 2008. According to the Capital Projects Fund
Analyst for Lake Washington School District, "In 2008 King County had a number of their investrnents
which lost a lot of their value when the economy had a downtum. They spread out their loss over all school
districts in the county. Each of our interest accounts took a hit during that three month period (July, August,
1° Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons which reFlect the changes in district capacity.over the four year period.
Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons which reFlect the changes in district capaciry over the four year period.
Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(1).
" Despite this claim, the impact fees colieded on behalf of the distrid are not spent immediately and arguably should be maintained in interest-bearing
accountr.
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 13
Analysis of Impacts o f Modi fied Timing of School Impad Fee Payments •
September, 2008) including Levy, Bond, and Impact Fee accounts. It is not only the Impact Fees accounts
which were in the negative for that period but all interest accounts." 42
ICent School District Kent Impact Fee Receipts and
~ Kent School District provided the most detailed record of impact Interest =All Collection JurisdiCtions
fee management.43 It is apparent from these records that Kent
cazefully tracks the interest eamed from the impact fee accounts. Recei ts _ Interest
FY 06-07 E2-619138:82 1309!766.36.
While the amount of interest collected by Kent School District is Fy 07-08 $2 541 024.61 $744 743.61
relatively paltry in comparison with the overall capital projects Fy 08-09 $1 053 418.62 $Z3 032.6 .
budget, the amount of interest accrued over the four fiscal yeazs is Fy 09-10 $1,466;308.62 $34,444:87
roughly enough to fund four relocatable classrooms. g7,679,890:67 $416,92117 Lake Washington ScFiool DistrBct
The aceompanying tables only reflect interest from impact fees LWSD Impact Fee Receipts
collected by Sammamish and Redmond on behalf of the district. King and Interest-Sammamish
County maintains the impact fee account for fees collected on behalf
of Lake Washington School District within the county. ICing County Recei ts . Interest
tracks the interest but the district only receives a report ieflecting the 2006 CY Q1'8,508:50 41;49836
I total revenue. The interest on King County receipts would be more , y007 CY $107,788.00 $8,122.11
substantial because King County collects the most impact fees on 2008 CY -8124;877:50.-._ 83,029:51
behalf of the district. 2009 CY $32,988.78 83,230.61
The monthly report of r.eceipts and interest of impact fees collected by $484,162.78 $15,880.39
the ciry of Sammamish shows an interest amounf of $25, 743.50 for
12/31/2009 with the total interest for the year equal to $28,974.11.
The origin of this number is unclear, it may be the result of the LWSD Impact Fee Receipts
conection pf an accounting error, or may itself be an enor, but for and Interest-Redmond
purposes of this evaluation this number has been excluded.
Recei ts Interest
Because Lake Washington has only received a total of $1,814,070.52 2006 CY -in impact fees in the last four years the amount of interest collected 2007 CY _ $197,260.00 $4,064.32
on impact fees is relatively insubstantial. 2008 Cy ~E208 025.94- ____E2 211.-63:.:
Arguably, a potential harm suffered by the school districts, in the 2no9 rv' 557,521.54 $6,62538
event of a delay in collection of impact fees, may lie in the loss of 5462,807.48 $72,901.33
interest to be accrued on the fees before they are spent. In school districts such as Issaquah where.impact fees are spent as soon as they aze received and do not eam interest;
this potential harm would not apply; they would not suffer a loss of this additional revenue as`a result of the
delayed collection. An important consideration, however, is the fact that the district cannot collect interest
on impact fees if there is no construction to prompt payment of the fees. Furthermore, the degree of.harm is
magnified when interest rates are relatively high, but interest rates throughout the study period have been
quite 1ow, further minimizing potential harm to the districts.
Delayed Collection of Impact Fees by the City of Redmond .
In 2009 the city of Redinond amended their impact fee regulations to allow such fees to be paid at the time
of drywall inspection instead of building permit issuance. The city of Redmond adopted interim amendments
in June of 2009 and made those amendments "permanent" in November 2009 (with a two year sunset date
of November 28, 2011; at which time payment of iznpact fees will again be required upon building permit
issuance),94 "The intent of the interim amendments was to provide some immediate leyel of relie.f to .
developers and builders who were facing and continue to face severe economic consequences from the
downtum in the local.housing market and overall decline of the economy."45
° Email from John Love, Capital Projecu Fund Analyst for Lake Washington School Disuict, to Kimberly Mderson, Researth Associate, Wazhington Center for
Real Estate Research (Nov. 10, 2010).
" Please see Appendix D for detailed information on interest accrued on Impad Fees in the KentSchool District accountr.
" Redmond Cammunity Development Guide 20D.60.10-030; Redmond, Wq, Ordinance No. 2501. (2009).
Id.
14 Washington State University
, i Analysis o f Impacts of Modi fied Timing of School lmpact Fee Pa}ments
To determine the effect of the coIlection Redmond 'Impatt Fee Comparison
delay in the,city of Redmond, WCRER ,
compared tlie, amount of impact fees King
collected on behalf of the Lake ' Redmond _ County- Sammamish.
Washington School District by the city IF collected in 2007 compared with the
of
' . :
Redmond, the city of Sammamish and sum of IF collected in 3007 through 2009 4-2' - 6.2q6 : S5 51 96; 40_5796
by King County. The accorimpanying ' IF collected in 2008 compared with the 44.95% : 31.2046 47;01 %
table represents the comparison of the sum of IF colleded in 2007 throu h 2009
impact.fees collected each year with the IF collected in 3009 compared with the . `
sum of impact fees•collected in.the 2007 sum of IF collected in 2007 throu h 2009 ~?-4395 73 3096 12.4296
thiough 2009 calendar years by all,three IF collected in 2009 compared with IF 27,65% 42.62% 26.42g6
jurisdictions, as well as a comparison of . Collected in 2008
imp'aet fees collected in 2009 with those
collected in 2008.46 The numbers collected by Redmond, in geneial, reflect conformity with'the impact fee.
collecrion trends in King County and the city of Sammamish; numbers from all three jurisdictions decreased
in 2009.
