HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-1997 Special Council Mtg CITY OFAUBURN
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 12, 1997 6:30 PM
MINUTES
I. Introductions
Mayor Booth welcomed Councilmembers, staff and guests to the special City
Council meeting for the purpose of reviewing levels of service, impact fees and
concurrency management as part of the implementation of regulatory reform.
The City's consultant Randy Young from Henderson Young & Company will
make a presentation outlining the statutory requirements to implement regulatory
reform. The meeting convened at 6:30 PM in the Council Work Area located in
the Mayor's Office at Auburn City Hall.
Those in attendance meeting included Councilmembers Jeanne Barber, Trish
Borden, Sue Singer, and Stacey Brothers. Councilmembers Staff in attendance
included Senior Planner Bob Sokol, Planning & Community Development
Director Paul Krauss, Parks and Recreation Director Dick Deal, City Attorney
Michael J. Reynolds, Assistant Planning Director Lynn Rued, Fire Chief Bob
Johnson, and City Clerk Robin Wohlhueter. Councilmembers Gene Cerino, Fred
Poe, Rich Wagner, and Traffic Engineer Steve Mullen arrived after the
conclusion of the Public Works Committee meeting at 7:35 PM.
Bob Sokol provided a brief summary of the effects of regulatory reform. The City
of Auburn received a grant to from the Washington State Department of
Community Trade and Economic Development to assist in implementation of
regulatory reform. As a part of that the City Council also allocated funding for
impact fees and concurrency management to achieve four goals: 1 .) Develop a
Concurrency Management System to ensure City services; 2.) Establish impact
fees for transportation and parks that ensures development will pay its fair share
of the infrastructure; 3.) Predict the environmental impact for projected future
development to streamline the EIS or environmental review at the
Comprehensive Plan level; and 4.) Revise the City's development review
process to implement the regulatory reform. Mr. Sokol announced that the City
will holding a series of workshops that will be open to the public. The Planning
Commission will host these workshops. Mr. Sokol introduced Randy Young.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
May 12, 1997
Page No. 2
II. Concurrency Management
Mr. Young demonstrated how Level of Service (LOS) is calculated. It is a
quantifiable measure of the amount of public facility to the demand of
development, and it is a gauge for evaluating the quality of service. LOS
measurement is objective and may express and evaluate the quality of life in a
community. Multiple levels of uses, if used properly, assist in development of
impact fees, mitigations, concurrency system, comprehensive plan, and
community visioning. Mr. Young presented how LOS is applied using population
growth patterns and new development to obtain demand of services and net cost
per acre. He demonstrated options to balance revenue and costs of
development by reducing the cost of the facility. He pointed out that existing
deficiencies in applying LOS standard cannot be paid by new development.
New development is only required to pay their proportionate share. When
confronted with a problem of concurrency, Mr. Young explained the City may
need to come up with more money, cut the cost and quality of the facility, reduce
development, reduce the rate of demand, and reduce the LOS. There are
financial implications when a LOS standard is established higher than the service
you are providing.
The following discussion on LOS for concurrency occurred immediately following
III. Impact Fees, however, for the purpose of these minutes it is reflected here.
Mr. Young discussed the general concept of Level of Service for concurrency.
The City is required to match public facilities with private development.
Concurrent means at the same time development occurs public facilities are
provided by an established level of service standard. The City picks the
standard then provides the facilities within a time frame of occupancy and use or
six years later.
In the transportation section of the Growth Management Act, the City has to
adopt and enforce an ordinance that prohibits development if the development
violates the level of service standard. The City has to say no to development
where impacts of development are not "concurrent with development" unless a
plan or a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvement within six
years.
Mr. Young referred to the word "adequacy" in the planning goals as being similar
to how "concurrent" is applied in the transportation section of the Growth
Management Act. The planning goals specifies all types of development such as
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
May 12, 1997
Page No. 3
parks, police, fire, schools, and etc. Everytime a subdivision is approved the City
is required to submit a written finding that "appropriate provision are made for the
public health, safety, and general welfare..." Educational facilities and schools
are addressed in subdivisions and the adequacy requirement. A question was
raised with regard to how standards are applied in relationship to schools and
development. Both agency standards are applied, and if there is a
disagreement, the issue is presented before a hearing examiner.
Mr. Young explained how concurrency is determined. Road capacity is
determined by the number of vehicle trips. Programmed capacity is added, for
example, due to widening of a road for a total capacity limit. When a
development is proposed, capacity availability is calculated based on current
activity. Reserved capacity is used to determine surplus or deficit (concurrent or
not concurrent) to capacity levels for that particular street. A common
misunderstanding when capacity levels are exhausted, is that development
cannot occur. Mr, Young explained that concurrency means that an agreement
for development has not been reached with the developer. The City may buy
capacity by imposing taxes, mitigation and/or impact fees, management of LOS
by averaging or targeting (reducing the need for capacity in designated areas),
non-capacity solutions such as car pooling or capping building permits,
alternative solutions such as HOV lanes, transit, pedestrian, bicycle, rail that
diverts the demand, exemption status, or the City can chose to lower the
standards.
