Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-30-1995sp CITY OF AUBURN SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 30, 1995 5:30 p.m. Council Work Area CALL TO ORDER Mayor Booth called the special meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. in the Council Work Area located in the Mayor's Office at Auburn City Hall. A. Roll Call Those in attendance included Mayor Booth and members of the City Council as follows: Pat Burns, Rich Wagner, Virginia Haugen, Trish Borden, Jeanne Barber, Stacey Brothers, and Don Kurle. Staff members present included: Planning and Community Development Director Paul Krauss, Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued, Fire Chief Bob Johnson, Police Captain Ray Sherman, Parks and Recreation Director Len Chapman, Personnel Director Brenda Kennedy, City Attorney Michael Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney Judy Ausman, Public Works Director Frank Currie, and Finance Director Victor Thompson. Others present included Steve Sheehy of Henderson Development, Mike Morrissette and Jon Raeder of the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce, and Randy Hamblin of Quadrant Corporation. B. Announcements and Appointments 1. Announcements Comprehensive Plan 03.4 The City's consultant, Randy Young of Henderson Young and Company to make a presentation on concurrency management and impact fee systems. Page I City of Auburn Council Meetinq A,qenda May 30, 1995 These two tools are key components in implementing the new Comprehensive Plan. They are also particularly important due to GMA, the new Regulatory Reform bill change in focus on SEPA and to effectively manage the City's development review process. These tools will be used to insure that adequate levels of emergency, transportation, utility, recreation and other public services continue to be available as the community grows. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss stated that the purpose of the presentation this evening is to begin the process towards implementing concurrency management and impact fee systems for the City of Auburn. Mr. Krauss stated concurrency management and impact fee systems are primary implementation tools identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Krauss advised concurrency management is required by the Growth Management Act and is one of its guiding principles and affects not only transportation but all municipal services. Regulatory reform and changes to SEPA have prompted a review of new means for imposing conditions especially those that consider cost of development. Mr. Krauss stated the City's current development review process is lengthy and complex. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss introduced Mr. Randy Young to present a workshop on concurrency management and impact fee systems. Mr. Young is the principal of Henderson, Young and Company, and he has worked with other communities in the region on concurrency management and impact fee systems. Mr. Young distributed a handout entitled "Levels of Service, Impact Fees, Concurrency, SEPA v GMA" dated May 30, 1995. Mr. Young stated levels of service, impact fees and mitigation under SEPA, and concurrency are all growth management tools. Mr. Young stated level of service is a tool used in mitigation and concurrency. Mr. Young stated level of service is associated with a standard which Page 2 City of Auburn Council Meetin,q Aqenda May 30, 1995 becomes a threshold which is useful in mitigation and concurrency. Mr. Young stated level of service is a term usually associated with transportation but is also used in other areas such as parks, water, sewer, police and fire. Mr. Young stated level of service used carefully can be a valuable tool in making a community a desirable place to live. Mr. Young stated each community must define its own acceptable level of service. Mr. Young then illustrated, using his handout, how level of service would work for parks. Mr. Young said the exercise will determine the quantity of parks needed and whether the quantity is affordable. Mr. Young also discussed, using the parks example, level of service options for balancing revenues and costs by increasing revenues, reducing cost of facilities, reducing development, reducing levels of service, or a combination of the options. Mr. Young also explained, using his handout, how levels of service are chargeable to the current population versus new development. Mr. Young noted it is illegal for cities to assess costs for current deficiencies to new development, and it is a policy question whether costs for new development will be paid by the development or assessed throughout the city. Mr. Young stated there are specific statutory requirements for impact fees as provided in RCW 82.02, and he explained them as follows: 1) Mr. Young stated cities are limited in the types of improvements for which impacts fees can be charged. Mr. Young stated the Growth Management Act refers to two types of improvements: system improvements and project improvements. He said generally a project improvement is associated with the on-site development impacts and impact fees cannot be charged for the on-site impacts. Mr. Young stated cities can charge for system improvements which are large scale improvements for the community as a whole and impacted by the development. 2) If impact fees are charged, the fees must be reasonably related to the impacts they produce, and they must be roughly proportional. 3) There must be specific Page 3 City of Auburn Council Meetinq Aqenda May 30, 1995 capital projects the impact fees will be spent on. 4) Impact fee rates must be published in advance. Any formulas, adjustments, and credits must be listed. 5) Cities can provide exemptions, but exemptions are limited to Iow-income housing or other broad public purposes such as a school district. 6) Impact fees for facilities could be assigned to service areas or can be assigned city-wide. 7) Impact fees must be spent within six years or refunded with interest. Mr. Young noted impact fees do not pay for existing deficiencies; costs paid by taxes, grants, or user fees; project or on-site improvements; law enforcement, libraries, storm water, fire protection in fire districts, transit systems, park and ride facilities. Mr. Young stated impact fees can be charged for the street system, schools, parks and recreational facilities, and fire protection. Councilmember Kurle questioned the allowance for impact fees to pay for fire protection services in the city when they are already being paid for through taxes. Mr. Young stated the City would have to make a policy choice of spending less taxes and start charging impact fees or giving adjustments. Mr. Young explained that specific capital costs related to impact fees must be identified and tied to the Capital Facilities Plan, identify which projects in the Capital Facilities Plan are used as the basis for impact fee calculations, identify what types of facilities should be paid for by impact fees, and determine if the capital facilities plan contain analysis of deficiencies, reserves and new facilities. Mr. Young stated standards are subject to review to determine if they are achievable. Mr. Young explained the City Council needs to consider the nexus