The City of Redmond Planning Commission recommended adopting the amendment because in addition to
allowing the local building and development community "additional time to weather the current economic
dowritum," the amendment would not result in "any adverse impacts to the City's, finances or provisiori.of
faciliries and services to the public."47 In a recent phone conversation with Dennis Lisk, the Associate Planner
for the City of Redmond, Mr: Lisk stated that he had not heard of any significant negative financial impacts
resultant from the delayed collection, nor had he heard of any significant difficulties in actually collecting
the impact fees at the later date.
Extension of Impact Fee Expenditure Deadline ~
As previously mentioned; in 2009 the Revised Code of Washington was amended to extend the time limit for
the expenditure of school impact fees from six years to ten years:" The amendment requires the OSPI to
develop criteria for extending the deadline and none of the local ordinances for the examined school districts
reflect a deadline change, therefore, there is li ttle evidence yet of the amendment's impact on the school
districts studied. However, The public tesrimony given prior to the amendment provides some understanding
of the motivation for the change as well as insight into attitudes about potential changes to the timing of
unpact fee collection. According to testimony before the Senate in suppor't of the extension, "[t]he idea behind the bill is to give
school districts a longer period of time to use growth management fees before they have to retum them to
parties who paid them. School disfricts say it takes ten years to plan and build a High school. If fees have to
be turned back in six years or be lost, schools tend to invest more in portables and tYieywould rather invest
in more substantive buildings. Building schools takes a long time; more flexibility will allow schools to better
plan facilities and use the fees more effectively.jj49
During public testimony before the House, supporters asserted that the change will "enable school districts to
use impact fees more efficiently.?S0 Opposition claimed the period for e.xpenditure was too long and that
"[t]he bill should be amended to allow impact fees to be collected at.the time of occupancy, rather than at
the time of development approv_al."51 Those testifying in support,of the bill argued that "[t]he Legislature has
chosen not to tell cities and counties when to collect impact fees. Tfie time of collection is an important issue
and it should not be modified: Difficulties have arisen when local govemments have tried to collect impact
fees at a later date.... These local govemments take the "heat" forcollecting fees for other entities:"-12'
" WCRER did not receive compiete numbers the2010 caiendaryear, therefore the 2010 numbers were not included in this calculation.
" AM No. 09-248 (C6). November 17, 2009. (Memo to Redmond City Council recommending adoption of amendments to sections 20D.60.10.030, and
20D.210:10-130(1) ot the Redmond Community Development Guide). Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(3).
" Senate Bill Report, SB 5580, Staff Summary of Public Testimony.(AS Passed Senate, March 6; 2009).
° House Bill Report, SB 5580, Staff Summary of Public Testimony.,(AS Passed House - Amended: April 141:2009).
" Id. Persons Testifying in support of the extension included: Senator Fraser, co-sponsor, Ron Ler, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, School
Facilities; Sandi Swarthout, Puget 5ound School Coalition; Miuh Denning, Aliiance of Education Association, Pssociation of Maintenance and Operations
Administrators, Scho.ol Business Officials, Schoof Nutrition Association; Marcia Fromhold, Evergreen School District: No opposition-testimony was presented.
u Id. Persons Testi(ying in support of the extension included:: Senator Pridemore, prime sponsor,. Bilf Adamo, Puget Sound School Coalition; and Mitch
Denning, Alliance of Educetion Auociation. Opposition testimony was provided by Timothy Hams, Buiiding Industry Association of Washington.
Washington Center for Rea1 Estate Research 15 .
Analysis o f Imparts o f Modified Timing o f School Impad Fee Payments '
Despite the arguments made in support of the extension, which indicated opposition to delayed collection;
the decision to extend the expenditure deadline as well as the argument that school districts need more time
to accumulate impact fees and to plan for their most efficient use seem to indicate that a delay in the
collection of impact fees would not harm school districts so long as they could begin planning for the use of
impact fees prior to their collectiori.
Anticipated Length of lonpact Fee Collection Delay
It is difficult to determine the average time between the issuance of a building permit and the sale of a new
home because in the current economic climate, multiple yariables exist which co.uld greatly skew tHis
average. While a large percentage of new construction is pre-sold and would reflect; short time periods
between ground-breaking and occupanty, lack of funding has lead some builders to hold building permits for
yeazs before they begin construction. To approximate the time between the issuance of a building permit and
the sale or occupancy of a new home, WCRER contacted two homebuilders that build in the King County
area; Gary Young of Polygon Northwest Company, and Mike Miller of Munay Franklin Homes.
Mr. Young estimated that it takes five to six months from the time when the developer pulls the building
permit until closirig on the sale of an average size home; for homes over 3,000 square feet in size, this. time
frame would be closer to six to nine months. Mr. Miller explained that he is generally required to pay half of the school impact fee upon recording of the
plat and the remaining half upon the issuance of building permit. Mr. Miller generally pulls four to fiye •
building permits right, after the plat recording and begins construction shortly thereafter; once those houses
sell, he then pulls permits to construct additional houses to replace those that sold. Mr. Miller estimated that,
assuming builders start construction as soon as they pull the building permit, it should take approximately
six to eight months from the time the builderpuIls the building permit to closing on the sale of.a new home;
four to five months for construction and two to three montfis for the sale. Mr. Miller also confirmed that pre-
sold homes would skew any average times. He also expla'ined that, with recent changes in building codes,
many builders pulled permits early to circumvent the new requirements and this would also skew any
average. No estimates were available on the degree fo which permits are pulled early.
Based on the information provided by Mr. Young and Mr. Miller, the time between the issuance of a building
permit and the sale of a new home could vary from five to nine months. The delay between platting_and the
ultimate sale of a new home could range from five to nine months for the first four to five homes, to 10 to 18
months for the next four to five homes; the length of delayfor each round "of new homes to be constructed
would be influenced by the delay period for homes previously construrted within the same plat, as well as
the total number of homes to be built in the platted azea.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Impact Fee Collection.and Expenditure
The process for receiving fees from each collecting jurisdiction is similar among the districts. The process and
timing of the expenditure of impact fees, however, is quite different in each jurisdiction: In Kent the
frequency of spending is somewhat sporadic; the district allows fees to accumulate for several months before
spending. As of early October 2010, Rent reported an impact fee balance of $1,681,354.40. the Issaquah
School Distrirt spends impact fees shortly after they aze received and reporEs an ending fund balance of zero
dollars; the district also does not maintain records of interest collected from impact fees because the fees are
allege.dly spent before they can accxue significant interest. The Lake Washington Sctiool'District front funds
capital proje¢ts with proceeds from the sale of bonds and reimburses these expenditures with the budgeted
amount of impact fees once the project is complete. At the end of August 2010, the distriet had an.impaet fee
account balance of $566,964J3. , In the event impact fee payments were delayed by five to nine months school districts like Kent and Lake .
