HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-25-1999MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 25, 1999
The regular meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee was held January 25, 1999 in-~he
Council Work Area. Those members in attendance were as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Trish Borden, Sue Singer, and Pete Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Bob Sokol, Dick Deal, and Patti Zook
ALSO PRESENT:
Mayor Booth
The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Borden at 6:30 p.m.
1. Asset Removal - Cellular Phone
Parks and Recreation Director Deal presented the staff report which requests the removal of a broken and
unusable portable cellular phone from the fixed asset master list.
Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval.
Chairman Borden concurred.
Social Serve Agencies Resolutions and Agreements:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Resolution 3034
Resolution 3035
Resolution 3036
Resolution 3037
Resolution 3038
Resolution 3039
Resolution 3040
Resolution 3041
- ACAP Apple Parenting
- ACAP Early Childhood
-Aubum Community Suppers
- Auburn Youth Resources
- Catholic Community Services-CHORE
- Children's Home Society
- Community Health Centers
- Crisis Clinic
Resolution 3042 - DAWN - Advocate
Resolution 3043 - DAWN - General
Resolution 3044 - Auburn Food Bank
Resolution 3045 - King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
Resolution 3046 - Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation
Resolution 3047 - Washington Women's Employment & Education (WWEE)
Chairman Borden asked about the logic model in the contract. Principal Planner Sokol explained the
purpose of the logic model was to be used to measure performance. Chairman Borden expressed concern
that the logic model does not appear to be related to the outcome of services. Principal Planner Sokol
presented an example for better clarification. Chairman Borden is concerned that this seems like extra
work for the service providers. She referred to the Food Bank, whose outcome of services is the
distribution of food. Planning Department Director Krauss referred to the Washington Womens
Employment and Education, and said that the City not only wants to know the number of persons served,
but also wants to know if the outcomes were successful such as in women who return to the work force and
provide for their children.
Chairman Borden requested to see a copy of the service reports that agencies provide to the City. Principal
Planner Sokol advised that the 1999 reports will not be available until sometime in February after the
submission of the first invoice statements.
The above Resolutions were taken as one item. Councilmember Lewis made a motion, seconded by
Councilmember Singer, to recommend approval of the resolutions and agreements. Chairman Borden
concurred.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 25, 1999
16. Park Impact Fees
Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that he spoke recently with Randy Young, Henderson Young &
Company, and received some clarification on this topic. He distributed the Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks
and Recreation Facilities, review draft dated January 15, 1999 to the Committee. He began to present a series of
overheads fi.om this study. The next overhead sheet entitled Executive Summary was reviewed and then the next
overhead, Who Pays Impact Fees, was presented.
Planning Department Director Krauss remarked that a developer may put in a tennis court or tot lot which does not
meet requirement to mitigate the impacts. The two amenities would be for use of his development. The
development would still have impacts on trails, baseball courts, etc., that are City owned. The Rate Plan does not
include trails. The City should look at fees that include trails and this may be higher than fee in the study. If a
developer builds trail and dedicates it to the City, this would absolve him of trail fees, but not community park fees.
Principal Planner Sokol said that if a trail goes through development and connects with another trail, and is more
than they would pay for trail development, the developer could possibly receive a credit toward the community
park. Mayor cautioned that the developer should only get credit for a trail identified in the Park Plan, not any trail
they wanted to develop. Parks and Recreation Director Deal explained that the developer could put in a six acre
trail if it met City standards and if met with City al~proval. This would be the City's choice and he could get credit
for the improvements.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, Expenditure Requirements for Impact Fees, and
reviewed. The next overhead, Chapter 1, Statutory Basis and Methodology, was briefly explained.
A discussion occurred of using funds collected for community park versus neighborhood park if a community park
is adjacent to development that has already fully developed. The collected money would be used for the community
park.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal reminded the Committee that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) can be changed
each six year period to expend funds.
Planning Department Director Krauss wanted to clarify Parks and Recreation Director Deal's statement. When a
facility, such as a street or park, is on the CFP, the developer is not free to develop the property as it wants. He gave
an example of a possible negotiation between the City and developer. If the City has impact fees, all must be treated
equal.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal advised that several areas needing parks have been identified. Planning
Department Director Krauss advised that the Lakeland development cannot be used as an example because of the
special negotiations. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said that Lakeland had 72 acres to be developed as a park
which would have been a huge expenditure for the City to develop. The City opted to accept less property, but take
a percentage of property developed to City's standards.
Councilmember Lewis wanted to know why it is better to have an impact fee. Parks and Recreation Director Deal
stated that in Lakeland, the City was getting neighborhood parks and community parks. The Rate Study addresses
items in the CFP only.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal reviewed the next overhead, Capital Facilities Plans, (page 6 of Study). Next
overhead, Need for Additional Parks and Recreation Facilities, was reviewed. Another overhead, Determining the
Benefit to Development, was presented. He reviewed items 1, 2, 3 under this heading. An overhead entitled
Methodology and Relationship to Capital Facilities Plan was presented. He reviewed the five different formulas.
He presented an example of a two acre park using the five formulas showing how the cost is calculated. Parks and
Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, Chapter 2, Capital Project Capacity Costs, and briefly
reviewed. Formula 1 and Formula 2 were reviewed.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 25, 1999
Planning Department Director Krauss reminded the Committee of the CFP process and projects presented fo~- '
funding in the Plan. With the impact fee process, it may now be possible to bring some projects back into the CFP.
