Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-B CITY OF d * = * Memorandum WASHINGTON TO: Councilmember Bill Peloza, Chair, Municipal Services Committee Deputy Mayor Sue Singer, Vice-Chair, Municipal Services Committee Councilmember John Partridge, Municipal Services Committee CC: Mayor Pete Lewis i FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department DATE: February 24, 2011 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION & INFORMATION: Ordinance No. 6341 - Fee Deferrals F Draft Ordinance No. 6341 (Exhibit 1) would allow the voluntary deferral of the payment of water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage system development charges and fire impact fees, park impact fees, school impact fees and transportation impact fees. Please note that an applicant could always choose to pay these fees at time of building permit issuance. As proposed this deferral would be applicable to single-family residential development, multi-family residential development, commercial retail and office development, light and heavy manufacturing and institutional uses, but would not be applicable to distribution and warehousing development. Staff is recommending that this ordinance be effective for a period of two years from ordinance passage. This timeframe will allow the City Council and staff to evaluate the effectiveness, economic development impacts and overall operation of the fee deferral opportunities. At the end of the two year period, the City Council could elect to continue a portion or all of the fee deferral opportunities. Similar to other communities, the City of Auburn has been impacted by the national economic downturn that has impacted the local economy. These impacts have included a diminishing number of residential units being built or expanded, a diminishing number of new non-residential projects being built and diminishing occurrences of expansions of existing non-residential development. These impacts adversely impact the City's residential and non-residential development inventory, employment opportunities and revenue for the provision of government services. As the Municipal Services Committee is aware, the City has very few incentive tools in its economic development toolbox. The deferral of impact fees and system development charges is one of these tools that can effectively assist owners, developers and builders in this difficult economic climate where financial lending institutions have increased their lending standards that make the payment of some of these fees at time of permit issuance more difficult to finance now than just a few years ago. Following the economic downtown in 2009, several cities and counties in the Puget Sound have passed ordinances authorizing the deferral of the payment of some or all of residential oriented impact fees and/or system development charges to later in the development process rather than payment of time of building permit issuance. These communities have included the Cities of Federal Way, Kent, Kirkland Sammamish and Snohomish County. The Cities of Renton and Maple Valley are currently evaluating the potential of fee deferrals and may take action at the end of the year or early in 2011. Staff has also identified that other communities in other parts of the state are currently evaluating the potential implementation of fee deferral opportunities. At the request of Mayor Lewis, staff evaluated the potential applicability of fee deferrals in the City of Auburn. Following this analysis, staff prepared a draft ordinance for review and consideration by the different Committees of the City Council and possibly by the City Council. The Planning and Community Development Committee as the lead committee has reviewed and discussed the draft Ordinance at its December 10, 2010, January 10, 2011 and February 14, 2011 regular meetings."During the Committee's December 10,.2010 regular meeting, the Planning and Community Development Committee Chair allowed testimony from interested parties including representatives from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, the Washington State Association of Realtors, the Auburn School District and the Kent School District. In addition, the Committee received written correspondence from the Federal Way School District pertaining to the proposed deferral of school impact fees (Exhibit 2). i During the Planning and Community Development Committee's February 14, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning and Community Development Chair accepted the submittal into the 1 record of a report from the representative of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. This February 2011 report (Exhibit 3) entitled "Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timing of School Impact Fee Payments" was prepared by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research, College of Business, Washington State University. Staff has recommended that that fee deferral opportunities in the City of Auburn be applied to both residential and non-residential development as identified above. This broader application than some other communities have taken is a positive economic development action that will distinguish the City of Auburn in the highly competitive regional marketplace and be an effective community marketing tool. The Planning and Community Development Committee has concurred with this staff recommendation during its discussions of the draft Ordinance. Following the Municipal Services Committee's review of the draft Ordinance on February 28`h, staff will present it to the Public Works Committee at its March 7, 2011 regular meeting before going back to the Planning and Community Development Committee on March 14, 2011. 2 BI i 3 ORDINANCE NO.6 3 41 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.41, 19.02, 19.04, 19.06 AND 19.08 OF THE AUBURN CITY CODE WHEREAS, RCW 82.02 authorizes the City Council to establish and implement impact fees for parks, transportation, school and fire to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capitpl.expenditures necessary to meet the demands for park, transportation, schools and fire services associated with new growth and development.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, has previously determined through ordinance action that it is reasonable and in the public interest to enact and impose a utility systems development charge for the purpose of recovering a fair share of the costs of providing existing utility systern Jnfrastructure to serve new customers or revised uses of existing customers for the purpose of reimbursing thecity's utility for the cost of construction of available capacity> sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage facilities from those properties, which as part of their development and use create direct or indirect needs for those facilities ;and, WHEREAS, as a result of the current downtown in the local economy, a diminishing number of residential units are being built, a diminishing number of new non-residential projects are being built and a diminishing number of expansions of existing non-residential development are occurring, all of which adversely impact the City's residential and non-residential development inventory, employment opportunities and revenue for government services; and, Ordinance No. 6341 Eeb try 2011 Jan kia• gQ4 ~eeo Novembe~ 4-, 2G-' Page 1 of 71 1 WHEREAS, unless the City acts, the residential and non-residential markets within the City may continue to languish and adverse consequences of decreased revenues, limited residential and non-residential permit activities, abandoned projects, and underutilized land will occur; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a need exists to amend certain chapters of the Auburn City Code to provide more flexibility to, applicants for residential and non- residential development on the timing of payment `of, impact fees and system i development charges; and, WHEREAS, the ordinance amendments are procedural in nature and therefore 3 exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SIEPA) review; and, i WHEREAS, the City Council, finds that the proposed amendments to the Auburn City Code to be consistent-.with and to: implement :the intent of<the City's Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Auburn City, Council,finds that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to adopt this ;:ordinance to promote continued economic development in the City; NOW, THEREFORE, ':THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN as follows: a Section 1. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 13.41 of the Auburn City Code, entitled 'Utility Systems Development Charge,' regarding the imposition of utility systems development charges within the City of Auburn, is hereby amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. 6341 r Ana _e February 8.2011 4am ary 6 Dece Page 2 of 71 Chapter 13.41 UTILITY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Sections: 13.41.010 Definitions. 13.41.020 Purpose. 13.41.030 Utility systems development charge imposed - Rates - Review. 13.41.040 Collection. 13.41.050 Credits. 13.41.060 Segregation and use of revenues. 13.41.070 Appeals. 13.41.080 Scope. 13.41.010 Definitions, As used in this chapter, unless the context 'otherwise requires: A. "Capacity facilities" includes but is not limited ito: 1. Water system infrastructure including: 'water sources, treatment facilities, interties, pump stations, pressure , reducing stations, standby generators, reservoirs, distribution, and trans mission,-, mains and, appurtenances needed for distribution, fire.peoteetion and pressure. 2. Sanitary sewer;systerri_infrastructure including: lift'stations, standby generators, force mains, conveyance lines and appurtenances needed to collect and transport sewage for treatment and disposal or to eliminate a storm and sanitary sewer cross. connection. 3. Storm drainage , system infrastructure including: pump stations, standby generators, storage facilities,,,, water quality facilities, stream, creek or river improvements and conveyance lines needed to collect, transport and dispose of storm drainage, eliminate storm and sanitary sewer cross connections, eliminate storm and surface watery flooding and water quality problems, and treatment and disposal facilities. B. "Impervious surface," for the purpose of calculating a system development charge and only as it pertains to this chapter, means a hard surface area that prevents the entry of water into the soil mantle. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, concrete or asphalt paving. Open, uncovered, retention/detention facilities shall not be considered as impervious surfaces for the purpose of SDC fee calculation. Ordinance No. 6341 Eebruary 8 2011 jgMpQ LaA 1-1 ~ 1~ ~ bar ^s Page 3 of 71 C. "Utility systems development charge" is a charge imposed on new customers, or existing customers revising use of their property, in recognition of the previous investment of the city and its customers in the utility systems. (Ord. 6283 § 2, 2009; Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 2, 1980.) 13.41.020 Purpose. The city council has determined that it is reasonable and in the public interest to enact and impose a utility systems development charge for the purpose of recovering a fair share of the costs of providing existing utility system infrastructure to serve new customers or revised uses of existing customers. The intent is to reimburse the city's utility for the cost of construction of available capacity sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage facilities from those properties, which as. part ' of-their development and use create direct or indirect needs for those facilities. The city coauncil finds that the public would benefit from a logical long-range approach to the financirigeof necessary general facilities. Experience has demonstrated that".the lack of such provision casts an unfair and unexpected burden on taxpayers and residences in?the form of',:Citility rates, taxes, bond interest costs and assessments when core; general or central facilities become j inadequate causing a crisis. Operating from crisis to crisis is wasteful, unsafe and not an acceptable method of operating JocA. ;.government; and debt financing should be minimized wherever possible. (Ord. 5801'§ 1,,2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 1, 1980,) 13.41.030 Utility systems development charge imposed Rates -Review. I A. A sanitary sewer and water utility system s..development charge is imposed upon all lands inside-the, boundary. of the city,, and all',Iands outside the boundary of the city which utilize either.sanitarysewer facilities.or Water facilities or both of the city, and a storm'drainage utility systerns development-charge is imposed upon all lands in the city, exceptthose lands exempted under this chapter, which fees and charges shall be as set forth on the city of Auburn fee schedule. B. The utility systems development charge as set forth in the city fee schedule will be computed to considerahe futulee and/or current value of the utility system's fixed assets, excluding contributions.by,'developers, and outstanding bonded indebtedness, and will also consider an appropriate service unit. C. The utility systems development charge imposed shall be reviewed annually by the city council and the charges may be revised to reflect changes in utility asset value, depreciation of the utility system fixed assets, bonded indebtedness, and the number of ERU, RCE or ESU customers served. (Ord. 5819 § 4, 2004; Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5709 § 1, 2002; Ord. 5619 § 2, 2001; Ord. 5125 § 2, 1998; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 1, 1980.) Ordinance No. 6341 Esfaigiv_$ 2011 JaRuaEy-Qr 'Oe€e~,~~ of . NlVcnab^~ ' Page 4 of 71 13.41.040 Collection. The water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage utilities systems development charges are immediately due and payable upon obtaining a permit for connection to the city utility. Systems development charges for parcels that will utilize infiltration for storm water disposal are immediately due and payable upon obtaining a building permit to develop the parcel. (Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3610 § 2, 1981; Ord. 3510 § 4, 1980.) For residential develo ment for ew deve o e t redevelopment or a change ' use during the effective period of 2010 through` 2012 and prior to issuance of a permit application the applicant main -ct to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provide61by tlie:City that requires payment of water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges due and owing less any credits awarded, by providing for automatic payment "tl tough escrow of these development charges due and -owing to b'e~paid at time of closin&the sale of the lot or unit or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit~°br at°~-tlme of connection to the City's water, sewer or storm drainage 9~ t ms, whjchevebmes first The awarding of credits shall not alter the applicability of tf is:section: Failure'to pay at-t me-ef-e{ shall result in the following: I If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount ren ainG 'unpaid, the responsible part shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACG 11.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shat constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issue shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring and the impac fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted ptoperty(jes) under these sections,'' 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chap -ter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend d any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activesand shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 13 41 070 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section Ordinance No. 6341 rebruary 8 2011 damta Oe November Gig Page 5 of 71 ja deft-aGtiq {'-etl4e-affegk~eFty by the-Q -all i tYt°rliately s sp q~ei,+nrrr revie T imunrl fnr 4h ni ted with the GUFFeni .Jne~lnnmen` C-7 pr a'Fl~d-rha4imI# tYhQt all-eUWanditR "~•~ar n tarv c e wer and_._s}A inage ` eyelopmen nhfees-arel I 6in4W~ For non-residential development composed of new development redevelopment or change in use and, inclusive of commercial office,>and retail uses, light and heavy manufacturing uses but not warehousing and- ~dAtrib'ution uses and institutional development including but not limited to public,and pubiic schools and colleges and hospitals during the effective period of 20110 :through 20132 and prior to the issuance of any`'permit application and and following the execution of a payment agreement on forms: prepared- and provided- by the City, the applicant may elect to pay water, sanitary sever, and>'storm drainage, development charges due and owing less any'credits awarded `~andprior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit or at time of connection to the City's water. sealer-- or storrri? drainage systems, whichever comes first Failure to pay at fi Ey~shall result in the following: t1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC .1.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC 1 25 030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shah constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which. the violation is occurring and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a -violation occurring on the permitted aroperty(ies) under these sections. 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1. the city may record a lien against the permitted property(Les) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. Ordinance No. 6341 f1 Februiary $ 2011 daowggi-6 t7 5Ki nr Goo _~_o _/l~/1 November 4 Page 6 of 71 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 13.41.070 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section: 'senst+tute- a breaGh of jest--tG-4eea"g i2ffil jzth 'mrnediate~ giffipend ermi+n igrevigg {~e ~qstieri-and-shall --Wit-the-aFantinq of any futUfe--serMits URW -sueh-dime tk},^z+--e~~ meof nharn^n ofV IJG ele~ llT V GI ai Ilf7 X11! ~n all If'1 G,LGIIVILV- AA-VnrTbed-hefe111 IU ure to Pal 77C'f~. i the reauir^rl af-Fement{fined fees - CITG op r eager=p ~shabI^ by G~y a fffln,o l+f i -n in @'1 !1(1/1 or hi iail n^P}-PG^ of I IP 4n ~/1 ~av inafinn of said fine "Pd iaJ n^Pf^nee-.--T-he rlnay r rl^ inPa4er1 ni E nffinial in oPfi}led rv -fn use any y metl~e~ Fp avai able-tittef tYl- e~av ~ fv-crc~ 'ctac--rrl _ 13.41.050 Credits. If a developer provides a capacity facility that; benefitother properties as identified within the appropriate utility comprehensive plan, a systems developmerif'charge- credit may be granted under the provisioris`'of,this chapter,,,_and as negotiated between the land developer and the city engineer: Any systems development charge credits granted will be documented in writing. (Ord. 580;1 § 1 20,03; Ord, 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 13.41.060 Segregatio-n.and use'-of revenues, All funds derived from~lth@ utilit, systems development charge are to be segregated by appropriate,; approved account h, practices from all other funds of the city, and that portion of the utilitysystems development charge`calculated and collected on account of a utility shall be used"fo.r,no other purpose1han replacement, major repair, installing, constructing; and extending capacity". facilities of the utility. (Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996;,Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990;-~Ord. 3510 § 6, 1980.) 13.41.070 Appeals-,. Appeals of the public works director's determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the puk?ic works department and shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 18.66 ACC. Determinations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed was consistent with applicable state law and city codes. The hearing examiner's determination shall be final unless appealed to the superior court of the county in which the property subject of the utility system development charges is located within the city of Auburn in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and with the appeal being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2-2LLdaDaar.)o 6 2Q ae Nove+ e '0; Page 7 of 71 i (Ord. 6182 § 3, 2008; Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 7, 1980.) 13.41.080 Scope. The utility systems development charge provided for in this chapter is separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment charge, or other fee otherwise provided by law. (Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4493 § 2, 1991; Ord. 3510 § 8, 1980.) Section 2. Amendment to City Code. That-Chapter 19.02 of the Auburn City t Code, entitled 'School Impact Fees,' regarding the imposition of school impact fees within the City of Auburn, is hereby amended to read as follows: f Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES i Sections: 19.02.010 Purpose.,., ] 19.02.020 Definition , 19.02.030 Determinatiorrofi-the amount of-the impact-,fees. 19.02.040 Interlocal.agreement betweenlhe city and district. 19.02.050 Submis! iIdh._of district_capital"focilities plan and data. 19.02.060 Annual council review. 19.02:070 Fee collection. 19.02;:080 Exemptions, 19.02 090 Adjustments,exceptio'ns and appeals. 19.02.100 Impact fee accounts and refunds. 19.02.110 Impact fee formula. 19.02.115 Impact;fee calculation and schedule for the Dieringer School District. 19.02.120 Impact.fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School District. 19.02.130 Impact fee: calculation and schedule for the Kent School District. 19.02.140 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Federal Way School District. 19.02.010 Purpose. The city council hereby finds and determines that continuing growth and development in the city of Auburn will create additional need and demand for school facilities, and that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of developing new facilities needed as a result. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts this chapter to address identified impacts of new residential Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 aW ~~Y G4RT Nevem e'~*'° Page 8of71 development on schools and to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to meet demands for schools in . order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.020 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the indicated meanings: A. "Capacity" means the number of students the district's facilities can accommodate district-wide, based on the district's standard of service, as,determined by the district. B. "Capital facilities plan" means the district's facilitiesplan adopted by the school board consisting of: 1. A forecast of future needs for school facilities based ron the district's enrollment projections; 2. An identification of additional demands placed ob"existing publ 6.facilities by new development; 3. The long-range construction and capital improvement projects of the district; 4. The schools under; constructionor expansion; 5. The proposed locations:'and capacities of expanded or new school facilities; 6. An inventory of:existing school facilities, including permanent, transitional and relocatablo,'facilities; 7, At least a six-year financing component, updated as necessary to maintain at least a six-year forecast period., for financing needed for school facilities within project e`d funding leveland identifying sources of financing for such purposes, including bond issues authorized by the voters; 8. An identification of deficiencies in school facilities serving the student populations and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period'of time; and 9. Any other long-range projects planned by the district. C. "Capital improvement" means land, improvements to land, structures and relocatable structures (including site planning, acquisition, design, permitting and construction), initial furnishings and selected equipment. Capital improvements have an expected useful life of at least 10 years. Other capital costs, such as motor vehicles and motorized equipment, computers and office equipment, office furnishings, and small Ordinance No. 6341 FebLgarv Nov@ bef W=,~ Page 9 of 71 tools are considered to be minor capital expenses and are not considered capital improvements. D. "City" means the city of Auburn. E. "Classrooms" means educational facilities of the district required to house students for its basic educational program. The classrooms are those facilities the district determines are necessary to best serve its student population. Specialized facilities as identified by the district, including but not limited to gymnasiums, cafeterias, libraries, administrative offices, and child care centers, shall not be counted as classrooms. F. "Construction cost per student" means the 4e timated, cost of construction of a permanent school facility in the district for the grade span of school to be provided, as a function of the district's design standard per;grgde span. G. "Design standard" means the space requir=ed, by grade span and :taking into account ; the requirements of students with special needs, thatis needed in order to fulfill the educational goals of the district as identified in the district's capital facilities` plan. H. "Developer" means the person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or other development control over property for which development activity is proposed. 1. "Development activity" means any residential construction, including the placement of a mobile home, o`r' expansion .of a building, structure or use, any change in use of a building or structure, oi" any change in the use of land that creates additional demand for school facilities. J. "District" means the Auburn, Kent, Federal Way, or Dieringer School District or successor, entities. K. "Elderly" means a person;aged 55 or older. L. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities as set out in the adopted capital facilities plan. M. "Grade span" means the categories into which the district groups its grade of students; e.g., elementary, middle or junior high school, and high school. N. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new growth and development that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the Ordinance No. 6341 r"-v-r-orr ersPffib ~@v@F~i~~~ ,~rv February-8-2011 o rc~c~ afwa D Page 10 of 71 school facilities, and that is used for such facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit or application fee. 0. "Impact fee schedule" means the impact fees to be charged per dwelling unit of development that shall be paid as a condition of residential development within the city. P. "Interlocal agreement" means the agreement between the district and the city governing the operation of the school impact fee program and describing the relationship, duties and liabilities of the parties. Q. "Net fee obligation" means the maximum impact fee obligation that may be assessed as determined in the school district capital facilities plan: The net fee obligation is based on a formula that takes into consideration .factors such: as site acquisition costs, permanent and temporary facilities construction' costs, state match credits, tax credits, developer-provided facility credits (if applicabie) and a local share discount factor. R. "Permanent facilities" means facilities of the district.wth a fixed foundation which are not relocatable facilities. S. "Relocatable facilities" means any. structure, transportable in one or more. sections, that is intended to be used as an education space to meet the needs of service areas within the district, to provide specialized ,facilities;-f orto cover"'~the gap between the time that families move . nto new "residential 'developments arid, the date that construction is completed on permanent school-'-facilities. T. "Relocatable facilities cost per student" means the estimated cost of purchasing and siting q~ elocatable facility in the district for the grade span of the school to be provided as a function of the district's design standard per grade span. U. "Site cost per student" means the estimated cost of a site in the district for the grade span of the school to be provided as a function of the district's design standards per grade span. V. "Standard of service": means the standard adopted by the district which identifies the program year, the class size by grade span and taking into account the requirement of students with special needs, the number of classrooms, the types of facilities the district believes will best serve its student population, and other factors as identified by the district. The district's standard of service shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed in relocatable facilities which are used as transitional facilities or any other specialized facilities housed in relocatable facilities. Ordinance No. 6341 Fe r,arv 8 2011 Jaeea ''~~E Nwembe~',7-,20=W Page 11 of 71 W. "Student factor" means the number derived by the district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit. Student factors shall be based on district records of average actual student-generated rates for comparable developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior to the date of the fee calculation; provided, that if such information is not available in the district, data from adjacent districts, or districts with similar demographics or county- wide averages may be used. Student factors must be updated on an annual basis and separately determined for single-family and multifamily dwelling units and for grade spans. X. "Transitional facilities" means those school facilities1hat are being used pending the construction of permanent facilities; provided, that the necessary financial commitments are in place to construct the permanent facilities. (Ord. 5950^§ 1, 2005; Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.030 Determination of the amount of the'-impact fees. The amount of the impact fees shall be determined for- each school district, as agreed to by the city and the applicable school district. The methodology to determine the fees will be based upon what other jurisdictions`.hbve used to determine their school impact fees and will address the terms and concepts defined in ACC 19.,02.020, Definitions. The city shall only consider requiring :impact fees for any school district upon receipt of a written request duly executed:Jrom the applicable school district The city shall adopt by a separate ordinance an impact fee schedule for each applicable school district. A. If the city annexes property and the affected school district has an impact fee schedule, approved< by the, ,applicable county, then if the affected school district has adopted : a capital facilities plan which has been incorporated into the city's comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act that schedule shall continue in effect on any interim basis and the city shall consider adopting by reference the fee amounts that the county hasimposed together with any formulas or methodologies used to arrive at the fee amounts. B. If residential development occurs within a school district that is within the city of Auburn, and an impact flee schedule has been approved for that school district by another legislative authority, other than the city of Auburn, then if the affected school district has adopted a capital facilities plan which has been incorporated into the city's comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act that schedule shall continue in effect on an interim basis and the city shall consider adopting by reference the fee amounts that have been imposed by the other legislative authority together with any formulas or methodologies used to arrive at the fee amounts. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8_411 da ary &-2-0~1 ® tbe'. No d Page 12 of 71 C. Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The impact fee formula shall take into account the future revenues the district will receive from the development, along with system costs related serving the new development. D. The impact fee shall be based on a capital facilities plan adopted by the district and incorporated by reference by the city as part of the capital facilities element of the city's comprehensive plan, adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, for the purpose of establishing the fee program. E. Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and',multifamily types of dwelling units, and separate student generation rates must be determiped by the district for each type of dwelling unit. For the purpose of this chapter, mobile'hppies shall be treated as single-family dwellings, and duplexes and- attached single-family dwellings shall be treated as multifamily dwellings. F. The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide 'basiJ~ 1. s using the appropriate factors and data to be supplied by the district The fee,calculatior~ shall also be made on a district- wide basis to assure maximum utillzation of>all, available:',school facilities in the district which meet district standards. G. Credit shall be given for school facilities or sites offered by the developer which the district accepts andapproves as-fireeting district needs and standards, consistent within capital facilities plan (Ord. 5078 § 1-,1998.) 19.02.046)nterlocal agreementbetween,the city and district. As a condition of the city's authorization and adoption of a school impact fee ordinance the city and the applicable district shall enter into an interlocal agreement governing the operation of the school impact fee' program, and describing the relationship and liabilities of the>p`arties thereunder. The agreement must provide that the district shall be liable and hold the:city harmless for all damages which may occur as a result of any. failure by the district to:;cor 01y 'with the provisions of this chapter, Chapter 82.02 RCW or other applicable law'The, agreement must provide that the district shall be liable, hold the city harmless and reimburse the city for defense and payment of all claims, including claims for damages, which may occur or arise as a result of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter, Chapter 82.02 RCW or other applicable law in the adoption, administration, or implementation of this chapter and any actions related to it. (Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) Ordinance No. 6341 ebwary $ 201Uamiarv 6-2nM Page 13 of 71 19.02.050 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data. A. On an annual basis (by July 1st or on a date agreed to by district and the city and stipulated in the interlocal agreement) any district for which the city is collecting impact fees shall submit the following materials to the city council: 1. The district's capital facilities plan (as defined herein) as adopted by the school board; 2. The district's enrollment projections over the next six years, its current enrollment and the district's enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year; 3. The district's adopted standard of service; 4. The district's overall capacity over, the next six years, 'which shall take into account the available capacity from school facilities planned byethe district but not yet built and be a function of the diistrict's standard,of service as measured by the number of students which ca`ri•be housed in district facilities; and 5. An inventory of the district's existing facilities. B. To the extent that..~tho::,district's standard of service identifies a deficiency in its existing facilities, the district's capital faeilities-',plan must identify the sources of funding other than impact°'fees for building or acgUirir g the necessary facilities to serve the existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable r period of time. C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be--designed to meet the adopted standard of service. If>sufficient funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which meets the adopted„standard of service, the district's capital facilities plan should document the reason for fhe funding gap, and identify all sources of funding that the district plans to use to meet the adopted standard of service. D. The district shall also submit annually to the city a report showing the capital improvements for which the impact fees have been used. E. In its development of the financing plan component of its capital facilities plan, the district shall plan on a six-year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps: 1. Establish a six-year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues, levies, and/or financing measures required by and consistent with that plan and as approved by the school board consistent with state law; and Ordinance No. 6341 c nn fn February 8- 201 Uamta,rv-f-X0.1'4 gsse~ N®v8m4 a7 2 Page 14 of 71 2. Where applicable, apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements for eligibility to the best of the district's ability. (Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.060 Annual council review. On at least an annual basis, the city council shall review the information submitted by the district pursuant to ACC 19.02.050. The review shall be in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. The city council may also at this time determine if an adjustment to the amount of the impact fees is necessary; provided, that any school impact fee,adjustment that would increase the school impact fee shall require the submittal of a .,written request for the adjustment by the applicable school district concurrent with the, submittal of the annual capital facilities plan pursuant to ACC 19.02.050. In makir?g its decision to adjust impact fees, the city council will take into consideration the quality end completeness of the information provided in the applicable school district capital facilities plan and may decide to enact a fee less than the amount supported by the capital-facilities plan. (Ord. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.070 Fee collection. The school impact fee shall be imposed, based on the impact fee schedule, at the time of application to the city for a development activity permit, The school impact fee shall be imposed based on the impact fee schedule adopted for the. applicable school district. The impact fee and the. application fee shall be collected by'the city and maintained in separate accountAll school impact fees shahl be paidfo the district from the school impact fee account monthly. TMi,idty shall 'retain all application fees associated with the city's administration of the"impact fee;program.' A. Impact fees shall be: imposed upon development activity in the city concurrent with the issuance of a buildirig.:permit _The fees are based upon the adopted fee schedule and collected,, by the city from any applicant where such development activity requires issuance of' :a residential building permit or a building permit for a manufactured or mobile home located on platted lots within manufactured/mobile home parks, and the fee has not been previously, paid. Impact fees are only collected and disbursed within the boundaries of a school district that has executed an interlocal agreement with the city of Auburn. B. Applicants for single-family and multifamily residential building permits and for manufactured/mobile home building permits shall pay the total amount of the impact fees. assessed before the building permit is issued, using the impact fee schedules then in effect. The owner of the manufactured/mobile home park shall be responsible to pay the fee. Ordinance No. 6341 t-ebruary ~ Z0_1.LJafuaFV;Q 1 ~lou e;-W- Page 15 of 71 C. The city shall not issue the required building permit or manufactured/mobile home building permit unless and until the impact fees set forth in the impact fee schedule have been paid. D. The city will impose an application fee, as provided for in the city's adopted fee schedule, per dwelling unit which is subject to and not otherwise exempt from this chapter to cover the reasonable cost of administration of the impact fee program. The fee is not refundable and is collected from the applicant of the development activity permit at the time of permit issuance. (Ord. 6077 § 2, 2007; Ord. 5261 § 1 (Exh. A), 1999; Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) E For complete single-family building permit :applications for new development, redevelopment or a change in use, during the,~e4 ective `~ei•iod of during the effective period of 201M through 20132=~and prior to or at the time of issuance of any single-family resident"ial.buildin permit fora dwelling unit that is being constructed ferj#® the applicant DLy,`~elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared : and provided by the City that reg&es payment of school impact fees due and owing>w-providing, for-automatic payment through escrow of these school impact fees due and owing to be paid 'at time of closing of the sale of the lot or unit or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit whichever comes firsts Failure to pay 4+ +e;esip shall :result in a foilowin 11. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 1 25 030 and 1 25 065 Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC 1 25 030 and 1 25 065 the responsible party shall constitute a property owner the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurrina and the impacf fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation Occurring on the permitted propertv(ies) under these sections: 2. nv unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the propedyfl_ s) for which a permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. Ordinance No. 6341 fie" ^ o ar~t~a T ebruary 8. 2011_.l Page 16 of 71 ea-en4e-a#eeted-epee City of AW r~-sh-alHmmediatehLfj!"end Igffiyiou inlY ion,,orl for }he 100 OF unit l7TITl s eeiated With the n~ 1MYeit de1telepment an ~e~+ts ~,r-~ev'IVOGfrGTin.'f-C7T s~t47TV7-'Yt.7.~od'iCfccay-wrrrr ~Mt;On -and shall fimit the wanting of any emits-fGF the4G"F Unit until lase #at alt outstanding-set gLifflHo ffegLae-~A4u4l t F For complete multi-family building permit applications for new development redevelopment or a change in use, during the effective period of 20110 through 2013-2 and prior to or at the time of issuance of any multi-family residential building permit tef being constructed a the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms',-,prepared and provided by the City that requires payment of school impact fee"s,.due and owing by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these school' im. bact._fees due and owing to be raid at time of closing of the sale of the lot or;6 t or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building hermit, whichever comes first,, Failure to:=~ay ' t t imp of slesi shall result in the ollowi i1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible )party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains ;+lnpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 125.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail an to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC-1.25,030 and 1 25 065 the responsible party shat Constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occ rrina and the impac fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections: ;2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien aaainst_ the p_ ro_aerty_ (ies) for which a Oer s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien aaainst the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend nv permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full a-lien-at--tien on the affeeted-ofoperty by the Gitv of Auburn, shall immediately susgeflnd - ~jarmi}~ nrevinilly - ued fe~~et-~ t~eniated with th ST7e current deveL~Nnment C~tT['Iy""'l h'a''~'~yT~T`' ~YVm-i' c y r,~y ~y rn {irkn"a~~d shall }he li `era mit t ~T}n for the IaJn} n y~ r u ar-rnit erunti"ush-time, ihamt P-11 ~rTTfrl77rcr-rL7n TTtif} ,y a -if din -sGhe ;d4n4u l- Ordinance No. 6341 February 8. 2011 uan~ ard^1 ae€e bs~ membe"W-20~ Page 17 of 71 8, EM MI at 2042=an r~nKiar $at thA timn-°f : ^Ae4af deg }}yR... .F...f + r°n_mQ + r..~ f.. rl [+.y,GERe 0 Hp 1- fn d IbF'1'C G= &iej" e4n_" sers:desefibe M /~e-Feg sir°d afer°"'e~Gn f°°~cu isa MiAdPIT, ..r+er „Un'is4 Q Or F by n-7'i~.ri Jentennn of up +n ~fl 9f#i T"~ ~,°.•QFe e~ie~a#ed-s+ ~AlOq AF K. I . , FS entitled y mbinatien of sa+d e-a~ad-iai; ssentenGe 8ir1i -etia9 6~-~F9n°c.e ec availl.+ble-wrier Iaonnfn i .ac-i- v--cv~~r r{3e hp ri-r e?metts-hererAf thIgAAL 19.02.080 Exemptions. The following development activities are exempt from the requirements of this chapter: A, Reconstruction, f remodeling or construction of housing projects for the elderly, including nursing homes, retirement centers, assisted' hiving facilities or other types of housing projects for >ersons gage 55 and; over, which have recorded covenants or recorded declaration of,;restrictions; precludi,ig, school-aged children as residents of those projects T,h,is exemption` does , not., include individual single-family homes on platted,'",lots unless thee, subject. plat h'assuch recorded covenants. Where such covenant have not alr"ead,y been-, recorded, but the exemption is sought, the city may require the' :(ecording of a covenant,or;recorded declaration of restriction precluding use of the property, for other than' the exempt purpose. If property using this exemption is subsequently used for a nonexempt purpose, then the school impact fees then in effect shall be paid. B. Rebuilding of legally established dwelling unit(s) destroyed or damaged by fire, flood, explosion, act of nature or other accident or catastrophe; provided, that such rebuilding takes place within a period of one year after destruction and that no additional dwelling units are created. C. Alteration, expansion, reconstruction, remodeling, or rebuilding of existing single- family or multifamily dwelling units; provided, that no additional dwelling units are created. Ordinance No. 6341 rA February Q. 2011 J . tla r X941 Oe€e N Page 18 of 71 D. Condominium projects in which existing dwelling units are converted into condominium ownership and where no new dwelling units are created. E. Any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee pursuant to RCW 82.02.100. F. Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuant to a condition of a plat, PUD or similar approval to pay fees, dedicate land or construct or improve school facilities, unless the condition of the plat or PUD approval provides otherwise. The condition of the plat, PUD or similar, approval must also predate the effective date of fee imposition by the city or itsdecessor in interest as provided herein and/or was actually imposed by the city or: jtspredecessor in interest, specifically as a mitigation for impacts addressed in this dhtapter. Pr&Wvust also be submitted to the city that the required mitigation has "en' tendered fob<ifie development activity which would otherwise be subject to this chanter. F G. Any development activity for which school impacts.have been mitigated pursuant to a voluntary agreement entered into with,the districf,to;pay fees, dedicate larixd or construct or improve school facilities, unlessthe.Jerms of J e voluntary agreement provide otherwise. The agreement and development activity application must also predate the effective date of fee imposition by Elie .city or Its predecessor in interest as provided herein. Proof must also be submitted to the city; `prior to issuance of the development activity permit, that the required mitigation has beeii"'tendered for the development activity which would otherwise be subject to;,this chapter. H. The replacement of a mobile home with another mobile home within an existing mobile'"home park. (Ord. 5261 `§;1. (Exh. B), 1999; Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.090A ,djUstments, exceptions and appeals. A. Arrangements may be made for later payment of the impact fee with the approval of the district only'if the district:determines that it will be unable to use or will not need the payment until a later:time; provided, that sufficient security, as defined by the district, is provided to assure payme"f Security shall be made to and held by the district, which will be responsible for tracking and documenting the security interest. B. The fee amount established in the schedule shall be reduced by the amount of any eligible payment previously made for the lot or development activity in question, either as a condition of approval or pursuant to a voluntary agreement. C. Whenever a development is granted approval subject to a condition that the development actually provide a school site or facility acceptable to the district, the developer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of the facility, based on the actual Ordinance No. 6341 6ebYruamI-2Q11 Ja farv 6 2nI4 ID. Ne ef= Page 19 of 71 i cost of providing the facility, against the fee that would be required by this chapter. The value of the facility shall be estimated at the time of approval, but must be documented, and the documentation confirmed after the facility is completed to assure that an accurate credit amount is provided. If facility value based on actual costs is less than the calculated fee amount the difference remaining shall be chargeable as a school impact fee. D. The standard impact fees may be adjusted by the planning director, if one of the. following circumstances exist: 1. The developer demonstrates that an impact fee assessment was improperly calculated; or 2. Unusual circumstances identified the developer demonstrate that if the standard impact fee amount was applied to the development,, it, would be unfair or unjust taking into account the purposes and intent of this chapter and Chapter 82.02 RCW. E. In cases where a developer requests a fee calculation adjustment, exception or a credit pursuant to subsection (C) of this section, the planning director shall consult with t the district and the district shall advise,the planning director prior to the planning director making the final impact.fee determinatigrl., i F. A developer may provide, and the planning director shall review, studies and data as a part of a request for a fee calculation adjustment, exception, or credit. G. Any appeal of the final decision of the planning director with regard to fee amounts may be,made by the 'deyeloper,.:district, or other aggrieved party and shall follow the process for- the appeal of :the underlying development application, as set forth in the Auburn City Gode. The plartn.ing director's decision shall be given substantial weight and the appellant shall have'the burden of proof that the final fee determination is unfair, taking into accountfthe purposes and intent of Chapter 82.02 RCW and this chapter. H. Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval of development activity. However, such payment under protest shall not excuse the applicant's obligation to timely exhaust all administrative remedies and to comply with all applicable time limitation periods. (Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02. 100 Impact fee accounts and refunds. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest- bearing account established by the district solely for the district's school impact fees. All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes or purposes for Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 daou^B1920Weser be" Nover:Pb"" ~049 Page 20 of 71 which impact fees were imposed. Annually, the district, based in part on its report prepared pursuant to ACC 19.02.050, shall prepare a report on the impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned or received, and capital or system improvements for which impact fees were used. The district shall submit a copy of this report to the city. The city finance director shall maintain separate school impact fee and administration fee accounts pursuant to ACC 19.02.070, and shall prepare, for the city council, a report on the source and amount of all school impact fees collected and transferred to the district. B. Impact fees for the district's capital improvements.-'shall be expended by the district only in conformance with the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. C. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered by the district for a permissible use within six years of receipt by the district;;. unless there exists 'an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held lorge'r:;:than six,:-,years. Such-.extraordinary or compelling reasons shall be identified to the city;py the`diistrict in a wr'itt" njeport. In any decision approving such an extension, the city council shall identify the district's extraordinary and compelling reasoiis`for.7the fees to'be held longer than six years in the written findings. Provided that any party that: Voluntarily elects to use the alternative fee payment method specified .in Sectio-,,f9.02.070s1jall sign°-as-a condition of use of the alternative fee payment''method a waiver<of right on a'`form '~prepared and provided by the City to recovery. of school impact fees' not spent with the statutory six-year timeframe. D. The current owner of property on which; an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the,impact:fees have not been expended or encumbered within six years or.:an extension granted'`under subsection (C) of this section of receipt of the funds by the district on school facilities. intended to benefit the development activity for which the impact fees were paid. Impact fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis:.The district shall notify potential claimants by first-class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service addressed to the current owner of the property as shown in the county taxrecords. E. An owner's request for a refund must be submitted to the district in writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever date is later. Any impact fees that are not expended or encumbered by the district in conformance with the capital facilities plan within these time limitations, and for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period, shall be retained and expended consistent with the provisions of this section. Refunds of impact fees shall include any interest earned on the impact fees. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8_201 1 Jana N ° Page 21 of 71 F. Should the city seek to terminate any or all school impact fee requirements, all unexpended or unencumbered funds, including interest earned, shall be refunded to the current owner of the property for which a school impact fee was paid. Upon the findings that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of the refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first-class mail addressed to. the owner of the property as shown in the county tax records. All funds available for ' refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining i funds shall be retained by the district, but must be expended by the district, consistent with the provisions of this section. The notice requirement set forth above shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered :balances within the account or accounts being terminated. G. A developer may request and shall receive a refund, including: interest earned on the impact fees, when: 1. The developer does not proceed to finalize the :development activity as required l by statute or city provisions including the Uniform Building Code; and 1 2. No impact on the district has resulted. "Impacf`', shall be deemed to include cases where the.. district has expended or encumbered, the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refpnd In t,, a event that the district has expended or encumberied j e fees in` good faith;; no refund shall be forthcoming. However, if with a period of three years the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the' substantrally>similar'.,development activity, the owner shall be eligible fora credit. Theowner`rust petition the district and provide receipts of impact fees paid by the ::owner for" adevelopment of the same or substantially similar nature on tfle same.property or some portion thereof. The district shall determine whether to. grant a credit and such determination may be appealed by following-flie procedures; set forth in ACC 19.02.090. H. Interest due upon , the ,refund of impact fees required by this section shall be g calculated according' W' the; average rate received by the district on invested funds throughout the period during which the fees were retained. (Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.110 Impact fee formula. The impact fee calculation and schedule shall be based upon the formula set forth below. The formula is the city's determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and multifamily dwelling units Ordinance No. 6341 bruarv 6 2011 ~ar~eaw 6 X04a 9e her " November W Page 22 of 71 because of their different impact on school facilities. Separate student generation rates (student factor) must be determined by the district for each type of dwelling unit. Given the following variables: A = Full cost fee for site acquisition costs = Al + A2 + A3 Al = Elementary school site cost per student x the student factor A2 = Middle school site cost per student x the student factor A3 = High school site cost per student x the student factor B = Full cost fee for school construction = B1 + B2 + B3 131 = Elementary school construction cost per student x the student factor B2 = Middle school construction cost per student x the student factor B3 = High school construction cost per student x the student factor C = Full cost fee for temporary facilities maintenance = C1 + C2 + C3 C1 = Elementary school temporary facility cost per student x the student factor C2 = Middle school temporary facility cost per student x the student factor C3 = High school temporary facility cost per student x the student factor i D = State match credit = D1 + D2 + D3 D1 = Boeckh Index x SPI square footage per student for elementary school x state match % x student factor D2 = Boeckh Index x SPI square footage per student for middle school x state match % x student factor D3 = Boeckh Index x SPI square footage per student for high school x state match % x student factor Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 dan-uary~B~~m~^ ^ { ye be, f; Page 23 of 71 TC = Tax payment credit = the net present value of the average assessed value for the dwelling unit type in the school district, <(1+I)n>-1 1(1=1)n x the current school district capital property tax levy rate, 1(1+1)n, where I = the current interest rate for outstanding bond issues n = the number of years left before the bond or capital levy is retired, up to a maximum of 10 years 1 FC = Facilities credit = the per dwelling unit value of any site or facilities provided directly by the development subject to ACC 19.02.090 FC = Value of fee payer's contribution Number of dwelling units in the development Then the unfunded need (UN): UN=A+B+C-D-TC The Fee Obligation: Total Unfunded Need x 50% = Fee Calculation Where, in addition to the definitions in ACC 19.02.020: A. "Boeckh Index" means the area cost allowance for school construction determined under WAC 180-27-060. B. "SPI square footage per student" means the space allocations per grade span determined by WAC 180-27-035. C. "State matching credit" means the calculation set forth in Attachment A of the district's Boeckh Index times SPI square footage per student per grade span times state match percentage times applicable student factor. Ordinance No. 6341 February 2211 ~~eea 3e ► ~ N vambeF4=7=,=2"G Page 24 of 71 D. "State match percentage" means the percentage of school construction costs for which a district is eligible to receive state funding pursuant to RCW 18A.525.166 and the rules of the State Board of Education. E. "Tax payment credit" or "TC" means the calculation in the formula of the district's average real property tax-determined value for single-family dwelling units or multifamily dwelling units times the district's capital property tax rate as adjusted by the current interest rate for any bonds being retired by a capital tax and the number of years each capital levy tax shall be imposed up to 10 years. The district's capital tax rate consists of authorized tax levies to retire bonded indebtedness ;incurred for school district capital purposes under Chapter 28A.530 RCW and sch' o!` facility levies for construction, remodeling, and modernization under RCW 84.5245' 3. (Q;rd. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5096 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.115 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Dieringer~ hoot District. The impact fee calculation and schedule below.,isbased upon a review of,the impact fee calculation for single-family resrdences and for hiOltifamily residence s`' set forth in the most recent version of the Dieringer School District Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an elem`e-6"t ~,,W the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the,. appropriate propo_r ionate share of the costs of public school capital.Jacilities need ed;°ao serve :new groV tho and development to be funded by school impaeffees-based on'the factors defer ed in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 20.1 1, the school impact:fee shall be as follows: Per Single Family.Dwelling.Unit $3,50.00 Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $0.00 19.02.120 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School District. The impact fee 'calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the impact fee calculation for single=family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in the most recent version of, the Auburn School District's Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council: as an element of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 2011, the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $5,266.33 Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $1,518.22 Ordinance No. 6341 February 8. 2011 6gary 6 201 R~e Page 25 of 71 19.02.130 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Kent School District. The impact fee calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the impact fee and calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in the most recent version of the Kent School District's Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020.;, Effective January 1, 2011, the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $5,486.00 Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $3,378.00:, 19.02.140 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Federal Way School District. The impact fee calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the impact fee and calculation for single-family resider ces,and for multifamily residences set forth in the most recent version of the Federal=Way<School DistridS Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an =b-lement:,of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The calculation is the determination of the: appropriate .,proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed fo. serve. new,_grow'th" and development to be funded by school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 201,1 '.,the school impact;fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $4,014,00_ Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit 12,172.00 Sectio~n`'3. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 19.04 of the Auburn City Code, entitled 'Transportation; Impact Fees,' regarding the imposition of transportation impact fees within the City;of Auburn, is hereby amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. 6341 lEebn ar 8 2011-~i fe a Rlev boo z?~~n Page 26 of 71 Chapter 19.04 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES' Sections: 19.04.010 Findings and authority. 19.04.020 Definitions. 19.04.030 Reserved. 19.04.040 Assessment of impact fees. 19.04.050 Independent fee calculations, 19.04.060 Credits and adjustments 19.04.070 Exemptions. 19.04.080 Appeals. 19.04.090 Establishment of`an impact tee account for transportation.. ' 19.04.100 Refunds. 19.04.110 Use of funds. 19.04.120 Review and update ofimpact fees:{ 19.04.130 Miscellaneous;provisions 19.04.010 Findings`alid authority The council of the city of Auburn (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development; mcludmg b:ut not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, .and industrial developrr_ent, in the~city of~"Auburn will create additional demand and need for transportation facilities in the city of Auburn, and the council finds that new growth and, development'should pay.a proportionate share of the cost of transportation facilities needed to serve ffie new 'g owth and development. The city of Auburn has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developmersson transportation facilities. These studies have contributed to the rates as established:'i.n the, fee schedule of the city of Auburn. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, :the; council adopts this chapter to assess impact fees for transportation facilities. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the transportation impact fee program. (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined Ordinance No. 6341 Eebmarv $ 2011 daruayQ 29118e be ~ November ' Page 27 of 71 herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090, or given their usual and customary meaning. A. "Act" means the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, as now in existence or as hereafter amended. B. "Building permit," for the purposes of this chapter only, means an official document or certification which is issued by the city and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. In the case of increased impacts on transportation facilities caused by a change in use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, and where no building perm it'is"required, the term "building permit" shall specifically include business registrations. C. "Capital facilities plan" means the ecapital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 36:70A RCW,. and such plan as amended. D. "City" means the city of Auburn, E. "Council" means the city council ofthe city of Auburn. F. "Department" means`the department of public works. G. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use-of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for transportation facilities. H. "Director" means the director >of.the department of public works or the director's designee.- I. "Downtown plan. area" means the study area as identified and adopted in the City of Auburn Downtown'?Plan dated.May 2001 that is defined by the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad on the westand State Route 18 on the south. The eastern boundary is defined as "F" Street SE' from State Route 18 to East Main Street, East Main Street from "F" Street SE to "E" Street SE, and "E" Street NE from East Main Street to 4th Street NE. The northern boundary is defined as 2nd Street NW from the Interurban Trail to "D" Street NW, 3rd Street NW/NE from "D" Street NW to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street NE from Auburn Avenue to "E" Street NE. For the purposes of this chapter, the downtown plan area boundary has been slightly modified to avoid bisecting properties. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2_Q'1._1._Januay ~ 9Lam OaO=lam; Nov ' Page 28 of 71 J. "Dwelling unit" means a building, or portion thereof, designed for residential occupancy, consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. K. "Encumber" means to reserve, set aside or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any gov(6,'Mrnental entity, commencing a land development activity or land use change which creates the demand for additional transportation facilities, and which requires the issuance 41 a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. M. "Gross floor area (GFA)" means the total-square footage of any~building, structure, or use, including accessory uses. N. "Gross leasable area (GLA)" means the total ,floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use. For the purposes d( he trip generation calculation, the floor area of any parking garages%within th`e building shall not be included within the GLA of the entire building. GLA is the-area for which tenants>pay rent; it is the area that produces income. 0. "Hearing examiner" means `the examiner who acts on behalf of the council in considering and applying.land `use; regulatory codes as provided under Chapter 18.66 ACC. Where 'ap'propriate, "hearing examiner" also refers to the office of the hearing examiner P. "Impact' :fee" means a payment, of money imposed by the city of Auburn on development; ;activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the transportation facilities needed to serve new growth and development. Q. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account established for the transportation impact fees' collected. The account shall be established pursuant to ACC 19.04.090, and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. R. "Independent fee calculation" means the transportation impact calculation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the attached schedules. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 Jannaw-& 281 ~e6ebe~~_^T~;+~ge~ Page 29 of 71 S. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool, if not otherwise defined. T. "Multiple-family dwelling" means a building designed exclusively for occupancy by three or more families living independently of each other, and containing three or more dwelling units. U. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate. contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. V. "PM peak hour" means the hour of the highest transportation demand for the entire Auburn transportation system which, between noon and midnight, typically occurs between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m• W. "Single-family dwelling" means a detached building designed exclusively for occupancy by one family and containing one dwelling unit. A manufactured home may be considered a one-family dwellino,cif sited per Chapter 18.31 ACC. X. "Square footage" means the square footage of the gross floor area or gross floor leasable area of the development. Y. "State" means the state of Vashington: i Z. "Transportation project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of the project, ' and are not transportation ;,,system improvements. No transportation improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan approved by the council shall be considered a transportation project improvement. AA. "Transportation system, improverents" means transportation facilities that are included in the city of Auburn's capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to transportation project improvements. BB. "Grandfathering" means that existing land uses of a property in effect on July 1, 2001, the initial effective date of the impact fees ordinance, are entitled to system capacity credits determined by the adopted impact fees rate schedule. CC. "Surplus credits" means credits over and above those calculated as an impact fee. For example: Ordinance No. 6341 7nan ebruar_ 2011 Jar gar r Bees eNovembe-r nn~n Page 30 of 71 E 1. In grandfathering calculations, if the difference between a proposed use fee minus existing use credit results in a positive number, the result is the impact fee due. 2. In grandfathering calculations, if the difference between a proposed use fee minus existing use credit results in a negative number, the result is the surplus credit and no impact fee would be due. Current practice is to not pay out in real dollars the calculated surplus credit. In off-site system capacity improvements or ROW dedication it is also possible to create sufficient value that results in a surplus credit. DD. "Change in use" for the purposes of this chapter means a different use as set forth in the identification of uses for the various fees for uses in the1TE Manual. EE. "ITE Manual" means the manual promulgated and published,; by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. FF. "Downtown catalyst area" means the areas defined by (1) the boundary of West Main Street/East Main Street to the north, "A" Street `SE to the east, 2nd Street SE/2nd Street SW to the south, and "A" Street. SW to the west, and (2) the boundary of East Main Street to the south; Auburn Avenue to the east, 1st Street NE to the north, and North Division Street~to the west. GG. "Downtown catalyst ;accessory area" means the area defined by the boundary of 1st Street.NW to ahe south, "A":Street NW to the west, 2nd Street NW to the north, and North Division Stre'et'to the east. HH. "Emergency public interest area" means the area defined as King County Tax Parcel No. 0.721059053, located at 901; Auburn Way N., Auburn, WA 98002, described more particularly as follows: Ordinance No. 6341 Ebb aCv $ 2Q11 daoua ~n~ 1 ~e€~ ~ 6 ~^~^sn A}®v ~e, Page 31 of 71 Lots 1, 2 and 3 of City of Auburn Short Plat No. SPL0009-98, according to short plat recorded April 20, 1999, under recording No. 9904202125, in King County, Washington, 7 CGS:+i: F. D: J f nw51:1 - 14 viv.m ~ ? 7tll:?~?Sl b.oiYt?}>3 ~ ~ N:'ui.`'!1; jildXi+3t7 . ~YvSa~ t Auburn ~ta=Kwt! ~a°` xua.,i;a~ o C:; ~ki38 3 i 2r t 4 'I and as shown below: (Ord. 6199 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6197 § 1, 2008; 2007; Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5604 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5506 2001.) 19.04.030 Reserved. (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1,'°.2001.) 19.04.040 Assessment of impact fees. A. Effective July 1;'2001, the city shall collect impact fees, based on the fee schedule of the city of Auburn, from any applicant seeking a building permit from the city for any development: activity within the city. B. Effective May 19""200.3, where,a changejn use increases the trip generation by more than one_whole PM peak hour trip; the director shall calculate a transportation impact fee based ori.ahe increasesJh.the trip,tgeneration rate. C. The director shall apply a, heavy truck adjustment factor to the transportation impact fees for industrial land uses; addressing the percentage of vehicle trips for such uses made by trucks of three;.0r;.more axles and the street capacity used by such trucks in cles. comparison to other veli D. The amount of impact fees shall be determined at the time an applicant submits a complete application for a building permit, using the impact fee schedules then in effect, or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director pursuant to ACC 19.04.050, and adjusted for any credits pursuant to ACC 19.04.060. E. Payment of impact fees shall be made by the feepayer at the time the building permit is issued. The amount to be paid shall not be increased for any applicant that submitted Ordinance No. 6341 e r [Y $ _ 011 dap ar 2(~1 @~€ t e,-3 - Neve be , Page 32 of 71 a complete application for the building permit before the city established the impact fee rates. F. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ACC 19.04.060 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ACC 19.04.060 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. Impact fees, as determined after the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the feepayer at the time the building permit is issued. G. The department shall not issue a building permit unless and until the impact fees have been paid or credit(s) awarded. (Ord. 60051, 2006; Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) H. For complete single-family building permit applications for new developments redevelopment or a change in use', duringthe effective period of % 20110 through 2013-2 and prior to or. at the `time of issuance, of any single- family residential building permit..i b-dwelling unh f66s being constructed fep"e, the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to ..the property on forms prepared and provided by the City that reguires pdAent of transportation impact fees due and owing by providing for,:automatic payment through escrow of these transportation impact fees due and owin -;tq `o.be paid aflime of closing of the sale of the lot or unit or a' final inspection or issuance of certificate of -occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first Failure to pay a" n%--of elesing'shall result in the following j1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pa the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of err 11.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city For the purposes of applying ACC 1 25 030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shall constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the propertv(ies) on which the violation is occminn and the impact ~ vuv fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted' property(ies) under these sections' 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the propert ies) for which a permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien against the permitted p~opertv(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current Ordinance No. 6341 tebruarv 8 201 Page 33 of 71 development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot o "unit until such time that all outstanding water sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full: A080 shall not apply -W 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 19.0 `determinations made pursuant to this section' "ee-ast+s R4e f►eGted~.~ t bum-s"a"mm et~d ar~ern*&iweviously-issue"r the-4et-or- e t-rise ' GuffeA"ffi elepfetlt kall It he-Wanttme-of-a fr",~'r~ccrr°-per+~ait~s;-„feFr,-.tk~►ejet-e 'r~ae tiYGt'ti'!T'~'t'~rt~7~~~d1rtQ'ti~-iabttCaeivurv-AQr~t'dYl: I For complete multi-family building permit applications for new development redevelopment or _a _change in use. during th"o effective period of 20110 through 20132 and prior to '"or at the time of Issuance of any multi- family residential building permit for beinq constructed fap=&ale, the "applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forftsrepared Ah6provided by the City that requires payment of trarisportation impact fees clue and owin6`6V providing for automatic payment through escrow'of these transpo"station impact fees due and owing to be paid at time of closing of the sale ofAhe lot or unit Qr at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes firs .Failure to pay at ime ef-slesir+ shall result in ih ollowin j1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 1 25 030 and 1 25 065 Written notification shall be by regular and certifl_ed mail ang to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applvina ACC 1 25 030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shal constitute a -property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(!es) on which the violation is occurring and the impac fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted propea ies) under these sections: 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstandinc=30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien against the pe[Mi e property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately sus any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or `unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full. Ordinance No. 6341 'February 8 2011 Jaaea~~~-29x1 Noverpber4 ~ Page 34 of 71 The appeals process authorized in Section 19.04.080 shall not apply to' determinations made pursuant to this section a-Ifen-arbor-eta he-a#ested--preps tad 9MLp i{j( {~.7revlp L,VM 'V~I 411E tMIV~y[,1he lot or unit asseeiateN rAiih r`+ !+~`r~~~~A r I{II the VMII4pT7C-GiGYCr Gurren4 r7eye4 TepI'17y T"7` 6MGn-and shall et t ,{,mot a E)ff any fAtUFe perlvli~ f"r +he49"r--unit+mfil~eh-Ume that all-0~}t3tding,!Eg Rd-pG1-tCttGn rn ant fees "rye paid i.. ifuW ef-iod of n A ^ A_ir h 7 cU aft ~gXgqerE. 4.., +he C~i# b F A1~4air'i~ r.~~ll i >t" oCktol„ a e P. .....1 sr t tt I-FI J K. For non-residential` eyelopment'composed of new development redevelopment or a change in use and inclusive:of commercial~officeand: retail uses light and heaver manufacturing uses- 'but not warehousim' and distribution uses and institutional development includind' but not limited to put -lic and public schools and colleges and hospitals;~Adrihb~~Ahe effective.:period::of of, 20110 through 20132>66d prior to~lhe issuance of a`- bertnit application and and following the execution of a payment agreement on forms prepared and provided by the City, the applicant rriay elect to pay-transportation impact fees due and owing less any credits awarded, and prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit. whichever comes first. Failure to pay at-~ Me-pf shall result in the following: 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subiect to the enforcement provisions of ACC 125,030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25 030 and 1 25 065, the responsible party shall constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections: Ordinance No. 6341 e y 8 011 ~12g13af~i~-~eF ~^,s 7 ~n n Page 35 of 71 i 2. Any unsaid charges adopted by this cheater that are outstanding 30 days from the ate the charges are due shall co a lien against the ra a 'es for which d e v been issued in the amount of he unpaid res. i addition actions authorized ' subsection 1 the c' may record lie a sins the peanittO ro ert ie the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately s en any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the curre6t development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full: 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 19.04.080 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section,` `isuspend anv and all nerrrmits -Dreyig rw d-agGG eyelee~er "B rJ shall rlamtrc the rrraPtinn of ani ~y future Permits unfl_ _ uGh tim tali ~r~a ---rrrr-~~ i 6utstandinf~tran 9l atl8rl frli a~fc °Q armpa~~-FR-ftFll- hc_nrei n failrre to Pair the rnnuireife e[~eptlened fees L! In 11 ca instaln. q e s d e s e ri d h TnIT-a,T-lTl~ - 1-u ~ t+~ w ; ,mil me an ~ •~~f o of !!p tr d I 00" her a iail sentnnnn of lip to (]9 dvsor av a-Gembination of said-fine-and-lail-sentense--Tae-rnayer--er-desi ^t ~,fi~. n 6ffieial lar! to na an~method nr oTVQ W er the law to r. ct--cv cwv w f o reniirem of l~l~1A/~ . ~.:.~-ccrcrm-rr,erit~-heFe . 19.04.050 Independent:fee calculations. A. If in the judgrn,ent of this director;'none of th6 fee categories set forth in the attached scheduleaccurately descnbesor captures the, impacts of the new development, the applicants" shall conduct:an independent fee calculation and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations, once accepted by the city. B. Feepayers may opt not to,ha. ve the impact fees determined according to the attached schedule. Such feepaye.rs shall prepare and submit to the director an independent fee m calculation for the development activity for which a building permit is sought. C. The documentation submitted and supporting an independent fee calculation shall clearly show PM peak hour trip generation characteristics of the proposed development based on industry-accepted standards as articulated in the ITE trip generation manual. The modified fee shall be based on the average cost per trip established in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn, and shall consider the alternative trip generation data. Ordinance No. 6341 Februar $ 2011 ~artayr X911 De€eb^8 Nevs+►g"^ Page 36 of 71 t E D. A nonreimbursable administrative fee shall be charged for each independent fee calculation. The fee shall be deposited with the city to pay for city review of the independent fee calculation upon submittal of the documented independent fee study. E. After the city completes its review, the actual fees and expenses will be determined and the cash deposit shall be adjusted to provide for a refund by the city or additional payment by the feepayer. F. While there is a presumption that the calculations set.<forth in the attached schedule are valid, the director shall consider the documentation'.sub`mitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternat~ve;-,"uire the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case-by-casse basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/0'r,# nciples of fairness. G. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this, section may be appealed to the 3 office of the hearing examiner subject, to the procedures set forth in ACC 19.04.080. j (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1 2001..) 19.04.060 Credits and adjustments. I A. A feepayer can request ;that a credit or credits..for transportation impact fees be awarded to him/her for transportation project improvements provided by the feepayer in excess of the standard requirements for the feepayer's development if the land, improvements, and/or th,e,.facility constructed:, are identified as transportation system improvements that provide 'capacity to~serve new growth in the capital facilities plan, or the director, at his/her discretion, makes the finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the >transportation goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan. B. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine the value of dedicated land by'6sing available documentation or selecting an appraiser from a list of m independent appraisers ..mai.ntained by the department to determine the value of the land being dedicated. The` value of the improvements will be determined through documentation submitted ,by the feepayer. C. The feepayer shall pay the cost of the appraisal and shall deposit on account the estimated cost of the appraisal as determined by the city at the time the feepayer requests consideration for a credit. D. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, where Ordinance No. 6341 Ee-bLuary-8-29 LL ®e€efab F 6 2 010: Noveml~ ^ Page 37 of 71 applicable, the legal description of the site donated, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 days shall nullify the credit. E. Any claim for credit must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. F. No credit shall be given for transportation project , improvements or right-of-way dedications for direct access improvements toand/or` within the development in question. 31 3 G. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section.shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.04.080, H. Pursuant to and consistent with`'the requirements. of RCW 82.02.060, the fee rate in the fee schedule for the city of Auburn has been reasonably adjusted for other revenue sources which are earmarked for, or. proratable to, funding transportation facilities. 1. In order to grandfather the capacity rights of existing, land uses, the director will utilize the adopted rates 'to calculate any impact fee credits .and to determine any surplus credits for off-site system improvements maoe`by the property owner. Only in a situation when a property ownermakes- off site system capacity improvements that qualify in accordance 'With ;subsection A'of this-section will any surplus credits (value computed during,.=the permit year,and not. adjusted :for uiflation) remain with the property or any subdivision of that property to'benefit future"development where a traffic impact fee is determin'i'§&to be due. (Ord;r5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.070 Exemptions. A. The following shall be exempted from the payment of transportation impact fees: 1. Replacement 'of a'sfructure with a new structure of the same PM peak hour trip generation and use at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure. 2. Alterations, expansion, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed. 3. Alterations of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the useable space. Ordinance No. 6341 'Februaryy 2011 Page 38 of 71 i i 4. Miscellaneous improvements, including but not limited to fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 5. A change in use where the increase in PM peak hour trip generation is less than the threshold stated in ACC 19.04.040(6). 6. Demolition, or moving of a structure out of the city. 7. Any building permit application that has been submitted to the department before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the first effective date of the transportation impact fee rate schedule and subsequently determined to be a j complete application by the city. 8. All development activity within the, "downtown plarr'area" as defined in ACC } 19.04.020(1); provided, that this exemption shall sunset on au,ne 30, 2007, unless otherwise extended by the city council." : 9. All development activity, in it,hthe "downtown catalyst area' as defined in ACC 19.04.020(FF); provided, that this;:exemption shall sunset on June 30, 2010, unless otherwise extended by the city council, 10. Fifty percent &l -*;all development activity. within the "downtown catalyst accessory area" as`d efrned. in ACC 1'9 04'O20(GG), ao the effect that the exemption provided hereby shall be -for 50 percent' of the applicable transportation impact fees; provided, 'fl%at,,this exemption shall sunset on December 31, 2008, unless otherwise. extend ed:by the'city council. 11-All development activity within the "emergency public interest area" as defined in A.CC 19.04.020(1H-H); provided, that this exemption shall sunset on December 31, 2008, unless otherwise extended by the city council. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within`an'~exemption identified in this section. Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.04.080. (Ord. 6199 § 2, 2008; Ord. 6197 § 2, 2008; Ord. 6178 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6089 § 2, 2007; Ord. 6068 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5604 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.080 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be made by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal submitted under protest shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have been paid. Alternatively, any feepayer Ordinance No. 6341 February 8, 2011 JaradaFV 2aa N ~b° Nevembep4' " Page 39 of 71 may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees, providing the applicant is willing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in accordance with the requirements of ACC 17.08.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the public works director without first paying the fees, providing the applicant is willing to postpone issuance of the building permit until after the appeal process when the revised final fee is known. B. Appeals of the public works director's determinations rh?ide pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the city's public works department and shall be heard by the city's hearing examiner pursuant to Chapter 18.66 ACC: beterminations on appeals shall be based on whether the decision being appealed. was consistent with applicable state law and city codes. The hearing examiner's determination shall:be final unless appealed to the superior court of the county in which the property subject ,of the transportation impact fees is located within the city of `Aub'urn in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, and with the appeal, being filed with the city clerk within 30 days after issuance of.ahe decision ofahe hearing examiner. (Ord. 6182 § 5, 2008; Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506§1, 2001.) 19.04.090 Establishment of an impact fee account for transportation. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest- bearing accounts. The fees received shall be prudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the city. B. There is ,hereby established..a `separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant JoAhis chapter: the transportation impact account. Funds withdrawn from this account`rnust be used _in accordance with":Ihe provisions of ACC 19.04.110. Interest earned on: the fees shall,be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were;collected.' C. On an annualbasis, the financial director shall provide a report to the council on the transportation impact accour t ,showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the 'transportation improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. . D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the delay. E. In order to comply with RCW 82.02.060(2), impact fees for development activity in the downtown plan area shall be paid for with public funds other than from impact fee Ordinance No. 6341 Eeb"ta-ry 8 2011 ,kqaua aQ4 Qe WAVe e 1 - 8 Page 40 of 71 i i E i accounts during the exemption period set forth in ACC 19.04.070 (A)(8). (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5604 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.100 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid, or where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ACC 19.04.090, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first-in, first=out basis. Provided that any party that voluntarily elects to use the alternative ::fee;., payment method specified in Section 19.04.040 shall sign as a condition of= u'se of-.the alternative fee payment method a waiver of right on a form prep ared'and provide ~lby the City to recovery of l transportation impact fees not spent with the>statutory six-yee imeframe. ; B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of sucfclaimants. A potential claimant or claimant must be the owner ofithe property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a;written request for a refund of the fees to the director within one year of the dato the right", q., claim the refund arises or the date that notice ,is,given . ichever rs later,' D. Any impact fees for which no application` for a refund has been made within this one- year period shall be retained .key the city ahd ;expended on appropriate transportation system improvements. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. F. If and when:jhe city seeks;. to terminate any or all components of the transportation impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or compo e'nts;,Jhbluding interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding That any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for appropriate transportation system improvements. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8, 201 8 November- Page 41 of 71 i i i i G. The city shall also refund to the developer of property for which impact fees have been paid all impact fees paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur. (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.110 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, transportation impact fees: 1. Shall be used for transportation improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development; and 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in transportation facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance`or;,operations. B. As a general guideline, transportation impact fees may::be used for,,any transportation improvements which could otherwise be funded by a bohd issue of the city. C. Transportation impact fees may be spent for transportation improvements, including but not limited to planning, land acquisition; right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements including ..mitigation, construction, engineering, architectural, permitting financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. D. Impact fees may be used to recoup transportation improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the extent that new,growth::and development will be served by the previously constructed.improvements or incurred costs. E. In the event that bonds,or similardebt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of transportation 'improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.120 Review and update of impact fees. A. The fee rate schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed periodically by the council. B. The fee schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council as it may deem necessary and appropriate in conjunction with Ordinance No. 6341 Febwary-8 2011 yS n~ a nn~n r~~ nn~n Page 42 of 71 the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. (Ord. 6050 § 1, 2006; Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 19.04.130 Miscellaneous provisions. A. Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that`1he exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of RCW 82.02.050(1)(0) :1 B. Captions. The chapter and section captions used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not control or affect the mearimg'or constructionof any of the provisions of this chapter. C. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is found t6:.b~e invalid or Unenforceable for any reason, such finding shall not affect the validity i enforceability of any other section of this chapter. D. Short Title. This chapter shall be known and-may be cited.as the "The City of Auburn Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.rd. 57E3 1;>2003;~Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) Section 4. Amendment to City Code. That Chapter 19.06 of the Auburn City Code, entitled 'Fire; Impact Fee,' regarding the imposition of fire impact fees within the City of Auburn, is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 19.06 FIRE IMPACT FEE Sections: 19.06.010 Findings end 'authority. 19.06.020 Definitions:' 19.06.030 Reserved. 19.06.040 Assessment of impact fees. 19.06.050 Independent fee calculations. 19.06.060 Credits and adjustments. 19.06.070 Exemptions. 19.06.080 Appeals. 19.06.090 Establishment of impact fee account for fire protection. Ordinance No. 6341 Fe~Cti~l'V $ 2011 dapaar~-~8-'!-1~ Bs~m~~~~~-^- Plovg~e;~?-~,~ Page 43 of 71 19.06.100 Refunds. 19.06.110 Use of funds. 19.06.120 Review and update of impact fees. 19.06.130 Miscellaneous provisions. 19.06.010 Findings and authority. The council of the city of Auburn (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development, including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial development, in the city of Auburn,will create additional demand and need for fire protection facilities in the city of Auburn, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionateshare of the cost of fire protection facilities needed to serve the new growth and <development. The city of Auburn has conducted a study documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on fire protection facilities.- This' study has c6nlributed to the rates as established in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn. Therefore ;pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts this chapter; to. assess' impact fee's for fire protection facilities. The provisions of this chapter shall beliberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 1 19.06.020 Definitions. The following words and terms, shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless: the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defin'e&pursuant;to RCW 82.02.090 or given their usual and customary meaning. A. "Act" :.means the Growth ',Managemdrit Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, as now in existence or as hereafter:amended. B. "Building permit," for the purposes`of this chapter only, means an official document or certification which.is issued I.y1he city and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair;of a building or structure. In the case of increased impacts on fire protection facilities caused by a change in use or occupancy of an existing building or structure, and where no building permit is required, the term "building permit" shall specifically include business registrations. C. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. D. "City" means the city of Auburn. Ordinance No. 6341 r a Q11 daaHar- . t' Novernbe '~8 Page 44 of 71 E. "Council" means the city council of the city of Auburn. F. "Department" means the department of planning and development. G. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for fire protection facilities. H. "Director" means the director of the department of planning and development or the director's designee. 1. "Downtown plan area" means the study area as identified and adopted in the City of Auburn Downtown Plan dated May 2001 that,.is'``defined'b'y_.,the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad on the west and State Route 18on the south: The eastern boundary is .defined as F Street Southeast from State Route 18 to East:-Main Street, East Main Street from F Street Southeast to E Street Southeast, and E Street 'Northeast from East Main Street to 4th Street Northeast. The northern boundary is defy"ed. as 2nd Street Northwest from the Interurban, Trail totteet Northwest;` 3rd Street Northwest/Northeast from D Street:. North1Nest to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street Northeast from Auburn Avenue to E Stree,'Northeast. For the purposes of this chapter, the downtown plan boundary has been:slightlyrnod,ified to avoid bisecting properties. J. "Dwelling unit".,'means a ,'.building, or,, portion thereof, designed for residential occupancy consist'ingof one orb-more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments; contractual obligations or other liabilities incurred for fire protection facilities. L. "Feepayer" is;;a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity; ;or department or bureau of any governmental entity commencing a land development activity. ii h'ich creates the demand for additional fire protection facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. M. "Fire protection facilities" means fire trucks and apparatus, and fire stations, and any furnishings and equipment that are used with fire trucks and apparatus or fire stations and which can be capitalized. N. "Fire protection project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of Ordinance No. 6341 Eeb~u2Q1LaRaa ©e~ho~~ X89 Page 45 of 71 the project and are not fire protection system improvements. No fire protection improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan approved by the council shall be considered a fire protection project improvement. 0. "Fire protection system improvements" means fire protection facilities that are included in the city of Auburn's capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to fire protection project improvements. P. "Hearing examiner" means the examiner who acts on behalf of the council in considering and applying land use regulatory codes as~,provided under Chapter 18.66 ACC. Where appropriate, "hearing examiner" also refers": to the office of the hearing examiner. i Q. "Impact fee" means a payment of .:money imposed by the, city of Auburn on development activity pursuant to this chapter;as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the fire protection facilities= needed to servenew growth and development. R. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account established for the fire protection facilities' impact fees collected. The account shall be established pursuant to ACC 19.06.090 and comply With the requirements' of RCW 82:02.070. S. "Independent fee ;calculation" means the fire protection impact calculation prepared by a feepayer to support1he assessment of.;an impact fee other than by the use of the fee schedule T. "Interest" means the.. interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Wash ington.Local Government Investment Pool, if not otherwise defined. U. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. V. "State" means the state of Washington. (Ord. 6287 § 2, 2010; Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.030 Reserved. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) Ordinance No. 6341 bra Y 8 2011 Jan~tae € be• Novemb~8 Page 46 of 71 1 a 3 19.06.040 Assessment of impact fees. A. Effective January 1, 2006, the city shall collect impact fees, based on the fee schedule of the city of Auburn, from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city. B. The amount of impact fees shall be determined at the time an applicant submits a complete application for a building permit using the impact fee schedules then in effect, r or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director pursuant to ACC 19.06.050, and adjusted for any credits pursuant to ACC,19.06.060. C. Payment of impact fees shall be made by the feepaypr at the time the building permit is issued for each unit in the development. The aft tto be paid shall not be increased for any applicant that submitted a complete application for the;building permit before the city established the impact fee rates. D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to,the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ACC 19..06,0:60: shall submit,;along with the complete building permit application;..a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the { director pursuant to ACC 19.06.060 `setting forth" 'the dollar amount of the credit I awarded. Impact fees, as determined after the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the feepayer at the time the building permits issued. E. The departmenl',s,hall not issue a building permit unless and until the impact fees have been paid or credit(s) awarded. (Ord. :5977 § 1, 2005.) F. For complete: single-family building permit applications for new development: redevelopment or a change in use, ddflhg :the'~'effective period of 2011Q through. 201-:and prior to`or at the time of issuance of any single- family residential building:e ermit f&a.dwelling unit that is being constructed fGF~&Wa, the applicant may elect to recd r&a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by: he City that`reguires payment of fire impact fees due and owing by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these fire impact fees due and owing to be paid at time of .clo'sing of the sale of the lot or unit of at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first. Failure to pay atin►e-e#~les+raa shall result in the following: 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its o lig-ation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid, the responsible party shall be subiect to the enforcement provisions of AC_C_ 125.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065, the responsible part shall Ordinance No. 6341 February-_8 2011 Ja arv 12_4_011 Qeesm WE62Q IQ b^- "mow Page 47 of 71 constitute a property owner, the property(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issue , shall constitute the propertv(ies) on which the violation is occurrina. and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted broperty(ies) under these sections! 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shah constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a hermit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien against the permitted bropertv(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or' unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full: 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 19 06.080 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section' on -Gtoon on tHgzg ff .Ticgdzpre ediateiy sus Inny eyj6gghLg§ge'~ fa-ro the let-Gr-anitas6ae♦ated v omth the nt irr°n=develepmcti~ ,~{i ermit6 for th~l~er ~~n ~rrr k ~~nf1il s ~nh 4ime -rv~crr~., ~a unc~~.. Citrtt nm r dinq fire irr.nanf fnan nra NN ihat all i G For complete 'rriuiti-family building permit 'applications for new development, redevelopment or a change in use duringA e effective period of 20110 through 20132 and prior to`or at the time of issuance of any multi-family residential Wilding permit g# ' beinq'construcied &af® the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by the City that reguires payment of fire impact fees due and owing by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these :fire impact fees due and owing to be paid at time of closing of the sale of the toy or unit, or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit: whichever comes first Failure to pay a `rn me~osi-ng shall result in the following: 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of H~L 1 25 030 and 1 25 065 Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city. For the purposes of applying ACC 1.25 030 and-1.25.065, the responsible party shall_ the p operty(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued constitute a property owner, shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections. Ordinance No. 6341 911 ~ ~s ^ Rle et ~ F-eb ary 8 2011-j-aaua Page 48 of 71 Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the Gate the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1. the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the currenf .development activity andshall limit he granting of a future permits fort the lot ci~ nit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage 'development charges are paid in full ,5. The appeals process authorized in Section 19.06.080 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section affected alien a ertyk the-Gibe Auburn. shall immed-, end vi rmi+previously A {fie i" I h erm*+o fnr the4o"r unit until e e a00keaRt MY d-A And sufmmey Fail4b,4e pay M4tjme nil vi--r--TCr a, Amy f, it- ts far thn Int g +hat all at -fatanA;nm H For non-residential development composed of new development redevelopment or a change in use and inclusiVe of commercial office and retail uses light and heavy manufacturing uses but `'not warehousing and distribution uses and institutional development including but not limited to public and public schools and colleges and hospitals, during the effective period of 20110 through 20132 and prior to the issuance of any permit application and and following the execution of a payment agreement on forms prepared and provided by the City, the applicant may elect to pay fire impact fees due and owing less any credits awarded prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit whichever comes first Failure to pay at time of certificate of occupancy shall 'result in the following_ Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 Ja wa November- Page 49 of 71 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC L1.25.030 and 1 25 065 Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most....current v it ble co c information on file j the city, e Wu~rooses o a CC 1.25.030 1 5 065 the responsible pa[ty I c to property owner, t the ro art ies fo hjch permit( s has be ss e shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring, and the impact `fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted broperty(ies) under these sections i . Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter, that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a hermit(s)have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In additjon to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record a lien against the permitted roe ies in the amount o the unpaid charges and may immediately s s e d rren an er j s reviousl issued for he lot or unit associated with the development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit unt'I such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in fug . The appeals process authorized in Section 19 06.060 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section. (`i y ha l immediate! s -Gentra uun]_es#e-legaE-aetiera by-I~e-~,~ V enD4-aW-p ml ~~_p gLLat ~e_.asseni ter? wifh the GUrren4 dey loome yt r n4inn and hall limi4 he rv~arantii Elf ar'rY f±tqEe=:peFrniits until such tin;- 46nt nil elm etfees-ar-e-pajdjn-fall. c I In n1l inS4nnnes ed hWrrecc~n-ctrv~~r,-~ forame rl- rc-~o fees -r ieo-c. c- crcv6,-rA des GFih lu! n il9Flecr }~}~-.~'{ear48~„~yW° he-rr~a-frrnkt-tt3-c9 t-L7Gtl- >7y~-a it~f}t°nne of i ~n 4 ~ L~i1~r''1" ys nr h, f - "vf mcrti~F~9f-said--fine and-iail-SeF?t8C1Ge~ t he i y8F6F ~2Si "4 bffici 1 in enti41ed 4n 11Pa -nil 0- OF r__+,ror~ as ayail%.hla 4e ie!V 40 e0 QFQ tle-ri1 et~e~ItSu rar~of~~lrcv~v~ 19.06.050 Independent fee .calculations. A. If, in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the fee schedule accurately describes or captures the impacts of the new development, the applicant shall conduct an independent fee calculation and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations, once accepted by the city. B. Feepayers may opt not to have the impact fees determined according to the fee schedule. Such feepayers shall prepare and submit to the director an independent fee Ordinance No. 6341 a ~nan ~ February 8. 2~,1~.~t_~~ ~ecb~~F=•,~ Pl~stAb"' 10 Page 50 of 71 calculation for the development activity for which a building permit is sought. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. C. A nonreimbursable administrative fee shall be charged for each independent fee calculation. The fee shall be deposited with the city to pay for city review of the independent fee calculation upon submittal of the documented independent fee study. D. After the city completes its review, the actual fees and.:;expenses will be determined and the cash deposit shall be adjusted to provide fora Y,6fund by the city or additional payment by the feepayer. E. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the fee schedule are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted=ly payer, but is not required to accept such documentation which the director deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the<aiternative, ;;require the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration`."' The director is%authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case-by-case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of::the development, and/or where adjustment is deemed by the director to be appropriate based on principles of fairness under the circumstances of the case. F. Determinations made by the°`director pursuadt'to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing-.examiner subject to the procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.060 Credits and,adjustrnents. A. A feepayer can request that a;, credit or credits for fire protection impact fees be awarded tio!him/her for 'fire protection system improvement projects provided by the feepayer in excess of the standard requirements for the feepayer's development if the land, improvements, and/or'the facility constructed are identified as fire protection system improvements that provide capacity to serve new growth in the capital facilities plan, or the director, at his/her discretion, makes the finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the fire protection goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan. B. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine the value of dedicated land by using available documentation or selecting an appraiser from a list of independent appraisers maintained by the department to determine the value of the land being dedicated. The value of improvements will be determined through documentation submitted by the feepayer. Ordinance No. 6341 F 2011 Janlwv F; 9e€€ e" X18 e~'f-,te a Page 51 of 71 C. The feepayer shall pay the cost of the appraisal and shall deposit on account the estimated cost of the appraisal as determined by the city at the time the feepayer requests consideration for a credit. D. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, where applicable, the legal description of the site donated, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit `:W ll be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document:wrthin''60"days shall nullify the credit. E. Any claim for credit must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. F. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall ~,bo;-subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.06,080. G. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the fee rate in the fee schedule has been reasonably, adjusted for other revenue sources which are earmarked for, or proratable`to, funding fire protection facilities. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.070 Exemptions. A. The following shall be exempted from the;payment of fire protection impact fees: 1. Replacement,of a structure with a new `structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when such 'replaceme'rif occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure. 2. Alterations or expansion or 'enlargement or remodeling or rehabilitation or conversion'of:;an existing dwelling unit where no additional units are created and the use is not`changed. 3. Alterations of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the useable space and that does not involve a change in use. 4. Miscellaneous improvements, including but not limited to fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 5. Demolition or moving of a structure. Ordinance No. 6341 ruarv 8 291~ar 1 ~ose+~~~` Plow Page 52 of 71 6. Any building permit application that has been submitted to the department before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the first effective date of the fire protection impact fee rate schedule and subsequently determined to be a complete application by the city. 7. All development activity within the "downtown plan area" as defined in ACC 19.06.020(1)., provided, that this exemption shall sunset on December 31, 2006, unless otherwise extended by the city council. In order to comply with RCW 8.02.060(2), impact fees for development activity in the downtown plan area shall be paid for with public funds other than from ,impact fee accounts during the exemption period set forth herein. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section. Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedures`:set forth in ACC 19 06080. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) - 19.06.080 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact,fees imposed by, this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. Appeals regarding the,.impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be made by the feepayer'of the property where such development activity will 'bccur.; No appeal Submitted under protest shall be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have been paid. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees, providing the. applicant is willing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in :accordance with the requirements of ACC 17.08.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit 'Alternativejy, any feepayyer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first;paying'the fees, provided the applicant is willing to postpone issuance of the building permit until after the appeal process when the revised final fee is known. B. Determinations of:the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision with respect to the independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. C. Appeals shall be taken within 10 days of the director's issuance of a written determination by filing with the office of the hearing examiner a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof and depositing the necessary fee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of administrative decisions. The director shall Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 JaaLa r~, n ~ b .r nn n NDbgF-47-,~ Page 53 of 71 transmit to the office of the hearing examiner all papers constituting the record for"the determination, including, where appropriate, the independent fee calculation. D. The hearing examiner shall fix a time for the hearing of the appeal, give notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same as provided in Chapter 18.66 ACC. At the hearing, any party may appear in person or by agent or attorney. E. The hearing examiner is authorized to make findings of fact regarding the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy or applicability of an independent fee calculation. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final, except as provided in subsection (G) of this section. F. The hearing examiner may, so long as such action conformance with the provisions of this chapter, reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the determinations of the director with respect 'to the amount. of the impact fees imposed or. the credit awarded upon a determination that it prope. Ao do so based'Qn principles of or determination as ought to fairness, and may make such order, requirements",",,,,.,,,, be made, and to that end shall have th&powers which have been granted to the director by this chapter. G. Any feepayer aggrieved;-_by any decision of'the office of:'the hearing examiner may appeal the hearing'examiner's`final decision asprovided in Chapter 18.66 ACC. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.090,Establishment of.impactfee account for fire protection. A. Impact fee receiptsahall be :earmarked"specifically and deposited in special interest- bearing accounts. Thefees received shall be prudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the city: B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter: the fire protection facilities impact fee account. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used in accordance with the provisions of ACC 19.06.110. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the financial director shall provide a report to the council on the fire protection impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the fire protection system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 JaEu = = )44 Page 54 of 71 D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings an extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the delay. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.100 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or, where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ACC 19.06.090, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund, of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first-in' first-out basis. Provided that any party that voluntarily elects to use the alternative fee payment method specified in I Section 19.06.040 shall sign as a condition''of use of 'the' alternative fee payment method a waiver of right on a form prepared~arid provided bythe,:City to recovery of fire impact fees not spent with the statutory sik-,;year timeframe. B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class;Mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant or claimant must be the owner of fh:e,property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must:`submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within :one year of!,the date the ;night to 'claim the refund arises or the date that notice,is~given, whichever islater. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one- year period ,shall be retained-by the city' and expended on the appropriate fire protection facilities.~- E. Refunds!~of impact fees.,;gnder this. section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees b-.Jhe city. F. If and when fhe;;city seeks to terminate any or all components of the fire protection impact fee prograni :all ;unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components 'including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two tirnes and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate fire protection facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated. Ordinance No. 6341 F-bruarv 8. X011 ~aptaa 14 ®e~~ fJev~b^,. 6 Page 55 of 71 G. The city shall also refund to the developer of property for which impact fees have been paid all impact fees paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) I 19.06.110 Use of funds. i A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for fire protection system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development; and 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in fire protection facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance" r operations. B. As a general guideline, fire protection impact fees may°be used for any fire protection system improvements which could otherwise be funded by a bond issue of the city. C. Fire protection facilities impact: fees may be spent for fire protection system improvements, including but not limited ` to fire trucks, apparatus, and fire stations, including planning, land,- acquisition, site 'improvements, necessary off-site improvements including mitigation, construction, `engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can becapitalized,., D. Impact fees may be used to recoup,fire ;protection system improvement costs previously incurred by; the city to the ext-ent`ahat new growth and development will be served by the previous!" onstructed improvements or incurred costs. E. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of fire protection system improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the;extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.120 Review and update of impact fees. A. The fee rate schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council no later than two years after the effective date of the attached fee rate schedule, and no more than every two years thereafter. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 dap~►aw Novo ba6P4'V" Page 56 of 71 B. The fee schedules set forth in the fee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council as it may deem necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan., (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 99.06.130 Miscellaneous, provisions. A. Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided e that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of RCW 82.02.050(.1)(c). B. Captions. The chapter and section captions used in this chapter are for convenience i only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of `any of the provisions of this chapter. C. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such finding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section of this chapter. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) , Section 5. 'Am`endment.to City-,:Code. That Chapter 19.08 of the Auburn City Code, entitled 'Parks Impact Fees,' regarding the imposition of parks impact fees within the City of Auburn, is hereby amended fo read asfollows: Chapter 19,:48 PARKS IMPACT FEES Sections: 19.08.010 Findings and authority. 19.08.020 Definitions. 19.08.030 Assessment of impact fees. 19.08.040 Independent fee calculations. 19.08.050 Credits and adjustments. 19.08.060 Exemptions. 19.08.070 Appeals. 19.08.080 Establishment of impact fee account for parks and recreation. 19.08.090 Refunds. 19.08.100 Use of funds. Ordinance No. 6341 bebruar_" 221 1 Page 57 of 71 { 19.08.110 Review and update of impact fees. 19.08.120 Miscellaneous provisions. 19.08.010 Findings and authority. The council of the city of Auburn (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and residential development in the city of Auburn will create additional demand and need for parks and recreation facilities in the city of Auburn, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of parks and recreation facilities needed to serve the new growth; and development. The city of Auburn has conducted a study documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on parks and recreation facilities. This study has contributed to the rates as established in the fee schedule of the city of`Adburn. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts this-,;chapter to asess impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. The provisions of this chapter shalf,', je liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have.the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly rei uires. otherwise: Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to FtW 82.02:090.or given their usual and customary meaning. A. "Act" means the :;Growth Management 'Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW, as now in existence or as hereafter,`amen`detl.: B. "Building permit," for.,the purposes of this chapter only, means an official document or certification which is issued by'the city and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement; conversionreconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of.a building or structure. C. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan ..adopted ;pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, known as the city of Auburn parks, recreation and open space plan, and such plan as amended. D. "Change in use," for the purposes of this chapter, means a different use that qualifies as a single- or multiple-family dwelling as defined in this chapter. E. "City" means the city of Auburn. F. "Council" means the city council of the city of Auburn. G. "Department" means the department of parks, arts, and recreation. Ordinance No. 6341 Ebruar._29~ 1 dap &-811 g _ Nevee. Page 58 of 71 f H. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for parks and recreation facilities. 1. "Director" means the director of the department of parks, arts, and recreation or the director's designee. J. "Dwelling unit" means a building, or portion thereof, designed for residential occupancy consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living quarters for one family only. K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside or biherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations or other liabilities incurred for parks and recreation facilities. i L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any j other similar entity, or department or bureau of 'any governmental entity;commencing a land development activity which treates the dema nd for additional parks and recreation facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. M. "Grandfathering".means that the existing landuse of a ,developed property in effect on January 1, 2007, the initial 'ffective date of the impact ;fees ordinance, is entitled to system capacity credits determined by the adopted impact fees rate schedule. N. "Hearing; examiner" means the examiner who acts on behalf of the council in considering and `applying land use regulatory codes as provided under Chapter 18.66 ACC.'Where appropriate, "hearing examiner also refers to the office of the hearing examiner. 0. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Auburn on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to: pay for the parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new growth and development. P. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account established for the parks and recreation facilities' impact fees collected. The account shall be established pursuant to ACC 19.08.090 and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. Q. "Independent fee calculation" means the parks and recreation impact calculation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the fee schedule. Ordinance No. 6341 e rt~aCv 8. 2011 da aFy=6 ~A t s F~ E~ November 17, Page 59 of 71 R. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington Local Government Investment Pool, if not otherwise defined. S. "Multifamily dwelling" means a building designed exclusively for occupancy by two or more families living independently of each other, and containing two or more residential dwelling units. T. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. U. "Parks and recreation facilities" means neighborhood and community parks, open space, recreational trails, athletic fields, swimming pools,' and community centers, and any furnishings and equipment that are Wised at such locations and which can be. capitalized. V. "Parks and recreation project improvements" means cite improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to:;provide service"-qr:,a'particular development or users of the project and are not parks ,,and 'recreation system improvements. No parks and recreation improvement or facility included; in, a capital facilities plan approved by the council shall be considered a parks and. recreation,project improvement. W. "Parks and recreation system improvements" means,.parks and recreation facilities that are either included in the city of Auburn's'capital facilities plan and/or are designed to provide service to service areas within th'd community at large, in contrast to parks and recreation project improvements. X. "Single-family dwelling" means a detached building designed exclusively for occupancy;by one family..and containing one residential dwelling unit. A manufactured home may be considered a one-family dwelling, if sited per Chapter 18.31 ACC. Y. "State" meansAhe state of Washington. Z. "Surplus credits" means credits over and above those calculated as an impact fee. For example: 1. In grandfathering calculations, if the difference between a proposed use fee minus existing use credit results in a positive number, the result is the impact fee due. 2. In grandfathering calculations, if the difference between a proposed use fee minus existing use credit results in a negative number, the result is the surplus credit and no impact fee would be due. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) Ordinance No. 6341 Fe ua 8 2011 dapuarv e November- Page 60 of 71 19,08.030 Assessment of impact fees. A. Effective January 1, 2007, the city shall collect park impact fees, based on the fee schedule of the city of Auburn, from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity that includes dwelling units within the city. The park impact fees established hereby shall be listed on the city of Auburn fee schedule. B. Effective January 1, 2007, where a change in use increases housing capacity by more than or equal to one dwelling unit, the director shall calculate a parks and recreation impact fee based on the increase in the housing capacity. C. The amount of impact fees shall be determined at the time an applicant submits a complete application for a building permit using th'6 impact fee schedules then in effect, or pursuant to an independent fee calculation accepted by the director pursuant to ACC 19:08.040, and adjusted for any credits pursuant to ACC 19.08.05.0. D. Payment of impact fees shall be made by, the feepayer at the time'the building permit is issued for each unit in the development. The amount 6 be paid shall not be increased for any applicant that submitted :complete application for the building permit before the city established the impact fee rates; E. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the .,,submittal of the complete building permit appJiCation ;pursuant to :ACC 19`08;050 shall submit, along with the I complete building permit application, a copy of4he lett&: or certificate prepared by the director pursuant toACC 19::08.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit E awarded. Impact fees, -as determined after 'the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from~1he feepr at theairiie,ahe building permit is issued. F. The department shall:''not issue a building permit unless and until the impact fees have been paid or credit(s) awarded. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) G. For complete single-family building permit applications for new development: ` edeve o ment or a change in use, during the effective period of 20110 through 20182 and prior to or at the time of issuance of any single- family residential building permit for a dwelling unit that is being constructed Bale the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by the City that requires payment of parks impact fees due and owing, less any credits awarded, by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these development charges due and owing to be paid at time of closing of the sale of the lot or unit or at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the ate of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first. The awarding of credits shall not alter the applicability of this section Rufe-to-aav. at time of wing shall result in the following: Ordinance No. 6341 FebruarV 8, 2Q11 danuaw Q l fil bert-' Nevembe ' Page 61 of 71 1 1. If 30 days after the city has sent the responsible party written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains unpaid the responsible party shall be subiect to the enforcement provisions of ACt;. :1.25.030 and-t-25.065, Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most-current. available contact information on file with the city. For the pmoses of applying 1,25.030...-and 1. 5 065 the res o si a shall _ft co s 'cute property owner, rope rt ies for which mit s as been issued shall constitute the propertv(ies) on which the violation is occurring._ and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted propertyies) under these sections: 2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the charges are due shall constitute a lien against the property(ies) for which a permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1 the city may record alien against the permitted j 'property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspen ! any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot or unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm dra- development charges are paid in full. 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 19 08 070 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section.,; . aGtn nn +h {{on4n nrnp '~the City of A~~h~~rn hale epd a ; ~ S i ni +orl -n ~ -with the n„rront/Joy?I ernt ed-f9r-tkle-18t $r-k~~aSSA~.;:~~~ aGUM-and h.+ll limit the y e--lgt-g unit u,ntil such ti ihataN-eutstar►dine parks rte,, -n;~ H For : -complete multi-family building permit applications for new development,. redevelopment or a change in use` during the effective period of 20IJ through 201 j and prior to or at the time of issuance of any multi-family residential building permit f&. being constructed fie the applicant may elect to . record a covenarit against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by the City that re uig res payment of parks impact fees due and owing, less any credits awarded by providing for automatic payment through escrow of these development charges due and owing to be paid at time of closing of the sale of the lot or unit or a final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy or 18 months from the date of issuance of the original building permit, whichever comes first. The awarding of credits shall not alter the applicability of this section Failure to pay af- me--Gf 4es nq shall result in the following: `1. If 30 days after the city as sent the responsible art written notification of its obligation to pay the charges established in this chapter the full amount remains Ordinance No. 6341 Febra rv 8,-2911_J~t3-2-B~€€+~e~9 ~1~vewab7 2n'° Page 62 of 71 I unpaid, the responsible party shall be subject to the enforcement provisions 6f _ 1.25.030 and 1.25.065. Written notification shall be by regular and certified mail and to the most current available contact information on file with the city For h purposes of applying ACC 1.25.030 and 1.25.065, the responsible party shall constitute a property owner, the propertv(ies) for which a permit(s) has been issued shall constitute the property(ies) on which the violation is occurring. and the impact fee amount remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies) under these sections! ;2. Any unpaid charges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the date the char es are due shall constitute a lien against the propertv(ies) for which permit(s) have been issued in the amount of the unpaid charges. In addition to the actions authorized in subsection 1. the city may record a lien against the permitted property(ies) in the amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately suspend any permits previously issued for the lot or unit associated with the current development activity and shall limit the granting of any future permits for the lot oe, Unit until such time that all outstanding water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage development charges are paid in full: 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 19.08.070 shall not apply to determinations made pursuant to this section affecCzte4-pF6rd r~ b urnr shall irr~ ed*ately e.uspen Q--hurl--a£~19F~6rn r-crrc#ho~m~n~~haurrrnrn d s "any permits preyio sly *6s Xed fnr the let or--uni4 we d-witt -*e G Urren# e#et.e.le Gn-a II limit the nrnfin mmi --fu h- permi}c for the In+ e.r uni# until su&4im6 that ail n Park imoaG fees-are-" ~-I-n alt-i 8es-des ed--fe g n y~ r +rsetierl-ef-said-ft--nnd-tinil-e;tence. T-ie-r~a)s~ y }s--er4titied to use ani m~ Gesuses ava4able-E}~det- he law to enf-E.e theJea uirements hereef. /AI EM eed ~n ln_#hr;;;n ink @+ y:f9ept te Oak' Fe jeet~io OR Me lbulm, -shal' rI~t=B Ordinance No. 6341 February 8-2W 1 Januaw L&-- ^M1I peeemb~C N be Page 63 of 71 Q_FFA#&=f0fA4E)40t=&r -M4 gnfil F;1 that -Al 19.08.040 Independent fee calculations. A. If, in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the fee schedule accurately describes or captures the impacts of the new development, the applicant shall conduct an independent fee calculation and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations, once accepted by the city. B. Feepayers may opt not to have the impact fees determined according to the fee schedule. Such feepayers shall prepare and submit to AM-director an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a building permit is sought. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which;>,the independent fee calculation was made. C. A nonreimbursable administrative fee shall:: be charged for each independent fee calculation. The fee shall be deposited with the: city to pay for city 'review of the independent fee calculation upon submittal of the documented independent fee study. D. After the city completes its review, the actual=fees and expenses will be determined p all be_adjusted, to provide for a refund by the city or additional and the cash de osit sh payment by the feepayer. } E. While there is a presumption -that the calculations set forth in the fee schedule are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable; and"" 'ay, in the"alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional' or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case=by-case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or where adjustment is deemed by the director to be appropriate based on principles of fairness under the circumstances of the case. F. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner subject to the procedures set forth in ACC 19.08.070. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.050 Credits and adjustments. A. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for parks and recreation impact fees be awarded to him/her for parks and recreation improvement projects provided by the feepayer in excess of the standard requirements for the feepayer's development if the Ordinance No. 6341 Fe ruar 8 2011 ~aauar ,Q-' g" Wovernbe' 17, Page 64 of 71 i land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are identified as parks and recreation system improvements that provide capacity to serve new growth in the capital facilities plan, or the director, at his/her discretion, makes the finding that such land, improvements, and/or facilities would serve the parks and recreation goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan. B. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine the value of dedicated land by using available documentation or selecting an appraiser from a list of independent appraisers maintained by the department.46.. determine the value of the land being dedicated. The value of improvements. will be determined through documentation submitted by the feepayer. C. The feepayer shall pay the cost of the appraisal and shill deposit on account the estimated cost of the appraisal as determined by the city```at.the time the feepayer requests consideration for a credit. D. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant kith a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar:.:amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, where applicable, the legal description of the site donated, and the legal description or other adequate description of the projector development to wliich the credit may be applied. ;,and, date a duplicate copy-of such,,-! tter or certificate indicating The applicant must sign his/her agreement rto the terms of the detter or certificate and return such signed document to the director before the impact'fee credit Will156 awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return,such document within 60 days shall nullify the credit. E. Any claim for credit must be made:no.later than the time of application for a building permit. My claim not so made shall be deemed waived. F. Determinations made by-the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth"in ACC`19.'08.070. G. Pursuant to and consistept with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the fee rate in - the fee schedule has been reasonably adjusted for other revenue sources which are earmarked for, or prorato'ble to, funding parks and recreation facilities. H. In order to grandfather the capacity rights of existing developments, the director will .utilize the adopted rates to calculate any impact fee credits and to determine any surplus credits for off-site system improvements made by the property owner. Only in a situation when a property owner makes off-site system capacity improvements that qualify in accordance with subsection A of this section will any surplus credits (value computed during the permit year and not adjusted for inflation) remain with the Ordinance No. 6341 Page 65 of 71 1 E property or any subdivision of that property to benefit future development where a parks and recreation impact fee is determined to be due. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.060 Exemptions. A. The following shall be exempted from the payment of parks and recreation impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same use at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure. 2. Alterations or expansion or enlargement: or -remodeling or rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional units are created and the use is not changed. 3. Miscellaneous improvements, indluding but not limited to fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 4. A change in use where the increase in housing capacity is less than the threshold stated in ACC 19.08:030(6). 5. Demolition or moving of a structure. 6. Any building 'permit application 'that has been submitted to the department before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the first effective date of the park impact. fee rate, schedule and subsequently determined to be a complete application by the,city B. The director shall be:;authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this section. Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.08.070. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.070 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be made by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. No appeal submitted under protest shall. be permitted unless and until the impact fees at issue have been paid. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined by the director without first paying the fees, providing the applicant is willing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee amount in accordance with the requirements of ACC 17.08.010(A) prior to issuance of the building permit. Alternatively, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined Ordinance No. 6341 ni~nrv Q' 2041 F 4q 7114n rebL arY 8 2011 January Bege e€ Neu€+ Page 66 of 71 I by the director without first paying the fees, provided the applicant is willing to postpone issuance of the building permit until after the appeal process when the revised final fee is known. B. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision with respect to the independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. C. Appeals shall be taken within 10 days of the director's issuance of a written determination by filing with the office of the hearing examiner a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof and depositing.1he necessaryjee, which is set forth in the existing fee schedules for appeals of administrative decisions. The director shall transmit to the office of the hearing examiner all papers constituting} the record for the determination, including, where appropriate,''the,independent fee calculation. D. The hearing examiner shall fix.a ime for the hearing of the appeal, give notice to the parties in interest, and decide the same as provided:jn Chapter 18.66 ACC. At the hearing, any party may appear in person orby:agent or attorney. E. The hearing examiner, is authorized to make findings of fact regarding the applicability of theJnipact fees`to;a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the accuracy applicability of an independent fee calculation. The j decision of the hearing examiner shall be finai, except as provided in subsection G of this section. F. The. hearing examiner ,may,%,:sp long as such action is in conformance with the provisions.; of this chapter-,,`;: reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or may modify the determinations of the director with respect to the amount of the impact fees imposed or the credit awarded, upon a determination that it is proper to do so based on principles of fairness, and may make such order, requirements, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that'end shall' have the powers which have been granted to the director by this chapter. G. Any feepayer aggrieved by any decision of the office of the hearing examiner may appeal the hearing examiner's final decision as provided in Chapter 18.66 ACC. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) Ordinance No. 6341 7n~ n tebLu21L1tB2.0.1 dar►ar.%U Nov Page 67 of 71 19.08.080 Establishment of impact fee account for parks and recreation. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest- bearing accounts. The fees received shall be prudently invested in a manner consistent with the investment policies of the city. B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter: the parks and recreation facilities impact fee account. Funds withdrawn from these accounts must be used in accordance with the provisions of ACC 19.08.100. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in. the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected: C. On an annual basis, the financial director shall provide a report to the council on the parks and recreation impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the parks and recreation system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impactJfees. D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings an extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the delay. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.090 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six years of when the fees were paid or where extraordinaryor compelling~,.roasons exist, such other time periods as establish e.d,pursuant to ACC 191.Q0.080, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been, ,paid__may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended ;or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on. `a first-in, first-out basis. Provided that any party that voluntarily 'elects to use the alternative fee payment method specified in Section '19 08 030 shall sign as a'condition of use of the alternative fee payment method a waiver of right on a form prepared and provided by the City to recovery of park impact fees not spent with the statutory six-year timeframe. B. The city shall notify .potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant or claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. Ordinance No. 6341 Belaruarv 8. 2011 Jaa~aF 8 O Page 68 of 71 D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one- year period shall be retained by the city and expended on the appropriate parks and recreation facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. F. If and when the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the parks and recreation impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any:;orall fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such terknation and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of fhe, claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a`'" riod of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained bythe city, but must kie;'expended for the appropriate parks and recreation facilities. This, noticb'.requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within an account or accounts being terminated. G. The city shall also, refund to the developer of: property for which impact fees have been paid all impact :fees ,,paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for whichjhe impact`fees were unposed did not occur. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08100:Ose of:funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for> parks ,':and recreation system improvements that will reasonably benefit the ~~ew development; and :s 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in parks and recreation facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used`for maintenance or operations. B. As a general guideline, parks and recreation impact fees may be used for any parks and recreation system improvements which could otherwise be funded by a bond issue of the city. C. Parks and recreation facilities impact fees may be spent for parks and recreation system improvements, including but not limited to neighborhood and community parks, recreational trails, athletic fields, swimming pools, and community centers, including Ordinance No. 6341 February $ 2011 Japt a%~a 9 Neverftbe• 4-A Page 69 of 71 f planning, land acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements including mitigation, construction, engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of parks and recreation system improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.0& 110 Review and update of impact fees. A. The fee rate schedules set forth in theJee schedule of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council no later than twa;:years after the effective date of the fee rate schedule attached to the ordinance codified'in this chapter, and no more than every two years thereafter. B. The fee schedules set forth id `.the? fee schedule: ;of the city of Auburn shall be reviewed by the council as it may deem necessary ardppropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the,city's comprehensive plan. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 20Q&)- 19.08.120 Miscellaneous provisions. A. Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in' his chapter shall preclude the city from requiring, the feepayer or the proponent of a' development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.of a'specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy'' Act, Chapter 43.21 C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and',subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is f consistent with the provisions of RCW 82.02.050(1)(c). B. Captions. The chapter and"section captions used in this chapter are for convenience only and shall not control or affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions of this chapter. C. Severability. If any portion of this chapter is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such finding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other section of this chapter. D. Short Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as "the city of Auburn parks and recreation impact fee ordinance." (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) Ordinance No. 6341 F~b~uary t3, 2~~ a~aa~~_B_ . e 19; November 17, 919 Page 70 of 71 Section 6. Implementation. The Mayor is hereby authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directions of this legislation. Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 8. Effective date. This Ordinance ;shall take effect and be in force five days from and after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. INTRODUCED:` PASSED: APPROVED: f CITY OF AUBURN PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: Ordinance No, 6341 FebrU~lIV . 2011 Ja. 2011 Oeeerrb NovembeF4-77=2040 Page 71 of 71 ~l r 1 , I f I'T ~i. . a' r, ra i 31405 18th Ave. So. 0 0 Federal Way, WA federal Way 98003.5433 O o Public Schools Tel 253.945.2000 VA-M.fwps.org December 13, 2010 Planning & Community Development Committee Auburn City Council Auburn City Hall 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Dear Chair Norman and Committee Members: On behalf of the Federal Way School District (the "District"), we are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed ordinance to defer the collection of certain development fees (Ordinance 6341). As you know, the District serves residents of the City of Auburn and the City collects school impact fees on belialf of the District. We have an interest in the proposal to defer the collection of school impact fees to closing of a new home. Please submit our comments to the public record in this matter. As a preliminary matter, the District only learned of this proposal immediately before the canceled meeting. We are disappointed that we were not provided with more notice nor given an opportunity to participate in the discussions to introduce this ordinance. Impact fees are our primary resource for responding to student population growth generated by new housing developments. The proposed ordinance presents several problems as applied to school impact fee programs. o Collecting impact fees at closing will burden the planning capabilities of the District. When impact fees are paid at building permit issuance, the District has sufficient time to plan for and to ensure that adequate school facilities are in place to serve the students from new development at the time that the students enroll in school. Notably, students fiom new homes typically enroll in school shortly after the closing of a new home. If adopted, the proposed ordinance would eliminate this critical planning lead time and will result in students showing up at school around the same time that the District receives the impact fee and before any capacity can be planned and provided to serve the students. This could lead to overcrowded classrooms and school facilities. The result negatively impacts the students generated by the new homes as well as existing City residents served by District schools. o Furthermore, delaying fee collection beyond the beginning of the construction season (when building permits are issued) could compromise a School District's ability to use the fees to purchase and site portables needed to serve the new development. To site a new portable and have that space available at the start of the school year, the District must place time order in early spring and start site preparation and permitting. To do this, the District needs dollars in hand at the beginning of the construction season. Similarly, delaying funding beyond the start of the construction season likely means that the District could not use impact fees as part of the local. share for state school funding assistance (a practice that is common for new capacity construction projects). Without this local share, the District loses the state funding component, which ultimately could jeopardize a planned capacity project or shift the full costs of the project to existing residents, The unique pla'n'ing and construction finding needs associated with schools require that school impact fees be paid at the time of permitting. Deferring fees will compromise the District's ability to provide the capacity to serve the students from new development. The District also would like to clarify the statement in the City's staff report regarding the cities in our area that have implemented programs to defer collection of fees to a point later than building permit issuance. In reality, only a few jurisdictions have adopted ordinances that permit deferred collection of impact fees and most of those ordinances limit the option to traffic and park impact fees. For example, the cities of Federal Way, Kent, and Sammamish only allow for the deferral of traffic and park fees to closing, but do not allow the deferral of school impact fees.' In the cities of Bainbridge Island, Battle Ground, Bellevue, Bellingham, Bothell, Burlington, Camas, Carnation, Covington, Duvall, Edgewood, Fife, Issaquah, Kenmore, La Center, La Cotner, Lynden, Maple Valley, Marysville, Mount Vernon, Puyallup, Renton, Ridgefield, Sammatnish, Sedro-Woolley, Snoqualmie, Sultan, Turnwater, Vancouver, Washougal, Woodinville, and Yacolt, and in Clark, King, Pierce, Skagit, and Snohomish Counties, school impact fees are collected at the timc of building permit issuance.2 Notably, the cities of Kent and Federal Way recently considered deferral ordinances. After heating from the affected school districts regarding the challenges that deferred collection presents to providing adequate school capacity, both City Councils made the determination that the school impact fee program is different than the transportation and open space/park impact fee programs. As a result, both City Councils opted to remove school impact fees from the deferral ordinances and maintain the exiting system of collecting school impact fees at the time of building permit issuance. Furthermore, of those ordinances that do defer school impact fees, collection is at point far short of closing. For example, Kitsap County allows the deferral of impact fees to the certificate of occupancy, the City of Redmond allows the deferral of impact fees to drywall inspection (with a November 2011 sunset built into the ordinance), and the City of Olympia pert-nits deferral of impact fees to final inspection. Thus, the District respectfully requests that the City recognize that, to meet growth-related infrastntcture needs, school impact fees must be collected no later than building permit issuance. For this reason, and for the benefit of those City of Auburn residents who rely on our schools, school impact fees should be excluded from the proposed ordinance to defer the collection of impact fees. If you have questions, please call the at (253) 945-2042. Thank you, Similarly, both Pierce and Snohomish Counties have recently considered deferred collection ordinances, but have chosen not to include school impact fees within the scope of those ordinances. s Note that the City of Kirkland, identified in the City's staff report, does not have a school impact fee ordinance. -2- Sincerely,,., Sally McLean Assistant:Su eiintetident:` $usi66 s:Seivices....' Cc: Board`of Directors-,-, TI I a Rob Neu, Super rnterident of Eacilrttes Rod Leland, Director LGates,.._ Derirse Stiffarm KBc i " Jr .+r~ 'iii nC . _9 i.. lF ~f•(aa _3~ i. o! j,,,_s ` - i.: - ~ _ . ~ i - _ _ r-- . ~ - ~ t a t. _ i r - ~t - .'c i i - l I~ AnaHys k of Hmpwts~ of ( HawUn ed Vomon of khooH Hmpa(ER Fee Paymermft Submitted to: j Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties l Submitted by: Washington Center for Real Estate Research College of Business Washington State University PO Box 644844 Pullman, WA 99164-4844 509-335-7080 wcrer@wsu.edu February 2011 W odd Glass. Face to Face. f - , . ~ a ~ ~ . ~ ~ . _ . , ~ ~ _ v ~ , . s' _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . , _ r ` 9 ~ .a. n. t _ ~i ` 1. _ . - ~ , a. t ~ ~ v ai ~ _ _ _ , 1 . t r . ~ i' 1 Analysis of fn►pacts of Mori fled Timing of School hitpact Pee Payments Introduction The Washington Center for Real Estate Research (WCRER), on behalf of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, has conducted an impartial evaluation of the Impact on selected school districts if the collection of impact fees were delayed from the point of issuance of building permits to the point of sale or occupancy of the residential units. To complete this evaluation WCRER requested detailed financial information from three school districts: Kent, Issaquah and Lake Washington.. WCRER requested any records reflecting the timing of collection and expenditure of impact fees from the last four fiscal years (fiscal years ending in 2007 through 2010). Researchers also sought any budgets, fiscal reports, and Capital 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 provided may be less accurate and/or official as a result. Authority for the Collection of Impact Fees The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides the authority for the collection of impact fees in Washington.' The GMA imposes planning requirements on counties (and the cities within therm) meeting size and population growth thresholds; counties may also opt to plan under the GMA by adopting a resolution indicating their intention to be bound by the GMA requirements. "Counties, citles,'and towns that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 are authorized to impose Impact 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 between impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees."' Each county and/or city seeking to collect impact fees, in addition to adopting a local ordinance by which the impact fees are imposed, midst adopt a comprehensive plan in compliance with RCW 36.70A.070.3 Collecting jurisdictions must also approve a capital facilities plan, completed on a yearly basis, which demonstrates the need for impact fees to address increase demands on public facilities caused by new development and which explains how impact fees will be used to address these increased demands.' In 2009 section 82.02.070 of 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 that the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) develop criteria for extending the use of school impact fees from six to tell years. This extension must require an evaluation for each respective school board of the appropriateness of the extension.6 The local ordinances authorizing the collection of impact fees for all collecting jurisdictions within the examined school districts still state that school impact 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.a Of the ten jurisdictions that currently collect 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 Bellevue, Issaquah, Newcastle, Port Blakely (in Issaquah), and Sammamish. Two jurisdictions currently collect the entire impact fee upon issuance of a building permit; the cities of Kent and Renton.' In Covington the collection schedule varies depending on the circumstances surrounding the plat set-up.10 In 2009, the city of Redmond amended their impact fee regulations to allow 'Wash. Rev. Code 36.70A.010- 36.70A.903 (1990). 'Wash. Rev. Code 82.02.050.82.02.090 (2009); specifically § 82.02.050(2). ' Id, at § 82.02.050. Id. at § 82.02.050(4). ' 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 Bellevue City Code 22.18.050, Issaquah Municipal Code 3.63.100, King County Code 21A.43.050, 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 1 Analysis of htlpntts of ~llorlf fierl 7'fff:iffg of SclfoollfnprfctFec Pnynreirts fees to be paid at the time of drywall inspection instead of building permit issuance," The amendment has a two year sunset date; as of November 28, 2011 impact fee payments will again be required upon building permit issuance." Capital Facilities Plans "Impact fee(s) shall be based on a capital facilities plan developed by the district and approved by the school board, and adopted by reference by the county as part of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program." '3 Each school district that receives impact fees must submit a capital facilities plan to the collecting jurisdictions as well as to the School Technical Review Committee created pursuant to section 21A.28.154. " Districts are also required to submit the following which are usually incorporated into the capital facilities plan: o The district's enrollment projections over the next six years, its current enrollment and the district's enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year. o The district's standard of service. o An inventory and evaluation of district facilities which address the district's standard of service. o The district's overall capacity over the next six years, which shall be a function of the district's standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed in district facilities. 15 Management of Impact Fees School districts that receive impact fees are required to documentthe amount of impact fees received, and the interest earned from the fees, as well as the ultimate expenditure of the fees." "if an impact fee ordinance has been adopted on behalf of a school district, the district sltail 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 sliall be earmarked specifically and retained in special interest-bearing accounts... All interest shall be retained in the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were imposed..." 17 Information Provided Ralph Fortunato, the Financial Project Accountant for Kent School District, who is in charge of Capital Projects financial monitoring, requested that WCRER submit a formal public records request before lie could provide specific information on impact fees. In response to WCRER's fornlal'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 from the specified time period. In addition to the information provided by Mr. Fortunato, WCRER also obtained the 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 Turney, Director of Finance for Issaquah School District, agreed. to provide information without requiring a formal public records request. However, the information he provided 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 Community Development Guide 20D.60.10.030; Redmond, WA, Ordinance No. 2501. (2009). See Delayed Collection of Impact Fees by the City of Redmond section of this paper for further discussion. Id. "!d. at § 21A.43.020. " Id. at § 21A.28.152. " King County Code § 21A.29.152 "Covington Municipal Code §18.75.110 Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(1). See also CMC §18.75.110; 'Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special Interest bearing account established by the City solely for the district's school impact fees. All 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 A.43.090. 