Washington, which allow impact fees to accumulate prior to expenditure, would likely notice very little
change in their ability to spend impact fees when necessary. Longer delays might have slightlymoie impact
but changes would likely be manageable with minor adjustments in spending practices.
16 Washington State Unrversity
Analysis o f Impacts of Modi fied Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments
Because Issaquah School District's current practice is to spend impact fees as soon as they receive them, the
district might notice some strain in the first few months after an initiation of delayed collection. However, it
seems the district uses the impact fees in such a manner to ensure they use the impact fees within the time
limits rather than out of any real necessity to spend the fees immediately. Overall, it appears that with minor
adjustments in spending practices, school districts could adapt to a delay in collection of impact fees without
experiencing any significant harm.
Capital Projects Fund
Impact fees make up a relatively small percentage of the Capital Projects Fund; over the subject four year
period, the sum of impact fees collected on behalf of Kent School District was equal to 6.23 percent of the
district's'Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources'; impact fees collected on behalf of Issaquah School
District equaled 2.91 percent, and impact fees collected on behalf of Lake Washington School District
equaled only 0.49 percent. The majority of the funding for capital projects comes from the sale of bonds.
Each of the three examined districts received voter approval for bond issues to fund major capital projects in
2006. The availability of bond funds already allows the districts to proceed with capital projerts despite the
lack of significant impact fee funds. To defray any potential inconvenience caused by the delayed collection
of impact fees, school districts could adopt practices similar to that of Lake Washington School District where
such funds could be reimbursed with the budgeted amount of impact fees once the project is complete and
once the impact fees have been received. Because impact fees make up a relatively small percentage of each
districYs capital projects fund, it is unlikely that the delayed collection of impact fees would cause any
unavoidable or significant obstacles to the district's ability to fund capital projects.
Capital Projects
Kent School District has spent most of its impact fees on relatively small projects including portable/
relocatable classrooms and additions to existing schools. Impact fees were also spent to fund the replacement
of Panther Lake Elementary. The total of impact fees expended in the last four years was equal to 25.61
percent of all capital projects funded over this same period.
Issaquah School District has collected and expended impact fees to fund 3.85 percent of capital projects in
the last four years. Issaquah has not purchased any relocatable classrooms in the last four years. Instead
impact fees have been spent on relatively large scale projects.
Lake Washington School District front funds capital projects and later reimburses the funding bond accounts
with the budgeted amount of impact fees. For the five projects on which the total cost information was
available, the total of impact fee contribution was equal to 16.79 percent.
The collection and spending of impact fees is currently based on the six year projections in the districts'
capital facilities plans. Because districts aze required to anticipate and plan for increased enrollment six years
in advance, and because impact fees aze generally spent on larger scale capacity projects which, by necessity,
must be planned far in advance, districts should be easily able to plan and spend in conformity with impact
fee collection delays.
Supporters of the amendment of section 82.02.070 of the Revised Code of Washington, which extended the
impact fee spending deadline, azgued that it is more desirable for schools to allow impact fees to accumulate
so they may be expended on substantive buildings rather than on relocatable classrooms. Apparently under
the six year time limit, school districts were forced to spend impact fees on relocatable classrooms rather than
risk losing the impact fees for failure to spend them within the time limit. If, given this extra time, districts
do focus more spending on permanent buildings, the additional time required for planning and construction
will also allow addition time for collection of impact fees.
Interest
School districts might notice a slight decline in the interest accrued on impact fees if the collection of the
fees were delayed. In school districts like Issaquah where impact fees aze spent as soon as they aze received
and therefore do not eam interest, this potential harm would not apply. Districts like Kent and Lake
Washington which do receive interest on impact fees might claim harm as a result of the delay. However, the
interest accrued on impact fees amounts to a small, relatively insignificant percentage of each district's
capital project funds. As demonstrated in July, August, and September of 2008 when King County pulled
from the districts' accumulated interest to make up for investment losses, interest is already an unreliable
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 17
Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timing o f School Impact Fee Payments '
source of funds. Further, in light of the decline in new home construction and resulting substantial decrease
in impact fees collected, as well as the.general decline.in iiiterest rates; the districts have already seen a~
decline in the interest accrued on impact fees. The districts cannot collect interesf on impact fees if tkiere"is
no construction to trigger payment of the fees. Delayed Collection of Impact Fees by the City of Redmond
The dty of Redmond implemented delayed impact fee,collecrion in 2009 with the intent of providing relief
to developers and builders. Through this plan the city colle¢ts impact fees at the tiirie of drywall inspection
rather than upon buildirig permit issuance. The impacf`fee niunbers collected by Redmond reflected trends .
similar to those in otherjurisdictions.:Tlie City,of Redmond Planning Commission recommended allowing
the delayed collection based on a,presumption that the delay would not result in "any adverse impacts to the.
City's finances or provision:of facilities and services to the public."53 According to Dennis Lisk, the Associate
Planner for the City of Redmond; the city h.as not seen any significant negative financial impacts resultant
from the delayed collection, nor experienced significant difficulties collecting the impact fees at the later.
date. Length of Collection Delay ,
Based on the, information provided by Mr. Young and Mr:. Miller, the time between the issuance of a building
permit and the sale of a new home can vary from five to nine months: A five to nine month delay in the
receipt of impact fees should be easily manageable by school districts.