III. Impact Fees
Mr, Young referred to the statutory requirements of impact fees as authorized by
RCW 82.02. There are certain types of development that government can
charge impact fees. They are referred to as system verses project
improvements. Impact fees are allowed for system development. They are not
allowed for project improvements. Mr. Young described several examples of
being able to use impact fees. Impact fees allow cities to charge for
improvements to a network of roads, parks, and fire stations as the development
impacts the entire system as well as the immediate neighborhood. Auburn's
impact fees will be City wide.
Mr. Young discussed proportionate share of levying impact fees. Policy
development must be relative and reasonably related to the impact the
developer creates. Court cases note that impact fees should be roughly
proportional, and make distinctions as to the type of land use. Another
requirement of the law is that the City needs a specific set of capital projects
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
May 12, 1997
Page No. 4
adopted in a Capital Facilities Plan that identify the costs as the basis for
calculating the impact fees. Capital projects must identify deficiencies, reserves
available for new growth, and new projects for new growth. Mr. Young further
explained that a rate schedule is also required that includes formulas,
adjustments and credits. It is up to the Council if exemptions will be allowed. He
cautioned that if the City exempts low income housing or for other broad public
purposes it becomes a General Fund revenue expense for the City.
In response to a request made by Councilmember Brothers, Mr. Young
described an exemption for broad public purpose. Public schools for example,
may be exempt from paying an impact fee for building a new school. The City
would then be required to fund the impact fee when the school is built. Auburn
does not need zone service areas of facilities which is part of the
recommendation being submitted by the Mr. Young. Mr. Young explained that it
is required that impact fees be deposited into separate bank accounts and must
be spent in six years or return it with interest.
Impact fees do not pay for existing deficiencies, costs paid by taxes, grants, user
fees, on site (project) improvement, transit, park and ride, non-motorized, police,
stormwater, and non-capacity costs. Impact fees pay for roads, schools, parks,
fire departments, and sidewalks if included as a part of the road system.
Mr. Young focused on issues and recommendations related to impact fees that
require review and consideration of the Council. Issues include capital costs,
proportionate share, adjustments, service areas, reimbursement fees, point of
collection, vested rights, and low cost housing. Mr. Young reviewed capital costs
recommendations. Project costs must be based on Capital Facilities Plan which
requires an amendment to reflect recent research for impact fee capital
improvements. The Capital Facilities Plan must contain analysis of deficiencies,
reserves, and new facilities for growth.
Mr Young explained that proportionate share must achieve "rough
proportionality" required by Dolan (Oregon court case) and "proportionate share".
Fees will not pay for existing deficiencies, fees will reflect average cost, not
marginal cost, park fees will be charged only to residential, road fees will be
charged to all types, different land uses will pay different fees, different sizes of
development will pay different fees, and fee-payers may submit proof of different
impacts.
To make ensure the City's proposed ordinance is fair and equitable, Mr. Young
noted that language will be included that provides for further review if the
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
May 12, 1997
Page No. 5
applicant submits proof of a different impact. Adjustments address provisions
that require fees be adjusted to reflect other committed funds available to pay for
part of the cost of facilities needed to serve new development, and if the City
receives an unexpected windfall that was not considered in the "adjustment" to
the fee, the City will refund the portion of impact fees that are paid by the
windfall.
Reimbursement fees are impact fees that can be used to recover cost of facilities
that have capacity to serve new development, but are already paid for. Mr.
Young recommends Auburn not include facilities constructed or financed prior to
the effective date of the ordinance. Future construction can be built into the
analysis which can include interest expense.
Collection of impact fees will be at the issuance of building permits after the
effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Young pointed out that developers may push
for payment of impact fees upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If a
complete application for a building permit, principle definition for vesting, is
received by the City after the effective date of the ordinance impact fees will be
collected at that time.
An exemption for low cost housing is provided for under the law. Impact fees
tend to hurt developers that are building to an entry level' market. The main
reason to allow for an exemption is allow for additional low cost housing. Auburn
already exceeds its fair share of regional needs for low-cost housing. Mr,
Young's recommendation will be that Auburn should consider no exemption on
impact fees for low cost housing.
IV. Discussion
In developing a proposed ordinance for the City of Auburn, Mr. Young directed
the Council's attention to pages 17 through 26 of the Levels of Service, Impact
Fees and Concurrency prepared for the City of Auburn dated May, 1997 by
Henderson, Young & Company. He highlighted concurrency issues that will be
raised in the proposed ordinance for consideration by the Council at a future
date.
In conclusion, Mr. Young explained the relationship between the Level of
Service, Impact Fees, and Concurrency. The process is interwoven.
Concurrency is determined by the LOS. The LOS is the threshold that
determines the need for projects. The projects determine the amount of impact
fees and the impact fees pay for the growth contribution to concurrency.
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
May 12, 1997
Page No. 6
The City of Auburn sets the level of service. Modifications to the level of service
can occur one time as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Problems to the level of
service need to be reviewed and mitigated as soon as an applicant makes a
request for subdivision or rezone. Any changes or modification may require
refunds of previous impact fees.
There are a series of workshops scheduled before the Planning Commission
over the next six weeks to review impact fee rate methodology, draft concurrency
ordinances, system level environmental analysis, and development review
procedures.
V. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.
Approved this r-P~//~d_ay of June, 1997
Charles A. Booth, Mayor Robin Wohlhueter, City Clerk
97M5-12