2 Washington State University Analysis of linpacts o f Modired Thning of school Impact 1%ee Papitents 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, Director of Communications for the district. In response to its request WCRER received spreadsheets reflecting the monthly collection of impact fees from 2007 to present 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 years.'- To supplement the information provided in response to the requests 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. Compliance with Regulations The authority for collection of impact fees was granted to counties and cities along with strict requirements for the management and use of impact fees. Based oil the information received from these three school districts, it appears that the school districts do comply with these regulations to the extent that they submit annual Capital Facilities Plans, maintain records of the fees and submit the mandatory reports to the collecting jurisdictions regarding the use of fees." However, it seems that the detail and precision in these reports does not always reach the level one would expect after reviewing the regulations. Throughout the process of reviewing the documents provided, WCRER discovered inconsistencies in numbers reported as well as some missing detail regarding the expenditure of impact fees. It seems that 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. Impact Fee Collection and Cxpendittlre The following section outlines the processes for collection and expenditure 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 fn each jurisdiction. Kent School District: Impact Fees are collected on behalf of Kent School District by King County, the city of Kent, Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures and the city of Covington. The fees are held by Kent School District the collecting jurisdiction until the end of the Receipts Interest Ex enciltures month at which time they are transferred to an interest bearing holding account maintained by FY 06.07 _$2,619,138.82 $309,766.36 $1,357,424.78 King County. King County maintains the fees in FY 07-08 $2,541,024.61 $144,743,61 $3,864,358.89 these accounts (separated by collecting FY 08.09 $1,053,418.62 $(72,032.67)' $5,123,914.55 jurisdiction) until the District has an expense FY 09-10 $1,466,308.62 $34,444.87 $219,775.86 for which it plans to use the fees. The district $7,679,890.67 $416,922.17 $10,565,474.02 'N2008, o number of King County's investments lost value, the county spread w does not recognize the impact fees as revenue these tosses overall school districts in the county; the negative interest numbers until they are transferred out of the holding reflect this action. 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 impact 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 Washington School District accounts at King County which were indecipherable. "it is worth noting that WCRER submitted formal request for copies of the required jurisdictional reports from both Kent and Lake Washington School Districts, while both districts provided some of this information, Kent only provided one report per collecting jurisdiction (from inconsistent time periods). Lake Washington did provide several of these reports but was also unable to locate several of them. Washington Center for Real Estate Research 3 Analysis of Impricts of Dfodi f ed Thuing of School Impact Fee Payments w 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 impactfees and the monthly accrual of interest, as well as the actual spending of impact fees, or rather, the date the fees were requested from King County by the district for expenditure. Kent School District Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-By Collecting jurisdiction It would appear 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. "Of the fees collected and spent within King County between the 2006-2007 and 2009-2010 fiscal years, the majority of spending occurred between July 2007 and April 2008. The district did not spend any King County impact fees between February 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 four years examined (in April 2009; $526,400.00). It is also apparent from this detailed information that Kent allows impact fees to accumulate before the district focuses their expenditure on a chosen project. Most of the expenditures in a given year are focused on one or two projects. For example, in the 2006-2007 fiscal 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-O'Brien portable." In the 2007-2008 fiscal year, all but $100,000 of the impact fees expended by the district (those collected by the city of Kent as well as King County) were spent on the Kentlake Gym and Classroom Addition. As of early October 2010, 'Kent School District reported an impact fee balance of 1,681,354.40; this amount is equal to more than the annual receipts for each of the last two years; arguably 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 little effect on the spending practices of the school district. A delay of nine months or 12 months might have more of an impact. However, the district did not make a withdrawal from the Covington account 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: Bellevue, Issaquah, Newcastle, Port Blakely, Renton and Sanrmamish. King County acts as Treasurer for Issaquah School District and therefore any impact fees collected by the County are transferred directly into the Capital Projects Fund. The other collecting jurisdictions typically hold the money in a trust for a few days before transferring it electronically to the district's accounts at the County. The District's Financial Director (Martin Turney), asserts that Issaquah School District uses .impact fees almost as soon as they are received. The district usually has several ongoing projects for which they have existing/outstanding balances. Whatever amount the district receives in impact 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, lie also provided this information in a fiscal year form. Apparently providing the numbers in calendar year format had actually required a conversion of the numbers normally documented by fiscal year. Mr. Turney kindly made this conversion under the misassumption that the calendar year.nunibers were preferred. Please see Appendix A for monthly receipts and expenditure of impact fees. See the Capital Projects section of this paper for an analysis of the percentage of total project expenditures funded by impact fees. Wa5hin9t011 Stote University i Analysis of Inipacts,of lbiodifled Thning of School Lnpact lee Payinents 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 prompted uncertainty about the accuracy of the All Jurisdictions-U Calen ear fx eftditures numbers. A comparison of the calendar year and Receipts fiscal year figures revealed inconsistencies between CY 2006- $3,005,554.00 $3,005,554.00 the numbers provided. Mr. Turney concluded that CY 2007 $1,915,195.00 $1,915,19S.00 an error had occurred in the process of converting CY_2009 $1,238,942.00 $1,238,942.00 the numbers from the fiscal year to the calendar _ CY 2009 $756,904.00 $756,904:00 year form, He provided corrected calendar year $6,916,595.00 $6,916,595.00 'Information from onnuaf collection/expenditures tables provided by the numbers and offered assurance that the fiscal year Issaquah school District -see discussion ofirnpact fees collected byKing numbers were correct. Upon comparison of these County for comparison wilh detailed report. new numbers, however, the difference between the calendar and fiscal years 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 District'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 years 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 Kit{~ Comity While Mr. Turney 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 Report From CY Table Collection/ The numbers in the annual collection/expenditure tables provided by the district and the numbers in _ Collection -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 CY 2007 $646,961.15 $619,283.77 $510,873.00 $139,719.051n the four year totals which suggests _CY 2008 $300,796.90 . $326,066.92 $299,853.00 that the tables provided by Martin Turney may CY 2009 $72 266.29 $74,673.65 $72 215.00 I_......__. f- OT , not be precise. $1,636,225.05 $1,636,225,05 $1,496,506.00 (filtertarile fill,{ Ili)isaiiifchtrs Because the numbers provided by Mr. Turney 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 Bellevue Issac uah New Castle Port Blakely Renton Sammamish Total CY 06 $141,171.00 $372,344,00 $490,358.00 $686,282.00 3245,272,00 3456,562.00 52,391,989.00 CY 07 $29,601.00 $297,178.00...._$228,031.00 „ $261,222.00 $313,295.000 ` $274,995.00 $1,404,322.00 CY 08 $84,294.00 $290,667.00 _._$41,610.00 $43,964.00 $119,537.00 $359,017.00 $939,089.00 CY 09 $177,929.00 $46,761.00 $6,136.00 $47,818.00 $28,501.00 $377,544.00 $684,689.00 CY Total $432,995.00 51,006,950.00 $766,135.00 51,039,286.00 5706,605.00 $1,468,118,00 " Mr, Turney attributed the increase in Bellevue impact fees to a planned development for whtch a large number of building permits were obtained. Washington Center for Real Estate Research 5 Analysis oflinpnctsofkfodifledVining of SchoollinpnctFee Pa Payments Because the monthly collection and spending numbers reflected in the detailed King County report did not match exactly; the fact that the numbers from other collecting jurisdictions do match exactly may indicate that this information is overly general. However, as with those fees collected by King County, it is apparent that tine school district does spend these fees shortly after their collection. Lake Washington School District According to Lynne Pyke, impact fees are collected on behalf of Lake Washington School District by King County, the city of Redmond, and the city of Sammamish. 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. Impact fees collected by King County are held in interest bearing accounts maintained by King County until tine district has a use for them. According to Lynne Pyke, before the district undertakes a capital project budget they determine the amount of impact fees available to fund capital projects. 'rhe projects are then front-funded with bond money. At the completion of the project the district transfers the budgeted funds from the impact fee account to reimburse bonds that were spent. This "journal entry process" simplifies the necessary reporting 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 lunnp sum. The reports provided to WCRER by the district depict this transfer of fees by providing the date the fees were "reclassed." Perhaps because of this simplified process, the reports Annual Impact Fee Collection provided by the district reflect very general information and Expenditures on the expenditure of impact fees. While the Information Lake Washington School District provided technically answered the request for Receipts Expendi information on the spending of impact fees, some of the 2006 CY $626,173.80 $5,085 Iture 8 Information was not tied to a specific year and/or was 2007 CY $542,818.26 $2,691,650.48 somewhat ambl uous.21 The district also provided some g 2008 C_Y $464,924.25 $343,033.35 of the reports the district is required to file with the 2009 CY $180,154,21 $235,481.61 collecting jurisdictions reporting the annual expenditure $1,814,07052 $8,355,789.92 of impact fees, but several of these reports were 'For purposes of tracking annual spending, the expenditure unavailable. attributed to' 2 0 0 672 0 07'}vas divided equally between the two years. Lake Washington School District has received impact 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 collecting jurisdictions was $566,964.73. i Lake Washington School District Impact Fee Collection Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-by Collecting Jurisdiction and Expenditures Kiik~ Colulti, Impact Fees Collected by King County As of August 2010, the ending fund balance for impact Total IF Revenue* Expenditures fees collected by King County was $87,845.63. This annotint is considerably less than the amount of fees 2006 CY _ _$,406,167.14 $5,383,300.95 collected in 2006 through 2008, more than the amount ?007 CY $225,583.83 collected in 2009 and almost equal to amount collected 2008 CY $126,779.67 SO far in 2010. 2009 CY $54,034.40 _ 5812,565.04 $5,383,300.95 The 2008 expenditures on the report provided to WCRER 2010 CY"* $84,944.68 $437,640.83 ($1,986,617.21) did not match the amount reported to $2,884,126.93 $5,820,941.78 King County as part of the District's annual reporting 'King County tracks the interest but the district onlyreceives a requirement ($829,445.62). After WCRER discussed the report of tire total revenue. 'Numbers for the 2010 Calendar year only represent tees discrepancy 1vith John Love, the Capital Projects Fund collected through August 2070. Analyst for Lake Washington School District, Mr. Love "One of the incidents where funds were "reclassed" was attributed to a two year period (200612007); another reclassification occurred over "various" time periods. 6 Washington State University Analysis of Impacts of Modified Timing of School Impact Fee Payments reported that an accounting error was .responsible for the discrepancy. The $1,986,617.21 on the report provided to WCRER was the correct amount. Mn Love explained that this error was not critical because providing the reports to the collecting jurisdictions is merely a formality and does not have any effect on the actual transfer of funds. Because this high amount of impact fees seemed excessive for collection in 2008, when one would expect a decrease 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 Impact Fee Expenditure-From provided to the school district by a contractor in lieu of Report Provided to King County impact fee payments fora new development. Because this number does not actually represent the receipt or Expenditures expenditure of impact fees, the number has been excluded 2006 CYR port unavailable from both values for purposes of this evaluation. Because 2 -0-- - 2007 CY Report unavailable John Love reported that the $829,445.62 expenditure 2008 CY 5829,445.62 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 $1,260,1.84.48 provided to WCRER by the district, this number has also been excluded from 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 School District Budget Office list of priorities. Gity o/'Satlrturrr1risil At the end of August 2010, the ending fund balance of the city of Sanunamish Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures impact fee account was $176,232.00. This Impact Fees Collected by the City of Sammamish number surpasses the amount of impact fees collected in 07-09 but is close to the 'Receipts Interest Total Revenue E. enditures' amount collected so far this year. However, 2006 CY $218,508.50 $1,498.16 $220,006.66 $2,393,974.00 it appears that as of December 2009 the 2007 CY $107,788.00 il $8,122.11 $115,910.11 district had committed all impact fees 2008_CY $124,877.50 $3,029.51 $127,907.01 $343,033.35 collected up to that point; the ending 2009 cY $32,988.78 $28,974.11 $61,972.89 balance reflects only the impact fees $484,162.78 $41,623.89 $525,796.67 $2,737,007.35 collected in 2010. 2070 W 5175,726.78 ~SS69.00 $176,23200 $67,697.82 The report provided by the district on the - Y 5659,889.56 $42,1_29.89 $702,028:67-$2,804,705.17 spending of impact fees collected by the 'Numbers for the 2010 Calendar yeoronly represent lees collected through August city of Sammamish was somewhat 2010• ambiguous as to the date of expenditure of Borne 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 correct, WCRER determined that 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. While the Carson Portables were completed in fall 2008, for purpose of this analysis, this amount was listed under 2010 expenditures because the impact fees necessary for this expenditure had not been collected until 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. Washingtotl Center for Real Estate Research _ ~ 7 Analysis of Impacts of Modi/led Vnlfng of School Impact Fee Payments t Yl y o/"Rt°rltt and At the end of August 2010 the ending fund Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures balance for impact fees collected by the city of Impact Fees Collected by the City of Redmond Redmond was $302,887.10; which is more than Receipts interest Total Revenue Ex endltures has been collected on behalf of the district in r any single year. 2006 CY W_ 2007 CY $197,260.00 $4,064.32 $2011,324.32 The report provided to WCRER reflecting the 2008 CY $208,025.94 52,211.63 8210,237.57 receipt and expenditure of impact fees collected 2009 CY $57,521.54 _ $6,625.38 $64,146.92 $235,481.61_ by the city of Redmond only reflected the $462,80748 $12x901.3.3_ 5475,708.81 $247,570.79 reclassification of fees on two occasions; _ $73,739.31 on Einstein Elementary, and 2010 CY $72,753.22 $1,995.86 -$74,749.0-8--7 $173,831.48 on Redmond Elementary, fora $535,560.70 514,897.19 5550 457.89 $247,570.79 total of $247,570.79. The report did not reflect 'Numbers for ure 2010 Calendar year only represent fees collected through the date the funds were reclassed. The district's August 2010. 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 two reports refer to the same Annual Impact Fees-From Report j 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. Collection/Expenditure It appears from the vagueness of the records provided that the 2006 CY district's record keeping process for impact fees is not 2007 CY Report Unavailable particularly precise. Also, they apparently 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; Rerhaps a delay in collection would not warrant much notice, a 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 impact fees. Because they have access to enough bond money to front-fiend 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, tine transfer of impact fees (from King County at least) is already a slow unpredictable process. Capital Projects and Per the OSPI Accortnting 111fannal for Public School Districts, impact fees are reflected within the Capital. Projects Fund.2s The Capital Projects Fund provides "financial resources to be used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities.""' "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." 27 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 1NCRER with this information. "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 Washington, 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 AccountJng Manual for Public School Districts in the Stale of Washington, at 9-16. 8 Washington State University Analysis of Impacts of ATorli/I erl T'intirrg o f School Int~tact 1%ee Paylrret: is Impact fees, under the Growth Management Act, are also restricted to specific schools impacted by the 2a development. 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.29 These statements present the annual revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balance for each fund as well as a comparison of the budgeted expenditures and actual expenditures by each district. WCRER extracted numbers from 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 district 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: at 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 $26,713,159.87. The impact fees collected on behalf of Kent School District in 2009-2010 are equal to 5.49. percent of this ending fund balance. The impact fees expended in the 2009-2010 fiscal year 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 (Budget) FY 09-10 Total Revenues (Taxes, IFs, Etc.) $8,129,067.70 $11,124,669.62 $14,837,249.20 _$6,656,599.00 $11,861,358.41 Total Otller Fltlatlcitlg Sources (Bonds) $35,076,749.95 $16,828,004,45 $24,817,920,27 $15,000,000.00 ${22),638.29) Total Revenues & Other Finarlcin_g Sources* $43,328,014.65 $28,063,627.82 $40,037,441.80 $21,656,599,00 $11,861 358.41 Sites/Building CJ1ita10uthy $19,171,480.93 $25,672,864,32 $32,920,964.94 $32,452,356.00 $10,076,304.05 Total Expenditures $25,271,295.96 $33,048,177.50 $36,557,378.64 $40,401,754.00 $13,406,650.00 "These numbers were directly transcribed from the litre in the Annual financial Statement entitled "Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources "It is unclear tvhy these numbers do not consistently equal the sum of the numbers in the "Total Revenues" and the "Total Other Finoncing 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. 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 (Budget) Four Years Percentage of Total Revenues comprised of 32.22% 22.84% 7.1046 22.03°5 12.360,0 16.71% _ Impact Fee Rec;:ipts _ _ _ Percentage of Total Revenues & Other Financing 6.0445 9.0546 2,6345 6.7745 12.3645 6.230,6 Sources Comprised of lip Fee Recel Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised of o e o h~actFee£xpenrtittrres 5.37,0 11.690 ,0 13.29o ,6 0.54q % 1.64/0 9.586 ' these figures one calculated assuming agreement between the figures provided to I"7CRER by Kent School District and those figures provided to 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 year when the district had budgeted spending $40,401,754.00 from the capital projects fund but instead spent only $13,406,650.00. 'fhe sum of impact fees collected over the four year period is equal to 623 percent 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 9.58 percent of the sum of the 'Total Expenditure' numbers. " The Accounting Manual for Public School Districts in the State of Washington, at 9.17. " http://t+n•nv.kl2.wa.us/safs/reports.asp The 2009-2010 Annual Financial Statements were published on the OSPI website on December 8, 2010. " Kent School District Capital Facilities Plan (2009). . . Washington Center for Real Estate Research 9 Analysis of Irttpacts of tlfodi~lerl Tlrttitt~ of School Impact Fee Payrtrertts 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. 3: Impact fees are included under the "Total Revenues" heading In the accompanying table. At the end of Ile 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 year are equal to 0.79 percent of,this ending fund balance. The Total Capital Projects Fund Expenditures in the 2009 calendar year are 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 (Budget) FY 09.10 Total Revenues (Taxes, IFs, Etc.) $8,650,669.11 $8,762,494.21 $10,088,378.18 $9,136,518.00 $14,806,665.02 _Total Other Financing Sources (Bonds) $75 083 375.00 $60,181,050.25 130,205,525.00 529,870,000.00 $30,113,018.10 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources* $63,734,044.11 $68,943,544.46 $40,293,903.18 ;39,006,518.00 $44,919,683.12 Sites/Bulld199 Capital Outlay $7,874,354.68 $11,730,606.81 $54,928,739.30 $121,550,000.00 $83,902,645.73 Total Expenditures $13,256,403.32 $15,8081063.77 $58,918,578.82 $138,200,00_0.00 $94,772,188.84 `These numbers were directly transcribed from the line In the Annual Financial Statement entitled "Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources. In the statements provided by Issaquah School District these numbers do consistently equal the sum of the numbers in the "Total Revenues' and die "Total Other Financing Sources" 1 lines. i 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. Issaquah School District-Percentage of Revenues and Expenditures Comprised of Impact Fees FY 06-07 FY 117-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 Four Years Budget) Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised 34.7496 21.8696 12.2896 8.269& 5.1196 16.3596 of impact Percentage of Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources Comprised of Impact 3,590,6 2.7896 3.0796 1.94°,'0 1.6996 2.91% Fee Receipts Percentage of Total Expenditures 22 6796 12 120,6 2.10% 0.5596 0.8096 3.7890 Comprised! of Impact Fee Exi~endifures 'This Table reflects a Comparison of Revenues and Total Expenditures during Fiscal Year with Receipts and Expenditure of Impact Fees from Calendar Years • These figures are calculated assuming agreement behveen the figures provided to WCRER by Issaquah School District and those figures provided to the OSPI The percentage of total expenditures comprised of impact 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 stun 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. The 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 modernization of 10 schools throughout the school district." In February 2010, voters rejected a $231 million bond issue. The district's annual use of bonds is reflected in the accompanying table under the "'T'otal Other Financing Sources" heading. Impact fees are included under the "Total Revenues" heading in the accompanying table. " Issaquah School District, 2009 Capital Facilities Plan. " 2009 Lake Washington School District Capital Facilities Plan ____-_~.._....................m. 10 Washington State University Analysis of Impacts of Modi fled Vining of School Impact Pee Payinents At the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the district reported a Capital Projects Fund ending total.fund balance of $183,995,410.03. The impact fees collected on behalf of Lake Washington School District in 2009- 2010 are equal to 0.10 percent of this ending fund balance. The impact fees expended in the 2009-2010 fiscal year are equal to 0.13 percent of this ending fund balance. The total Capital Projects 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 (Budget) FY 09.10 Total Revenues axes, IFs, Etc, ) $24,201,077.92 820,744,658.38 $19,769,260.73 $20,941,120.00 819 045,152.32 e Total Other Financing Sources (Bonds) $81,159,325.01 $81,378,883.71 $76,639,564.61 $100,000,000.00 $40,204,378.95 __..__........_e________ _ Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources" $105,360,929.95 $102,123,542.09 $100,425,350.73 $120,941,120.00 $59,279,648.27 Sites/Bufltling Capital outlay _ $18,929,248.04 $36,020,112.49 $46,950,192.82 $83,635,039.00 157,051,351.39 Total Expenditures _ $27,410,374.51 _ 844,856,871.25 $S7,923,703.73 595,670,433A0 $68,679,641.78 'These numbers Were directly transcribed from the line in the Annuol Finonciol Statement entitled "Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources. "it is unclear why these numbers do not consistently equal the sum of the numbers in the "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 (Budget Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised of Impact Fee 2,59°,5 2.62°/u 2.35% 0.II695 0.95016 2.1790 Reveipfs Percentage of Total Revenues & Other Financing 0.59% 0.530,5 0.460,5 0.1546 03055 0.49°,5 Sources Comprised of Impact Fee" Recellrts Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised I 18,5595 6.0040 0.5945 0.25"0 0,34% 4.2095 of Impact Fee Expenditures 'This Table reflects a Comparison of Revenues and Total Expenditures during Fiscal Year with Receipts and Expenditure of Impact Fees from Calendar Years "Expenditure amounts from 1006 & 2007 reflect equal division of amount provided by district as reclossed in 200612007. • These figures are calculated assuming agreement between fireligures provided to WCRER by Lake Washington School District and those figures provided to the OSPI The percentage of total expenditures comprised of impact fees has significantly decreased over the past four years 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 year period. The suns 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 stem of the 'Total Expenditure' 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 expenses 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 years. The collection and spending of impact fees is to be based on these plans. Impact fees may only be spent to increase capacity 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 § 18.120.090(2) Washington Center for Real Estate Research 11 Analysis o f Impacts of Modi fled Tinting of School Impact Fee Payments facilities plans that impact fee spending is generally focused on large scale capacity projects such as the purchase/construction of relocatable classrooms, funding additions to schools and the construction/ " replacement of schools. 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 for obtaining a new relocatable (which the district has not 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). 