of benefit or the proportionate share of the benefit to different types of residential dwellings. Mr. Young pointed out that it is debatable to charge impact fees for schools and parks for non-residential development. Page 4 City of Auburn Council Meetin,q A,qenda May 30, 1995 In response to a question from Councilmember Kude, Mr. Young stated there is nothing in the Growth Management law that requires differentiation of impact fees by type of residential dwelling, but it should be investigated to determine whether there is an impact differentiated by type of structure. Mr. Young stated a required component of impact fees is to review the past and future tax payments and other payments made by the development and make some kind of adjustment in the impact fees. Mr. Young stated service areas can either be zones or city-wide. Mr. Young stated the law does not require geographic nexus. Mr. Young spoke to intergovernmental relations and whether impact fees should be charged for regional facilities. Mr. Young stated cities can charge a fee similar to late comer fees called a reimbursement fee. Mr. Young explained a reimbursement fee is a fee collected after the improvement is constructed to help recover the cost of the facility. Mr. Young stated impact fees are usually collected at the time the building permit is issued. He stated there are other alternatives, but it is customary to collect the fees when the building permit is issued. Mr. Young also explained vesting rights. He stated someone vested for the purpose of obtaining a building permit is not vested from paying impact fees. Mr. Young explained state law requires financial commitment for any transportation facilities or strategies that will be relied upon to achieve level of service standards for concurrency. Mr. Young stated "financial commitment" is not defined by state law. Mr. Young also stated state law requires levels of service be achieved at the time of development or Page 5 City of Auburn Council Meetinq A,qenda May 30, 1995 within six years. Mr. Young questioned when the six year time limit for achieving concurrency begins, upon first approval of the development, upon last approval of the development, or upon occupancy and use of the development. Mr. Young explained concurrency for transportation appears in three different places of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). RCW 36.70A070 states "concurrency" for "arterials and transit routes", RCW 36.70A020 requires "adequate public facilities" for "streets, roads, highways, sidewalks", and RCW 58.17.110 requires "appropriate provision" for "streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops". Mr. Young questioned whether "adequate public facilities" and "appropriate provision" are the same as "concurrency". Mr. Young stated all developments must be tested for concurrency. He stated exemptions from concurrency are not addressed in the law, but neither are they specifically prohibited. Mr. Young stated concurrency is matching public facilities and private development, and providing public facilities at an adopted level of service standard no later than occupancy and use or six years later. Mr. Young paraphrased a portion of the Growth Management law as follows: "local governments must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted by the city, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development." He added concurrent with development means that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements within six years. Page 6 City of Auburn Council Meetinq Aqenda May 30, 1995 Mr. Young stated the planning goals of the Growth Management Act includes the requirement that public facilities and services shall be adequate to serve the development without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. Mr. Young stated this provision can be construed to apply concurrency to not only transportation but to public facilities and services as well. Mr. Young pointed out that the state subdivision law requires the City Council ~o make a written finding to prove that the City has appropriately provided for public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainageways, streets or roads, alleys, other public ways, transit stops, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, and schools. Mr. Young explained how concurrency is determined using the worksheet contained on page 14 of his handout. Mr. Young stated concurrency makes communities plan in advance for adequate roads, schools, and other facilities the City chooses to apply concurrency. To achieve concurrency, Mr. Young stated a community can either: 1) tax everyone to pay for the capacity, 2) mitigate the impact and charge the developer impact fees, 3) manage the levels of service using special zones or target areas, 4) reduce demand by putting a cap on development, 5) use non-single occupancy solutions, 6) reduce level of service standards if it is determined standards are set too high. Mr. Young compared SEPA to concurrency. Mr. Young stated SEPA looks on-site at the development site, while the Growth Management Act is more concerned with the effect on the community. Mr. Young stated SEPA addresses impacts that are unique to the development, while the Growth Management Act addresses development through level of service standards. He also explained that SEPA requires a case-by-case review of unique Page 7 City of Auburn Council Meetinq A,qenda May 30, 1995 II. III. IV. VI. VII. effects. Mr. Young noted the level of service system is adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Young explained that the term "planned level concurrency" which is the theory that if the Comprehensive Plan is carefully thought out in detail, and if a developer proposes a project that is consistent with the Plan, no more testing is required under the Growth Management Act, including testing for concurrency. Mr. Young stated the City can do levels of service without planned level concurrency and accomplish it by a case-by-case review. Mr. Young stated SEPA has proven to be unpredictable, while the Growth Management Act is predictable. Mr. Young stated there are no statutory exemptions from Growth Management while there are categorical exemptions from SEPA. Mr. Young stated there are a number of cities giving exemptions under Growth Management however. Mr. Young explained concurrency and impacts fees are two separate but related tools. Mr. Young stated a city can have concurrency without impact fees if the city can afford to pay for the facilities in some other way. Planning and Community Development Director Krauss stated concurrency and impact fee systems is an enormous task, but once it is completed the City's processes will be more understandable to the public and developers. CITIZEN INPUT, PUBLIC HEARINGS & CORRESPONDENCE - None. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS - None. CONSENT AGENDA - None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS - None. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS - None. Page 8 City of Auburn Council Meetinq A.qenda May 30, 1995 VIII. IX. MAYOR'S REPORT - None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Charles A. Booth, Mayor 95M5-30 -Rebi~~~-~, City Clerk Danielle E. Daskam, Deputy City Clerk Page 9