The:longer delays between plat recording and the ultimate sale of a new home can be somewhat more _
unpredictable and might be more noticeable by school districts: However; in jurisdictions where lialf of an
impact fee, is collected upon plat approval there are alieady'unpredictable delays between the plat recording
and the issuance of `building pennits for homes built later in the dedelopment process. Further, not all
collecting jurisdictions reguire impact fee payments upon plat recording; and those that do, only require
payment of one-half of the.impact fee. It is also important to note that longer delays,between the plat
recording and occupancy of a.new home also mean longer delays before any actual increase in enrollment;
school districts can plan for additional capaciry as it becoines necessary. '
Recornmendations .
A major concem of opponents of the delayed collection of impact fees is that the promised impact fees will .
never be collected. Pierce County; Washington experiniented with a delayed collecrion schedule iri the 1990s
through which a lien was placed on the properry but the payment trigger was not'specified. A 20 percent
noncompliance rate prompted. officialsto abandon the delayed payment program. A successful delayed
payment plan will need'to address collection-difficulties.
Dennis Lisk, Associate Planner for the City of Redmond, indicated that the city opted to delay its collection of impact fees unril the time of drywall inspection because through this trigger, builders were allowed
additional time to obtain funds to pay impact fees but the city still retained the leverage to require payment
from builders. While Redmond's eollection of impact fees upon drywall inspection is preferred over
~collection upon plat or building permit issuance, WCRER recommends delaying collection until a time closer
to the sale of the home. ,
To address concems about difficulties collecting impact fees, the Master Builders Association of King and
Snohomish Counties has sugge"sted and WCRER encourages a program in which any delayed payment of :
impacf fees would be recorded as a lien against a home to be built.S4 With this lien in place, the payment of .
impact fees could be delayed until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy without any undue burden on
_ the collecting jurisdictions.
S' AM No. 09-248 (C6). November 17, 2009. (Memo to Redmond City Council recommending adoption of amendmenuto sections 20D.60.10.030, and
20D.210.10-130(1) of the Redmond Community Development Guide).
" The Master Builders AssociaUon might consider including a concession to the school districts which would require builders who pull a specified number of
building permits simultaneously to pay a portion of the impact fee upon issuance of the bulk permiu, with the remainder due upon issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
18 Washington State Univenity
. Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timing o f School Impaci Fee Payments
Kent School District-Covington Monthly Receipts and Expenditures
FY 06-07 Recel ts $ Interest $ Ex end $ FY 07-08 Recei ts $ Interest $ Ex end $
Se 6 4147.00 1,520.92 - Se 7 43 422.50 712.52
Oct-06 14 423.50 1,603.60 - Oct-07 12 320.00 2 683.50
Nov-06 4,147.00 1,708.81 - Nov-07 7,00130 2 663.61
Dec-06 22,808.50 1 731.04 - Dec-07 21 004.50 2,651.55
jan-07 12,441.00 1,808.26 - an-08 35,688.50 2,673.59 -
Feb-07 18 661.50 1 824.20 - Feb-08 4 928.00 2 615.87
Mar-07 58,476.00 1,809.63 - Mar-08 5110.00 2 495.00
A r-07 6,22050 2,056.87 , - A r-OS 51 200.00 2 558.52
Ma -07 2,073.50 2,109.90 - M 8 20 440.00 2 246.21 -
Jun-07 51,986.00 2,407Z0 - un-08 20 440.00 2146.71 -
Jul-07 12,441.00 2,374.10 - u1-08 40,698.00 347.84) -
Au -07 12,831.50 2,515.87 - Au -08 10,220.00 833.3
220,657.00 23,470.40 - 272,473.00 24,265.87
FY 08-09 Recei ts Interest Ex end FY 09-10 Recei ts $ Interest $ Ex end
S 12,940.32 Se 7,665.00 695.15
Oct-08 5,110.00 2,151.01 - Od-09 5,110.00 688.52 -
Nov-08 2,194.91 - Nav-09 0.00 608.66
Det-08 3,31936 Dec-09 0.00 514.76 -
Jan-09 - 2,116.03 an-10 0.00 564.43
Feb-09 41,074.00 7,066.53 Feb-10 2,555.00 575.37
Mar-09 5,110.00 1,857.38 Mar-10 10,788.00 533.54
r-09 - 1,941.23 526,400.00 r-10 2,697.00 619.64
Ma -09 1,356.50 - Ma -10 2 697.00 481.48 -
Jun-09 - 684.36 un-10 26,970.00 388.83
Jul-09 5,304.00 689.93 u1-10 37,758.00 504.87
Aa -09 5,304.00 739.88 Au 10 53,940.00 528.71 -
-
61,902.00 11,176.80 1 526,400.00 150,180.00 6,703.92
705,212.00 65,616.99 526,400.00
22 Washington State University
Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timing of School Impact Fee Payments .
Kent School District - Kent Monthly Receipts and Expenditures
FY 06-07 Recei pts~ Interest $ Eu end FY 07-08 Rece6 ts $ Interest $ Ex end $
~ Se -06 90,725.00 9,448.60 187,652.97 Se 7 118119.00 14125.52 -
Oct-06 74,688.00 8,714.80 - Oct-07 63,911.00 14155.03 -
Nov-06 47,031.00 9,192.12 4,582.66 Nov-07 73,920.00 13 943.12 100 000.00
Dec-06 38,200.00 9,434.95 11,236.08 Dec-07 49,280.00 13,740.69 -
1 Jan-07 76,553.00 9,929.53 18,311.96 Jan-08 69,864.00 13,39238 556,108.71
Feb-07 136,760.00 ~ 10,384.38 - Feb-08 74466.00 11,477.15 443,891Z9
Mar-07 92,102.00 10,009.47 - Mar-08 91,070.00 9,459.75
A r-07 80,916.00 10,942.50 - A r-08 152,572.00 9,323.40 -
M-07 158,093.00 11,457.22 - Ma -08 96,052.00 8,386.15 -
! )un-07 68,839.00 12,557.61 - )un-08 107,310.00 7,871.18
Jul-07 202,048.00 ~ 12,352.80 - )ul-08 127,750.00 4,284.06) -
! Aug-07 116,131_00 13,935_02 Au -08 45,990.00 (6,863.35) -
1,182,086.00 128,359.00 ; 221,783.67 ; 1,070,304.00 104,726.96 1,100,000.00
.