Mr. Young, Henderson Young & Company, indicated that that projects in addition to four cited could be funded.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal continued reviewing Table 1, Community Parks Capacity Project Costs 1999-
2004, followed by Table 2, Community Parks Unfunded Capacity Costs 1999-2004. Principal Planner Sokol
advised that the land costs were not figured and this could be figured in and charged back. However, the City could
not charge impact fees at the current market. Parks and Recreation Director Deal remarked that Mr. Young can
answer some of the questions that the Committee might have I more detail.
Chairman Borden wondered about funding for Game Farm Park. Parks and Recreation Director Deal mentioned
that this park is not yet fully developed.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal showed the next overhead, Calculation of Unfunded Cost Per Park Facility, and
Table 3, Community Parks Unfunded Cost Per Acre 1999-2004. He reviewed the next overhead, Chapter 3,
Unfunded Cost Per Capita and Formula 4. He reviewed Table 4, Parks Facilities Unfunded Costs Per Capita. He
referred to the Rate Study distributed to Committee earlier in the evening, and said it is a good model to look at, but
the numbers are not accurate and need to have them be more truly reflective.
Planning Department Director Krauss advised that'City Council needs to determine its goals for the impact fees.
Chairman Borden remembered seeing additional projects listed for funding that were not in the final CFP. Planning
Department Director Krauss remarked that the Council had determined which were the most important projects.
Council considered the available resources and projects did not correlate. The Finance Director prepared what
f'mancial resources should be and Mr. Young helped to prioritize the list. The CFP was a melding of this
information.
Parks and Recreation Director Deal stressed that there is no dedicated funding for parks; only utilities and streets
have dedicated funds. Principal Planner Sokol pointed out that over the last few years 350 units/year total times
$500 equals $175,000 or $200,000 that Council can allocate to other parks projects. Parks and Recreation Director
Deal is working with the Finance Department to provide numbers for Mr. Young to "crunch". The City has the
ability to put in the Plan whatever Council feels the traffic will bear. Parks and Recreation Director Deal said the
advantage of the CFP is the ability to update it each years; however, the City has only six years to spend the funds.
Chairman Borden is concerned that multi-family development does not contribute to the park system; only large
developments are paying for the parks. Councilmember Singer wondered about the Lakeland multi-family housing.
Planning Department Director Krauss said the Lakeland multi-family is townhomes, quads, etc., and the proposed I
Street project will have a portion that is multi-family.
Councilmember Lewis remarked that the I Street project could be set up such that it could be mitigated in different
ways; for example, land or cash in lieu of land. The I Street project will pay into the system. The City cannot at
present collect mitigation from a multi-family projects. Councilmember Lewis remarked that excluding Lakeland,
what other new multi-family development is in the City. Planning Department Director Krauss mentioned that there
are new townhomes by Chinook School and a project by Doug Trussler on M Street. As the City annexes more
land, it is getting a variety of styles. There is some infill single family development which is under the threshold
and does not pay.
Chairman Borden stressed the need to negotiate for some parks with the bigger developers on Lea Hill. Mayor said
the City can only negotiate in the area because of the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Parks and Recreation
Director Deal remarked that for some of the development the City has negotiated, and for other development the
City has not. In some cases, the problem is the City's ability to negotiate on this matter. A one acre park is too
costly to maintain and is more trouble than it is Worth. The City did receive from Finkbeiner Development
approximately six acres toward a park. Planning Department Director Krauss pointed out that Finkbeiner gave land
under a power line and met the King County requirements.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
JANUA.RY 25, 1999
Chairman Borden asked if park property in the PAA has to be developed to City's standards. Planning Department
Director Krauss advised that the City can attempt to require that park land be developed to City's standards, but this
probably cannot be mandated. Chairman Borden wondered if having an impact fee could correct this. Principal
Planner Sokol advised that the impact fee could not be applied to property outside Auburn's City limits.
Chairman Borden declared her support for the direction toward park impact fees. She requested to see a list of
projects that were previously on the CFP list. Planning Department Director Krauss reminded the Committee that a
special Council meeting will be held on impact fees. Councilmember Singer would like to see what the total impact
fees for park, school and traffic will be. She recognized the need to have an open discussion on this topic.
Planning Department Director Krauss reminded the Committee that Mr. Young had to do an education process of
sorts with the Council some time ago. Mr. Young was used to help rationalize numbers and come up with a
program that is defensible. The impact fees that the Committee has talked about are virtually ready to go to the
Council work shop. However, the transportation impact fee is not yet ready for discussion. This is still going
through the Public Works Committee.
Chairman Borden indicated her willingness to vote on parks and schools impact fees. She wondered if the
transportation impact fees will ever get through the Public Works Committee. Planning Department Director
Krauss provided some input on the reason for the !ength of time that the transportation fees have been in this
Committee.
Planning Department Director Krauss explained why the fire impact fees will not be brought forward for Council
approval. For the next Committee meeting, staff will come back with Parks and Recreation Director Deal's project
list and survey for comparison. He will talk with the Public Works Director and fred out the status of the
transportation impact fees.
17. BIA Press Release on Impact Fees
No discussion was held on this item.
Other Matters:
18. Annexation into the City of Auburn
Planning Department Director Krauss distributed a copy of a letter sent to those living in a King County
"island" adjacent to the City. He explained that Auburn can annex the properties if the City surrounds the
islands.
Councilmember Lewis strongly supports the City's annexation of these islands.
19. Correspondence from the Washing State Liquor Control Board
No Bull Casino Saloon & Restaurant has withdrawn their liquor license application.
With no further items to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
PCDCLMIN~ 1 B-99
PAGE 4