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