FY 08-09 Recei ts Interest S Ex end FY 09-10 Recei ts $ Interest $ Ex end $
Se 8 15,330.00 ~(67,506.99) - Se -09 63,648,00 968.70
Oct-08 20,076.00 7,743.72 Od-09 84,864.00 1,230.24 -
Nov-08 5,292.00 8,021.56 497,410.60 Now09 15,912.00 945.85 138,289.19
Dec-08 28,314.00 13,340.94 Dec-09 21,410.00 844.26 -
Jan-09 66,430.00 6,777.77 535 951.91 an-10 48,366.00 914.29
Feb-09 52,846.00 5,763.64 118,359.83 Feb-10 50,162.00 951.82 -
Mar-09 47,542.00 5,084.06 1,362,287.04 Mar-10 172,698.00 950.90 -
A r-09 157,562.00 3,687.41 1,057,836.39 A r-10 113,274.00 1,467.19 81,486.61
M-09 21,216.00 ~ 1,919.28 Ma -10 139,392.00 893.93
Jun-09 127,296.00 564.27 - Jun-10 102,486.00 716.04 -
lut-09 ~ 169,728.00 870.87 - u1-10 91,698.00 1,222.84
Au -09 47,736.00 947.30 Au -10 59,334.00 747.10 -
759,368.00 (12,786.1 3,571,845.77 963,244.00 11,853.16 219,775.80
3,975,00200 232,15295 5,113,405.24
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 21
• ' Analysis of Impacts o f Modi fied Timing o f School Impact Fee Aayments
Appendix A
Kent School District-King County Monthly Receipts and Expenditures
FY 06-07 Recei ts $ Interest $ Ex end $ FY 07-08 Recei ts $ Interest $ Ex end $
S 6 35,848.50 10,230.84 - Se 7 363,945.50 11 253.21 555,643.31
Oct-06 219 353.42 11,065.92 - Oct-07 249 897.00 9 510.83 527 085.68
Nov-06 33,682.64 11,570.97 - Nov-07 106,871.00 7 647.92 885 953.15
Dec-06 127,992.86 12,316.96 Dec-07 25,589.50 6,415.81
an-07 29,468.50 12,576.97 - ao-08 21,69250 5,716.92
Feb-07 44,140.59 11,879.62 - Feb-08 25,618.50 4 769.63 213171.43
Mar-07 400,722.49 14,614.79 - Mar-08 221,222.00 3,799.57 469 052.70
r-07 48,897.40 14,654.20 - A r-08 54,394.50 3,152.65 113,452.62
Ma -07 79,771.50 15,443.71 - Ma -08 35,410.50 3 000.36 -
Jun-07 114,602.67 15,520.04 - I urr08 51,155.00 2,822.81
u1-07 54,946.00 16,232.60 900,000.00 ul-08 29 331.61 29 048.88
Au -07 26,969.31 11,830.34 235,641.11 Au -OS 13,120.00 13 290.05
1,216,395.82 , 157,936.96 ' 1,135,641.11 I 1,198,247.61 13,750J8 2,764,358.89
FY 08-09 Recei ts Interest Ex end FY 09-10 Recei ts $ Interest $ Ex end $
S 8 65,121.54 (94,426.97) - Se -09 36,024.50 735.03
Oct-08 12,411.00 2,775.07 Oct-09 37,409.09 666.12
Nov-08 16,113.00 2,847.30 - Nav-09 42,69134 486.57
Dec-08 10,801.50 7,311.22 - Dec-09 31,151.00 631.24 -
an-09 8,101.54 2,684.70 - an-10 26,974.74 8175.34
Feb-09 5,789.74 2,774.47 1,025,668.78 Feb-10 50,038.30 73732
QAar-09 26,454.28 1,667.14 Mar-10 44,352.00 752.50 -
r-09 (52,685.43) 971.79 - r-10 23,108.00 1,103.79 -
M-09 32,870.00 995.10 Ma -10 15,160.00 726.54
Jun-09 42,196.26 581.97 Jun-10 15,250.24 518.65 -
Jul-09 29,860.00 642.29 - u1-10 12,545.41 648.22
Au 9 35,115.19 75262 - Au 10 18,180.00 706.47
232,148.62 70,423.30 . 1,025,668 78 352,884.62 15 887.79
2,999,676.67 119,152.23 4,925,668.78
20 Washington State University
` Analysis o f Impacts of Modified Timing o f School Impact,Fee: Payments
ConcYusion _ . ,
Based on the information provided by the three school districts studied, it appears impact fees play a
relatively small role in the overall funding of capital projects. While the process for spending impact fees
varies among those school districts, it appears that all three school districts could make mirior adjustrnents in
spending practices to adapt to delayed impact fee collectioii without experiencing any significant harrm
Further, the delayed collection of impact fees would likely have little:impact on.the districts' ability to fund
lazge scale projects which reqiure long planning and' coristruction periods. There is no evidence to suggest .
that a delay in the collection:of.impact fees would impaet, the sehool districts' ability to plan for or to .
aecommodafe additi onal sfudents. Insuin, the evidence does riot indicate that a delay in collection of.impact
fees until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy would. materially disadvantage the tliree school districts
studied. '
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 19
Analysis o f Impacts o f Modified riming o f School Impact Fee Payments
Appendix B
Issaquah School District Collection and Expenditures By Fiscai Year
Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures-Fisca9 Yeac-
Impact Fees Collected by King County
Collection Ex endituri
FY 06-07 8558,008.76 8505,216.58
FY 07-08 8422,668.17 $362,909.96
FY 08-09 858,795.92 8171,346.31
FY 09-10 894,647.19 $94,647.19
$1,134,120.04 $1,134,120.04
Annual Irnpact Fee Collection and Expenditure-By Fiscal Year
Bellewe Issa uah Newcastle Port Blakel Renton Sammamish FY Totals
2006-07 $64,385.22 8188,209.04 $71,151.00 $308,894.00 8122,058.00 $251,202.00 $1,005,899.26
2007-08 860,325.00 8430,406.25 $198,489.00 $95,700.00 $306,685.00 $331,864.50 $1,423,469.75
2008-09 $203,197.50 $46,299.71 $6,136.00 $12,491.00 $27,497.00 S16Z,574.00 $458,195.21
2009-10 855,719.00 8109,264.98 $36,816.00 E46,068.00 $47,646.10 $508,381.50 $803,895.58
FY Totals $383,626.72 $774,179.98 $312,592.00 $463,153.00 $503,886.10 $1,254,022.00
Issaquah School District-Percentage of Revenues and Expenditures Comprised of
Impact Fees
FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-08 FY 09-10*
Percenta e of Total Revenues Com rised of Im ct Fee Recei ts 16.51 % 21.05% 5.12Sb 9.8395
Percentage of Total Revenue & Other Finanang Sources Comprised of Impact 1.71 % 2.68Qb 1.28% 2.30%
Fee Recei ts
Percenta e of Total Ex encfitures Com rised of Im ad Fee Ex enditures 6.78% 11.67% 0.8896 0.6596
Issaquah Projects Funded in-part by Impact Fees
% Funded
Pro'ect KC - IF S ent Total S ent b KC IFs Date of Ex endlture
Grand Rid e Elementa (E-14 8845,523.55 $21,611,111.00 3.9196 01/2006-05/2007
Issa uah Hi h School $595,819.58 888,356,144.00 0.6795 04/2007-05/2010
Creekside Elemerrta E-15 817,872.82 822 667,284.00 0.08% 12/2008-06/2010
S line Hi h School $239,867.14 $47,160,975.00 0S1% 0712007-0712010
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 23
Analysu of Impacts of Modified 7-iming of School Impact Fee Payments
Appendix C
Issaquah School District - King County Receipts and Expenditures
Amount Date of Amount Date of
Collected $ Ex enditure Pro'ect Colletted Ex enditure Pro'ect
an-06 144,711.71 2/1/2006 Grand Rid e Elem. ~Jan-07 59,204.01 2/8/2007 Elementa 14 I
Feb-06 37 855.56 2/15/2006 Grend Ridge Elem. Feb-07 122,109.33 3/29/2007 Hementa 14
Mar-06 79,547.70 3/22/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Mar-07
A r-06 66,930.14 4/26/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. A r-07 55,589.09 511712007 IHS Predesi n
Ma -06 65,186.58 511712006 Grand Ridge Elem. Ma -07 48,009.50 711912007 Elemeptary 14
un-06 60,310.68 6/21 /2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Jun-07 134,36732 71512007 IHS Predesi n
u1-06 32,827.10 711912006 Grand Ridge Elem. Jul-07 34,699.67 8J30/2007 S line Add./Mod.
Au -06 77,593.58 8/30/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Aug_07 52,792.18 912712007 S lineAdd./Mod
Se 06 5,330.38 Grand Ridge Elem. Se -07 31,122.87 i 10/25/2007 S ineAdd./Mod.
Oct-06 28,041.01 10/4/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Oct-07 7,620.91 11 /29/2007 ; 5 line Add./Mod. I
Nov-06 5 178.83 10/18/2006 Grand Ridge Etem. Nov-07 73 768.89 11 /29/2007 IHS Predesi
Dec-06 12,687.44 12/6/2006 Crand Riiige E1em. Dec-07 27,67738 1/10/2008 IHS Pred
Total Colleded in CY 2006: $616,200.71 Total Collected in CY 2007: $646,961.15
'
Amount Date of Amount Date of
Collected $ Ex enditure Pro'ed Collected Expenditure Project
an-08 18,150.90 2/7/2008 IHS Predesi n ~)an-09 5,001.52 r 1/29/2009 ; Creekside Design ,1,
Feb-08 19,835.77 2/28/2008 IHS Predesi Feb-09 ~ - ~ --!J
Mar-08 14,334.73 4/24/2008 IHS Predesi Mar-09 i-9,053.91 I 4/23/2009 ! Creekside Desi n'
A[-08 36,200.98 5/15/2008 IHS Predesi n Apr-09 - i
M-08 14,399.59 5/22/2008 S ine Add./Mod. May-09 12,085.91 ~ 6/18/2009 ; IHS D2i9n '
Jun-08 46,264.25 6/26/2008 IHS Predesi n ~ Jun-09
u1-08 20,741.51 8/28/2008 IHS Predesi n Jul-09 1 14,335.80 ' 7/28/2009 ! Skyline Add./Mod. '
Au -08 112 55039 10/16/2008 IHS Rebuitd ~ Au -09 - I i
Se 08 5,852.97 10/30/2008 5 tineAdd./Mod. _Sep-09 - ~
Oct-08 10,058.45 11 /26/2008 5' e Add./Pvtod. ~ Oct-09
Nov-08 2 407.36 Nov-09 31,789•15 I 11 /23/2009 S!~yjine Add./Mod. ;
Dec-08 - Dec-09 -
-
Tota1 Colleded in CY 2008: $300,796.90 -T- Total Collected in CY 2009- : $72,266.29
Tatal Collected in Calendar Years 2006-2009: $1,636,225,05
Amount Date of
_ _ _ Project
Colleded Expenditure
Jan-10 - i - - - i
Feb-10 i 8,872.53 . 3/2/2010 Skyline Add./Mod_
~ Mar-10
- -~r-10 ! 21,629.18 4/29/2010 Skyline Add./Mod. i
-May 10 24,252.46 5/25/2010 IHS Design Services
- -a
Jun-10 ! 1,41_0.03 00/2010 CreeksideDogn
_Jul-10 ; 6,693.84 8/6/2010 , Slryline Add./Mod
; AU907 0 --i - : - - - i . I
F Total Collected in CY 2010: $62,858.04 Total Collected in Calendar Years 2006-2010: $1,699,083.09
24 Washington State Univenity
, • Analysis o f Impacts of Modi fied Timing of Schooi Impad Fee Payments
Appendix D
Kent School District Accrued Interest-By Collecting Jurisdiction
_ Kin Coun Kent Covin ton (S) Kin Coun $ Kent $ Covin on $
j Se 6 10,230.84 9,448.60 1,520.92 Se -07 11,253.21 14,12532 2,712.52
~ Oct-06 11,065.92 8,714.80 1,603.60 Oct-07 9,510.83 14,155.03 2,683.50
~ Nov-06 11,570.97 9,192.12 1,708.81 Nov-07 7,647.92 13,943.12 21663.61
i Dec-06 12,316.96 9,434.95 1,731.04 Dec-07 6,415.81 13,740.69 2,651.55
' Jan-07 12,576.97 9,929.53 1,808.26 Jan-08 5,716.92 13,392.38 2,67359
j Feb-07 11,879.62 10,384.38 1,824.20 ' Feb-08 4,769.63 11,477.15 2,615.87
~ Mar-07 14,614.79 10,009.47 1,809.63 Mar-08 3,799.57 9,459.75 2,495.00
i A r-07 14,654.20 10,942.50 2,056.87 A r-08 • 3,15Zb5 9,323.40 2,558.52
~Mja-07 15,443.71 11,457.22 2,109.90 Ma -08 3,000.36 8,386.15 2,246.21
~ Jun-07 15,520.04 12,557.61 2,407.20 ~ Jun-08 2,822.81 7,871.18 2,146.71
Jul-07 16,232.60 12,352.80 2,374.10 . Jul-08 (29,048.88 4,284.06 347.84
Au -07 11,83034 13,935.02 2,515.87 Au -08 13,290.05 6,86335 833.3n
157,936.96 128,359.00 23,470.40 15,750.78 104,726.96 24,265.87
Total interest in FY 06-07 ~ Total irrterest in FY 07-08.
$309,766.36 $744,743.61
Kin Coun Kent Covin on Kin Coun $Kent $ Covin ton $
Se 8 (44,426.97) i(67,506.99) (12,940.32) ~ Se -09 735.03 968.70 695.15
Oct-08 2,775.07 ' 7,743.72 ~ 2,151.01 Oct-09 666.12 1,230.24 688.52
~ Nov-08 2,847.30 8,021.56 2,194.91 Nov-09 486.57 945.85 608.66
Dec-08 7,311.22 13,340.94 3,319.36 Dec-09 631.24 844.26 514.76
Jan-09 2,684.70 6,777.77 ~ 2,116.03 Jan-10 8,175.34 914.29 564.43
Feb-09 2,774.47 5,763.64 7,066.53 Feb-10 737.32 951.82 575.37
Mar-09 1,667.14 5,084.06 1,85738 Mar-10 75250 950.90 533.54
r-09 971.79 3,687.41 1,941.23 A r-10 1,103.79 1,467.19 619.60
M-09 995.10 1,919.28 1,356.50 Ma -10 726.54 893.93 481.48
)un-09 581.97 564.27 684.36 Jun-10 518.65 716.04 388.83
1 Jul-09 642.29 870.87 689.93 u1-10 648.22 1,222.84 504.87
~ Au -09 752.62 947.30 739.88 Au -10 706.47 747.10 528J1
(70,423.30 (12,786.17) 11,176.80 15,887.79 11,853.16 6,703.92
Total interest in FY 08-09 Total interest in FY 09-10
(72,03267) 34.444.97
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 25
Anglysis of Impacts of Modified riming o f School Impact Fee Payments Appendix E
Capacity and Enrollment Comparisons
Kent School Dastrict
Kent School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison
2006 200...2008. 2009
Permanent'Ca aci to House Students .27824: . 2759f` ; 27.150 . 27321
Relocatabie: aci ` 1345 1412 1470 1552 ,
Total Pernianent and Relocatable Ca a" 29169. 29010: ` 28620 .28873:= -
, Actual fnrollment from next CFP 25864 25745 25828: 25778
Surplus Capadty 3305 3265 . 2792 3095
" From Imeniory and Capocity ot Exating Schoo/s section of the Capital Facilitiei Plan
" Kent School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Year"` Ca aci ' Enrollment Sur lus
' 'Grade 5chool 135Z0''- : 13239;V' , , 331-
Middle Schoo) 5196 . 4283 913 -
Senior High School - •8765 : 8256 _`'509':
27531 25778 1753
' Adual counts at end of 1009-2010 (f{om 2010 CFP)
Capouty numben reflect relomtable capacity reguired, but not pdual
avaiMb/e relocotable capacity
Issaquah School District.
Issaquah 5chool District-Capacity
and Enrollment Comparison
2006 2007 2008 2009
-
Permanent Ca d to"House Students ~.14808`~ 14068-_ 14068 ] 4068':
, ReJoceta6te Ca aci ' 2228. 2280 2280 2280 •
,
Total Permanent and Relocatable Ca aci 17036 -16348 ;:16398.: .`16348'
Enrollment' 15153 15340 _ 15480 . .15807
Surplus Capacity 1883 1008 868 541
• From the /nventory and Eva/uation of Curren[ Facilities section of dre Cppital Facilities Plon
Issaquah School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School.Year* •
Ca ci * Enrollment Su lus
Grade School .~'8324-' `7191 ` --;1033 ' .
Middle School ' 3852 3840 12
Senior High School 5344. '4776 568 _
17420 15807 1613
' Actual munts at end of 1009-1010 (from 1010 CfP) ,
26 Washington State Univenity
Analysis of Impacts o f Modified 77ming of School Impact:Fee Payments
Lake Washington School District Lake Washington School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison '
2006 2007. , 2008 2009 .
PerinenentCa a to House Students .22062:.. .32573_,,22505: `22916
Relocatable Ca aci * 3152 2846 2993 3219
Total Permanent and Relocatable Ca ad 25214 25419;:. _ Z5498 26135::
Enrollment* 23173 23040 _ 22965 23483
Surplus Capaaty 2041 2379 ' 2533 2652
* From the Inventory and EvaluaGon of Current Focilrties section of the Capital FaciliGes P/dn
Lake Washington School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Yeac*
Ca aci Enrollment 5 lus
Grede ScFiool . 13484 13355 ; • . '129 ~
Middle 5chool 6204 5389 815
Senior High 5chool .5941, _ _5038 903. .
25629. 23782 1847
" Actua/ counts at end of 2009-1010 (f{om 2010 CFP)
Washington Center for Real Estote Researcii 27
Analysis o f Impacts o f Modi fied Timing o f School Impaci Fee Payments •
Appendix F
Kent School District Impact Fee Expend itu re-Detai led Report
City of 9Cent
I VOUCHER DATE T VENDOR ~ ITEM(S) FUNDED I AMOUNT
9~ /14/2006 j Fox Electric ; Meadow Ridge Portable 3,206.95
( 9/14/2006 j Fox Electric NO Portable 7,039.36.1
~ 9/14/2006 , Wiliams Stotrman Inc MR Portable ' 88,703.33 1
I 9/14/2006 WiGams Scotsman Inc NO Portable_ 88,70333 j
I 11/16/2006 I Powercom, lnc ' MR Portable ! 4,582.66 ~
; 12/14/2006 ; Powercom, fnc NO Portable _ 11,236.08
; 10/19/2006 ~ Fox Electric ~Meadow Ridge Portable 2,727.00 ;
~ 1/11/2007 j Wiliams Scotsman Inc ~ NO Portable ~ 4,272.80 ;
1/11/2007_-~ Wiliams Scotsman Inc i MR Portable 4,272.80 y
; 1/11/2007 ~ Fox FJectric NO Portable 7,039.36 I
, 11/26/2007 f P.W. Scoit Construction CO. I KPA Parking Lot _ I 100,000.00 j
12/20/2007 ~ Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Gum. Add. ~ 25,627.12 ~
~ 12/20/2007 ~ Shinstine Associates ,KL Gym and Usrm. Add 530,481.59
~ 21812008 i Shinstine Associates ; KL Gym artd Ctsrm. Add. ~ 20,455.81
~ 2/8/2008 Shinstine Associates _ I KL Gym and Clum. Add. 423,435.48
~ 11/13/2008 Serpanok_Construction, Inc_ KM Aux. Gyrtn AddiGon_ _ 474,593.60
,-11/13/2008 Serpanok Construction, Inc _ KM Aux. Gym Addition 22,817.00 ~
_7/5/2009 _ Serpanok Construction, Inc _ KM Aux. Gym Additinn 210,974.40 _i
1/5/2009 Serp_annkConstruction, Inc KMAux. GymAddition___ 10,143.00
1/22/2009 _ SeTanok Construction, Inc _ KM Aux. Gy_m Addition _ 300,392.56 ~
1/22/2009 SerpanO Construction, Inc_ KM Aux. Gym Addition .14,441.95 i
' 2/19/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addifion 11Z930.48 2/19/2009 Se arnok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Additinn 5,429_35 ,
3/12/2009 BNCC-Inc ~ Panther lake Reelacement _1,235,258.04 !
- - - - - - - - - - - -
3/12/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement - -59,387.41 ~
3/26/2009_ _ Serpanok ConsUvction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition _ 64,538J6 ;
3/26/2D09 Serpanok ConsUuction, Inc _ KM Aux. Gym Addition 3,102.83 i
4/17/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Re~cement 1,009,311.79 j
i 4/17/2009 , BNCC-Inc Panther lake Replacement 48,524.60 ~
' 11/5/2009 i Serpanok Constniction, tnc _ KM Aux. Gym Adcrmon___ J 131,974.61 I
11/5/2009 j Serpanok Construction, Inc _-KM Aux. Gym Addition -6,314.58
4/8/2010 Serpanok Cnrutrudion, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 70,696.14 I
4/8/2010 _Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 7,069.61
~ 4/8/2010 ; Ser~nok Construction, lnc__ KM Aux. Gym Addition 3,720.86 - - - - 5,113,405.24 ;
28 Washington State University
Analysis of Impacts of Modi fied 7-Iming of School Impad Fee Payments
City of Covington
~ VOUCHER DATE ~ VENDOR ITEM(S) FUNDED AMOUNT
-
I 4/17/2009 BNCC-iru Panther Lake Replacement _ 502,253Z1 !
4/17/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther lake Replacement 24,146J9_
I 526,400.00 (
King County
; VOUCHER DATE VENDOR ~ ITEM(5) FUNDED AMOUNT ~
~ 7/27/2007 !"n Coun Superior~Court i PL Property Purchase 900,000.00 ~
~ 8/2/2007 ~ Shinstine Associates LLC _ i KL Gym and Clsrtn. Add. _ 10,859.04
~ 8/2/2007 ; Shinstine Associates LLC i KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. _ 224,782.07
~ 9/13/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC ~KL Gym and Ckrm. Add ~ 25,605.68 ~
~ 9/1312007 1 Shinstine Associates LLC ~ KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 530,037.63 I
I 10/11 /2007 i Shinstine Associates LLC ; KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 24,289.66 ~
10/11 /2007 ' Shinstine Auociates LLC ; KL Gym and Gsrm. Add. 502, 796.02 !
11/8/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 21,978.40 11 /SJ2007 ~ Shinstine Associates LLC I KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 454,952 90
12/13/2007 ! Shinstine Associates LLC _j KL Gym and Qsrm. Add 18,848.93 j
12/13/2007 _j Shinstine Associates LLC j KL Gym and Ctsrm. Add. ; 390,172.92 ~
2/7/2008 i Shinstine Associates LLC ; Kl Gym and Usrm. Add. _ 9,823.58 i
; 2/7/2008 ; Shinstine Associates LLC , K Gym and Clsrtn. Add. 203,347.85 !
i 32008 Shinstine Associates LLC ! KLGym and Clsrm. Add. 21,61533
! 3/6/2008 i Shinstine Associates LLC ___j K~m and qsrm. Add. 447,437.37 .
~ 4/3/2008 ' Shinstine Associates LLC and Clsrm. Add. 5,22823 '
--I--- ,
4/3/2008 ShinsGne Associates LLC ; KL Gym and Clsmi. Add. 108,224.39 -2/19/2009 _ BNCC-1nc _ Panther lake Replacement_ - - -978,619.75 _
~ 2/19/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther lake Replacement 47,049.03
- ' 4,925,668.78 ,
Washington Center for Real Estate Research 29