35 3 Kenn 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 Impact Fees a,6 Funded Date of IF Contribution Total Cost' b IFs Ex enditure _Meadoiv Ridge Portable $1,03,492.74 $106,700.00 96.9956 9/2006-11/2006 NeeIL-Q'Brien Portable $118,290.93 $106,700.00 110.86116 9/2006.112007 Panther Lake Property Purchase $900,000.00 $4,485,013.00 20.0746 7/2007 Kent Phoenix Academy Parking Lot $100,000.00 $1,650,000.00 6.0696 1112007 Kentlake Gym and Classroom Add. $4,000,000.00 $5,700,000.00 70,1840 8/2007.412008 Panther Lake Replacement $3,904,550.62 $26,700,000.00 14.6295 2/2009- Kent-Meridlan Aux. Gym Addltton $1,439,139.73 $2,500,000.00 57.57% 11/2008-4/2010 $10,565,474.02 $41,248,413.00 25.619'0 Wwribers reflect anticipated cost as presented in CFPs Nfost of the capital projects that were funded in part by impact fees were relatively small projects such as portable/relocatable classrooms or additions to existing schools, therefore, impact fees were responsible for funding a relatively significant percentage of these projects. It does not appear that the district undertook any additional capital projects during the subject four year period.76 Issaquah 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 from 2006 to present. The accompanying table reflects the amount of impact fees collected through King County during the subject four year period that were applied toward the total cost of these capital projects." WCRER compared the numbers provided by the district for the yearly collection and expenditure of impact 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 3.85 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 Construction 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 collected and expended are additional 362,858.04 in impact fees collected by K{n County; the 2010 expenditures are included In the calculations in the table at Appendix C. 12 Washington State University Analysis oflinpacts of btodifled Tinting of School Mpact Fee Payments Issaquah Projects Funded In-part By Impact Fees Collected By King County 9b Funded Date of Pro ect KC - IFSpent Total S ent b KC IFs Expenditure Grand Ridge Elementary (E 111 $845,23.55 f21,611,111.00 3.9195 0112006-0512007 Issaquah High School - $571567.12 $88,356,144.00 0.6596 0412007-0512009 Creekside Elementary (E-15) $16,462.79 $22,667,284.00 0.0795 1212008-0312009 S line High School $202,671.59 $47,16O1975.000.4396 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 following Mans (including the 2010 plan), the district has yet to report any expenditures for those improvements.' i 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 95 Funded Date of IF Source Project IF Contribution" Total Cost` b LW IFs Ex enditure Rosa Parks $5,383,300.95 $18,137,316.00 29.6895 200612007 King Co. Parks Portables $437,640.83 $500,000.00 87.5395 2009 77 Inglewood $2,393,974.00 $7,625,000.00 31.4096 Various (2006) Sarninamish Carson Elem. $343,033.35 $24,600,000.00 1.3996 10/31/2008 Carson Portables $67,697.82 $500,000.00 13.5496 200912010? Redmond Einstein $73,739.31 Not Available 2009 Redmond Elem. $173,831.48 Not Available 2009 'Arum6ers reflect anticipated cost us presented Jn CFPs "Impact fees spent to dote- incomplete 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 Thrthugh 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." Both Kent and Lake Washington School Districts maintain records of interest earned 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 impact fees within Kent and Lake Washington School Districts reflect negative numbers for July, August and September of 2008. According Lo the Capital Projects Fund Analyst for Lake Washington School District, "In 2008 King County had a number of their investments which lost a lot of their value when the economy had a downturn. 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, " Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons which reflect the changes in district capacity.over tire fouryear period. " Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons which reflect the changes in district capacity over the fouryear period. " Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(1). " Despite this claim, the Impact fees collected on behalf of the district are not spent immediately and arguably should be maintained in interest-bearing accounts. - WasiliI ton Center for Real Estate Research 13 Analysis o f lnipacts of Modified Timing of Sc11001 Impact Fee Payrrrents 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 Kent School District Kent Impact Fee Receipts and Kent School District provided the most detailed record of impact Interest-All Collection jurisdictions fee management,' It is apparent from these records that Kent Recel is Interest carefully tracks the interest earned from the impact.fee accounts. FY 06-07 $2619 x1388882_.$3_09,766.36 While the amount of interest collected by Kent School District is FY 07-08 $2,541,024.61 $1441743.61 relatively paltry in comparison with the overall capital projects FY 08.09 $1,053 418,62 $ 72,032.67) budget, the amount of interest accrued over the four fiscal years is FY 09-10 $1,466,308.62- $34,444.87 roughly enough to fund four relocatable classrooms. $7,679,890.67 $416,922.17 Lake Washington School District The accompanying tables only reflect interest from impact fees LWSD Impact Fee Receipts collected by Samnnamish 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. King County Recei ter Interest tracks the interest but the district only receives a report reflecting the 2006 CY $218,508.50 $1,498.16 total revenue. The interest on King County receipts would be more 2007 CY $107,788.00 $8,122.11 substantial because King County collects the most impact fees on 2008 CY $124,877.50 $3,029.51 behalf of the district. 2009 CY _$32,988.78 $3,230.61_ The monthly report of receipts and interest of impact fees collected by $484,162,78 ~~$15,880.39 the city of Sammamish shows an interest amount 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 correction of an accounting error, or may itself be an error, but for and Interest-Redmond purposes of this evaluation this number has been excluded. Receipts Interest Because Lake Washington has only received a total of $1,814,070.52 2006 CY x in impact fees in the last four years the amount of interest collected --66-y- _T - _2007 CY $197,260.00 $4,064.32 on impact fees is relatively insubstantial. 2008 CY $208 025.94 ._____$2,211.63 Arguably, a potential harm suffered by the school districts, in the 2009 CY $57,521.54 $6,625.38 event of a delay in collection of impact fees, may lie in t11e loss of $462,807.48 $12,901.33 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 are received and do not earn 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 low, further minimizing potential harm to the districts. Delayed Collection of Impact fees by the City of Redmond In 2009 the city of Redmond 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 Redniond adopted interim amendnierrts 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 impact fees will again be required upon building permit Issuance)." "The intent of the interim amendments was to provide some immediate level of relief to . developers and builders who were facing and continue to face severe economic consequences from the downturn in the local housing market and overall decline of the economy. " Email from John Love, Capital Projects Fund Analyst for Lake Washington School District, to Kimberly Anderson, Research Associate, Washington Center for Real Estate Research (Nov. 10, 2010). Please see Appendix D for detailed information on interest accrued on impact Fees in the Kent School District accounts. " Redmond Community Development Guide 20D.60.10-030; Redmond, WA, ordinance No. 2501. (2009). " Id. _.w.. 14 Washington State University Anidysis of Impacts of Morli fled Thning of 5clrool hnpact Pee Payments To determine the effect of the collection Redmond Impact Fee Comparison delay in the city of Redmond, WCRER compared the amount of impact fees iQng collected on behalf of the Lake Redmond County Samnlamish Washington School District by the city IF collected In 2007 compared with the 42.6296 55.51% 40.5745 of Redmond, the city of Sammamish and sum of IF collected in 2007 through 2009 by King County. 17he accompanying IF collected in 2008 compared with the 44 ,950,6 31.2090 47.0195 table represents the comparison of the sum of IF collected In 2007 through 2009 impact fees collected each year with the IF collected In 2009 compared with the `12.4395 13.30% 12.4245 sum of impact fees collected in the 2007 sure of IF collected in 2007 throug112009 through 2009 calendar years by all three IF collected in 2009 compare(,` with IF 27,650,5 42.620,5 26.4245 jurisdictions, as well as a comparison of Collected in 2008 impact fees collected in 2009 with those T'" collected in 2008.96 The numbers collected by Redmond, In general, reflect conformity with the impact fee collection 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 downturn," the amendment would not result in "any adverse impacts to the City's finances or provision of facilities and services to the public."" 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.99 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 little evidence yet of the amendment's impact on the school districts studied. However, The public testimony given prior to the amendment provides sonic understanding of the motivation for the change as well as insight into attitudes about potential changes to the timing of impact fee collection. According to testimony before the Senate in support 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 return them to parties who paid them. School districts 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 they would 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."" During public testimony before the House, supporters asserted that the change will "enable school districts to use impact fees more efficiently. "'o Opposition claimed tite period for expenditure was too long and that "[tjlie bill should be amended to allow impact fees to be collected at the time of occupancy, rather than at the time of development approval."" 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. The time of collection is an important issue and it should riot be modified. Difficulties have arisen when local governments have tried to collect impact fees at a later date.... These local governments take the "heat" for collecting fees for other entities."" " WCRER did not receive complete numbers the 2010 calendar year, 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.210A0-130(1) of 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 14, 2009). " id. Persons Testifying in support of the extension included: Senator Fraser, co-sponsor; Ron Zier, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, School Facilities; Sandi Swarthout, Puget Sound School Coalition; Mitch Denning, Alliance of Education Association, Association of Maintenance and Operations Administrators, School Business Officials, School Nutrition Association; Marcia Fromhold, Evergreen School District. No opposition testimony was presented. " id. Persons Testifying in support of the extension included: Senator Pridemore, prime sponsor; Bill Adamo, Puget Sound School Coalition; and Mitch Denning, Alliance of Education Association. Opposition testimony was provided by Timothy Harris, Building Industry Association of Washington. _ Washington Center for Real Estate Research 15 Analysis ofhnpacts ofillodifled Timing of School Impact 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 collection. Anticipated Length of Impact 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 variables exist which could greatly skew this average. While a large percentage of new construction is pre-sold and would reflect short time periods between ground-breaking and occupancy, lack of funding has lead some builders to hold building permits for years 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 Murray Franklin Homes. Mr. Young estimated that it takes five to six months from the time when the developer pulls the building permit until closing 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 five 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 builder pulls the building permit to closing on the sale of a new home; four to five months for construction and two to three months for the sale. Mr. Idiller also confirmed that pre- sold homes would skew any average times. He also explained 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 to which permits are pulled early. Based on the information provided by '1\4r. 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 delay for each round of new homes to be constructed would be influenced by the delay period for homes previously constructed within the same plat, as well as the total number of homes to be built in the platted area. C 01-01.1sions and Recommendations Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure The process for receiving fees from each collecting jurisdiction is similar among the districts. 'rile 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, Kent reported an impact fee balance of $1,681,354.40, the Issaquah School District spends impact fees shortly after they are received and reports an ending fund balance of zero dollars; the district also does not maintain records of interest collected from Impact fees because the fees are allegedly spent before they can accrue significant interest. The Lake Washington School District front funds capital projects 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 district had an impact fee account balance of $566,964.73, 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 slightly more impact but changes would likely be manageable with minor adjustments in spending practices. 16 V Washington State Uiiiversfty Analysis of btrpacts of Madifted Tinting o f School Impact Pee Payments w 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 projects 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 district's 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. Issaquahi School District has collected and expended impact fees to find 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. I Lake Washington School District front hinds 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 are required to anticipate and plan for increased enrollment six years in advance, and because impact fees are 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, argued 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 are spent as soon as they are received and therefore do not earn 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 hnpacts of rAlodi fled Timtng Of Sc11t101 Impact Pee 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 interest rates, the districts have already seen a decline in the interest accrued on impact fees. The districts cannot collect interest on impact fees if there is no construction to trigger payment of the fees. Delayed Collection of impact l=ees by the City of Redmond The City of Redmond implemented delayed impact fee collection in 2009 with the intent of providing relief to developers and builders. Through this plan the city collects impact fees at the time of drywall inspection rather than upon building permit issuance. The impact fee numbers collected by Redmond reflected trends similar to those in other jurisdictions. The 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. According to Dennis Lisk, the Associate Planner for the City of Redmond, the city has 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 half of an impact fee is collected upon plat approval there are already unpredictable delays between the plat recording and the issuance of building permits for homes built later in the development process. Further, not all collecting jurisdictions require 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 capacity as it becomes necessary. Recommendations A major concern of opponents of the delayed collection of impact fees is that the promised impact fees will never be collected. Pierce County, Washington experimented with a delayed collection schedule in the 1990s through which a lien was placed on the property but the payment trigger was not specified. A 20 percent noncompliance rate prompted officials to abandon the delayed payment program. A successful delayed payment plan will need to address collection difficulties. Dennis Usk, Associate Planner for the City of Redmond, indicated that the city opted to delay its collection of impact fees until 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 collection 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 concerts about difficulties collecting impact fees, the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties has suggested and WCRER encourages a program in which any delayed payment of impact fees would be recorded as a lien against a home to be built.s' 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. " AM No. 09.248 (C6). November 17, 209. (Memo to Redmond City Council recommending adoption of amendments to sections 20D.60.10.030, and 20D.210.10-130(l) of the Redmond Community Development Guide). " The Master Builders Association 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 permits, Wth the remainder due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Washington State University Analysis of Impacts ofil-fodifled Timing ofSchool.Mipact Fee Payments Kent School District--p-Covington Monthly Receipts and Expenditures FY 06-D7 r Receipts , t Interest (S) Expend(s) FY 07-08 Recel is S Interest $ Expend S Sep;06 4,14700 152092 Sep-07 43 4L2.50 2,712.52 Oct-06 ; 14s423.50 1 ,603.60 Oct-07 12,320,00 2 ,683.50 Nov-06 4,147.00 1,708_.81 } - Nov-07 7,001.50 2,663.61 Dec 06 22,808,50 i 1,731 04 P Dec O 21,004.50 265155 Jan 07 12,441.00 1 1,808 26 ; an-08 35,688.50 2673.59 2,615.87_ Feb-07' 18,661.50 I, 1,824.20 ; Feb-08 - 4 ,928.00 i Mar-07 58,476.00 1,809.63 i _Mar-08 5,110.00 2 ,495.00 i Apr-07 6,220,50 1 2,056,87 i - I __Yr-08 51 200.00 2,558.52 May-07 ; 2,073,50 2,109.90 ; i Mp -0_-__ _ 20,440.00 2,246.21 146,71 Jun-07 511986.00 i 2,407.20 Jun-08 20 440.00 2, Jul-07 12,441.00 2,374,10 Jul-OS 40698.00 (347.84 Aug-07 i 12,831.50 ( 2,515.87 ( ! u! 08 10 220.00 833.37 220,657.00 23,470.40 i 272,473,00 24,265.87 FY 08 -09 -Receipts (5) Interest Expend FY 09.10 Receipts Interest Expe1(1($ ep OS (12 940 32) Sep-09 7,665.00 695.15 Oct-08 5,11000_ 2151.01 1 Oct-09 5,110.00 688.52 Nov 08 2194 91 1 Nov-09 0.00 608.66 Dec 08 3,319 36 Dec-09 0.00 514.76 ((i~an 09 2,116.03,1_____ 3 Jan-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 Apr 09 y 1,941.23 ' 526,400 00 ; Apr-10 _ 2,697.00 619.60 Ma 09 1,356 50 Ma10 2,697.00 481.48 Y . j Jun-09 684.36 Jun-10 _ 26,970.00 388.83 µ Sul 09 S 304 00 689,93 Jul-10 37,758.00 504.87 Aug 09 5,304.00 739.88 ; Auu-10 _ 53,940.00 528.71 j 61,902.00 ` 11,176.80 526400.00 150,180.00 6,703.92 705,212.00 65,616.99 526,400.00 22 Washington State University Analysis of hnpnets of Morli fierl Tin►irig of School hnpnct Fee Paynteprts Kent School District - Kent Monthly Receipts and Expenditures FY OG•07 Receipts (S) Interest (S) Expend (5)_ FY 07-08 Recei 1s S Interest S Exu pend S _ 6.0 Sep-06 90,725.00 i 9,448.60 187,652.97 Sep•07 118,119.00 14,125.52 T_ I - i Oct-07 63,911-00 _ 14,155.03 I Oct-O'6 ] 74,68..B:908 714.80 000.00 I Nov-06 47,031.00_ _ 9,192.12 _ „4,582.66 1 Nov-07 73 920.00 13,943.12 100, Dec-06 38,200.00 j 9,434.95 11,236.08 Dec-07 49,280.00 13,740.69 Jan-07 j_ 76,553.00 9,929.53 18,311.96 1 Jan-08 69 64.00 13392.38 556,108.71 Feb-07 j 136,760.00 10,384.38 Feb-08 74 466.00 k_ 11,477.15 443 891.29 Mar-07 92,102.00 i 10,009.47 Mar-08 91,070,00 9,459.75 Apr-07 80,916.00 10,942.50 Apr-08 152,572.00 9,323.40 May 07 158,093.00 i 11,457.22 Ma -08 96,052.00 ® 8,386.15 Jun•07 i 68,839.00 ; 12,557.61 Jun-08 107,310.00 7,871.18 Jul-07 202,048.00 12 352.80 ; Jul-08 127 750 00 (4,284.06 Au 08 (6 863.35) Aug-07 116,131.00: 13,935.02 "____45,990.00 1,182,086.00 128,359.00 221,783.67 1,070,304.00 104,726.96 1,100,000.00 FY 08-09 Receipts Interest (S--) Expend (5)........ FY 09-10 Rece~~ts (5) Interest (S) Ex eP nd (5) {S) _ 5eZr09 63,648.00 _ 968.70 Se 08 15,076.00 (67,506.99)"1 Oct -08 _ 20, - 743.72 Oct-09 84,864.00 1,230.24 1 7, Nov.08 5,292,00 { 8,021.56 i 497 410 60 i Nov-09 15,912.00 9455.85 _ 138,289.19 Dec.08 ( 28 314 00 13,340 94 ( Dec-09 21,410.00 844.26 Jan 09 66,430 00 1 _ 6,777,77 535,951.91 I Jan-10 48,366.00 914:29 _ _ 1 Feb-09 52 846 00 5,763.64 118 359.83 Feb-10 50,162.00 Mar 09 47,542 00 5,084 06 1,362,287.04 Mar-10 172,698.00 950.90 1 Apr 09 157,562 00 3,687.41 11057 836.39 Apr-10 113,274.00 1,467 19 81,486.6 May-09 ; 21,216 00 1 1,919,28 M y 10 139,392.00 893 ,93 k Jun•09 ( 127,296 00 1 564.27 Jun-10 102,486.00 _ 716.04 Jul-09 169 728 00 ` 870.87 lul 10 91,698.00 1,222.84 Aug 09 47,736 00 947.30 Auq-1_0- 591,334.00 747.10 - 759,368 00 (12 786.17) 3,571 845.77 963,244.00 11,853.16 219,775.80 3,975,002.00 232,152.95 5,113,405.24 Washington Center for Reai Estate Research 21 Athnlysis of Impacts o Monti cd Timithg o f School Impact Fee Payments Appendix A Kent School District----Kind County Monthly Receipts and Expenditures $ FY 06.07 Receipts (5)___ Interest (3) Expend (3) FY 07.08 Recei is S lnterest S Expend Sep•Ob ' 35,848.50 10,230.84 Se_•07 363 945.50 11,253,21 555643.31 Oct-06 219,353.42 ! 11,065.92 Oct-07__ 249,897.00 4 570,83 527 085.68 _ Nov-O6 33;682.64 ` 11,570.97 Nov-07 1_06,871.00 7,647.92 885,953.15 Dec-O6 127,992.66 ; 12,316.96 Dec-07 25,589.50 6,415.81 29,468.50 Feb 07 44,140.59 # 12,576.97 ; an•08~ 21,692.50 5+716.92 11,879.62: i Feb-08 25,618.50 4,769.63 213,171.43 Mar-07 400,722.49 14,614.79: Mar-O8 221,222.00 ~ 3,79937 469,052:70 Apr-07 48,897.40 ` 14,654,20 Apr-08 54,394,50 3,152.65 113,452,62 may-97, 791771.50 15,443.71 May 08 _35,410.50 3,000.36 Jun-07 114,602.61 15,520.04 ; un-08 51,155.00 2,822.81 Jul-07 54,946.00 ; 16,232.60 900,OOOAO Jul-08 29,331.61 29 048.88 I Aug-07 ! 26,969.31 11,830.34 235,641.11 j Au -O8 13,120.00 13,290.05) 1,216,395.82 , 157,936.96 1,135,641.11 1,198,247.61 15,750.78 2,764,358.89 FY 08.09 Receipts (S) Interest Expend (5) FY 09.10 Receipts ~S} Interest (5~ Expender Sep 08 i 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 $ Nov-09 42,691.34 486.57 Dec-08 10,801 so 7,311,22 Dec 09 31,151.00 631.24 9 )an 09 8,101.54 , 2,684 70 an-10~ ?6,974 74 8,175.34 Feb-09 5,789.74 2 774 47 I 1,025 668 78 Feb-10 50,038 30 _ 737.32 M, 'a 26,454.28 j 1,667.14 Mar-10 44,352.00 75230 Apr-09 ; (52 685 43) 971.79 ' j A r-10 23,108.00 1 1__ 03.79 May 09 32,870.00 I 995 10 j May- iO 15,160.00 726.54 _ - 3 Jun-09 42 196.26 j 581.97 Jun-10 _15,250.24 518.65 - ! Jul 09 29,8.60.00 _I- 642 29 Jul-10 _ 12,545.41 648.22 t Au g-09 35,11519 I_._ 752.62 8,180.00 706.47 23Z148.62 (70,423.30) i 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 of Impacts o f modi fled. Thning of Sclrool Impact Pee Payments Conclusion 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 minor adjustments in spending practices to adapt to delayed impact fee collection without experiencing any significant harm. Further, the delayed collection of impact fees would likely have little impact on the districts' ability to fund large scale projects which require long planning and construction periods. There is no evidence to suggest that a delay in the collection of impact fees would Impact the school districts' ability to plan for or to accommodate additional students. In sum, the evidence does not indicate that a delay in collection of impact fees until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy would materially disadvantage the three school districts studied. 1 i Wasbinglon Center for Reol Estote Research 19 Analysis o f Bnpacts o f Mork fled Tuning of School Impact Fee Payments Appendix B Issaquah School District Collection and Expenditures By Fiscal Year /annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures-Fiscal Year Impact Fees Collected by King County Collection Ex endlture FY 06-07 $558,008.76 $505,216.58 FY 07-08 $422,668.17 $362,909.96 FY 08.09 $58;795;92 $1.71,346.31 FY 09-10 $94,647.19 $94,647.19 $1,134,120.04 $1,134,120.04• Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-By Fiscal Year Bellevue Issaquah Newcastle Port elakel Renton Sammamish FY Totals 2006-07 $64,385.22 1188,209.04 $71,151.00 $308,894.00 $122,058:00 $2511202.00 $1,005,899.26 2007-08 $60,325.00 $43Q,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 _ $6136.00- $12,491,00 µS27,497.00 _$162,574.00 $458,195.21 2009-10 _ $55,719.00 _ $109,264.98 $36,816.00 $46,068.00 $47,646.10 $508,381,50 $803,895.58 FY Totals 5383,626.72 $774,179.98 $312,592.00 5463,153.00 $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' Percentage of Total Revenues comprised of Impact Fee 16.51% 21.05% 5.12% 9.83;u Percentage of Total Revenue be other Financing Sources Comprised of Impact 1.71% 2.689b 1.2896 2.30;6 FeeRecei)tsw Percentage of Total Egendihires Comprised of IrnLact Fee €xwn tltarres 6.780b 11.6796 0.8896 0.65;6 Issaquah Projects Funded in-part by In-ipact Fees 9b Funded Project KC - IFSpent Total Sent by KC IFs Date of Expenditure Grand Rid a Elementary yE-14 1845,523.55 $21,611,111.00 3.91~9b ® 0112006.0512007 Issaquah High School $595,819.58 $88,356,144.00 0.67% 0412007.0512010 Creekslde Elementary (E-15) $17,872.82_ $22,667,284.00 0.0846 1212008.0612010_ Skyline High School $239,867.14 $47,160,975.00 0.5196 0712007-0712010 Washington Center for Real Estate Research 23 ►ing of Sci►ooI Impact Fee Payments ~ A►raiysi of bnpacts of Modified Tit Appendix L. Issaquah School District 4 King County Receipts and Expenditures Amount Date of Amount Date o Collected Cxpenditure Protect _ Collected Expenditure Protect ...6 . an-0 144 71 i 71 2/1/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. _ Jan 07 d 59,204 01 21812007 Elementary 14 J._. l__...._._ i Feb 06 _ 37,855.56 2/15/2006 Grand Ridge Etem Feb-07 ( 722,109 33 3 3/29/2007 Elementsry14 7 Mar 06 79, 547 70 ! 3/22/2006 Grand Ridge Elem j Mar-1 ._09 511712007 IHSPredesi9n 06 _ Rr 07 55,58909 A r -6-6,-,9 30 1 44/26/2006 Gra nd Rid a Ete m A , May06 65,186.58 5/17/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. My-_97__ 48'009.50 711912007 i Elementary 14 J _ J Jun 06 60r310 68 ( 6/21 /2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Jun-07 { 134,367.32 71512007 1HS Predesign 1 Jul 06 32,827 10 7/19/2006 Grand Ridge Elem Jul-07 I_ 34,699 67 i 8/30/2007 1 Skyline Add./Mod Aug-06 77,593 S8 8/30/2006 Grand Ridge Elem Aug 07 E 52,792.18 . 912712007 'Skyline Add./Mod i Sep-06 5 330.3 8 I Grand Ridge Elem Sep 07 i 31,1'22.87 1012512007 Skyline Add./Mod i - Oct 06 28 041 01 10/4/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Oct 07 i 7,620 91 1112912007 , Skyline Add./Mod. i Nov 06 5 178 83 10/18/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Nov 07 ! 73,768.89 i 11/29/2007 ;IHS Predesign - - Dec 06 12,687 44 12/6/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Dec 07 l 27,677.38 ; 1/10/2008 l IHS Predesign Total Collected In CY 2006: $616,200.71 Total Collected In CY 2007: $646,961.15 Amount Date of Amount Date of Collected $ Expenditure Protect Collected Expenditure Project ( an 08 18,150.90 2/7/2008 IHS Predesi n an 09 5,001.52 1/29/2009 Creekside Design ____9 j_..J_ Feb-08 19,835__.77 2/28/2008 IHS Predesiggn Feb_09 i ar-08 _ Mar-09 l 9,053.91: 4/23/2009 Creekside Design Mar 14,334.73 4/24/2008 IHS Predesicgn~ Apr 08 36,200_.98_ 5/15/2008 IHS Predesign Apr 09 May 08 14,399.59 5/22/2008 Skyline Add./Mod. May 09 12,085.91 6/18/2009 IHS Design Jun OS 46,264.25 _6/26/2008 {-IHS Predesi n i Jun-09 Jul 08- 20,741.51 8/28/2008IHS Predesi n Jul-09 14,335.80 7/28/2009 Skyline Add./Mad. Auc -08_ 112,550.39 10/16/2008 IHS Rebuild Aug-09 ; - - - Sep OS 5,852.97 10/30/2008 Skyline Add./Mod. Sep-09 j Oct 08 10,058.45 11/26/2008 Skyline Add./Mod. Oct 09 I Nov-08 2,407.36 ; Nov-09 31,789.15: 11/23/2009 Skyline Add./Mod. Dec 08 s Dec-09 1 Total Collected in CY 2008: $300,796.90 Total Collected In CY 2009: $72,266.29 i Total Collected in Calendar Years 2006.2009: $1,636,225.05 Amount Date of Collected Expenditure Project Jan--10 - " Feb-10 8,872.53 3/2/2010 Skyline Add./Mod, Mar-10 - Apr-10 21,629.18 4/29/2010 Skyline Add./Mod. May-10 24,252.46 512512010 IHS Design Services Jun-10 1,410.03 6/30/2010 Creekside Design Jul-10 6,693.84 8/6/2010 SkylineAdd./Mod Aug-10 - Total Collected In CY 2010: $62,858.04 Total Collected in Calendar Years 2006-2010: $1,699,083.09 24 Washington State University Amlysis orImpacts or1lodified TlntingofSchooll»rpactPee Paywytits Appendix D Kent School District Accrued Interest-•--By Collecting jurisdiction Icing County (S) Kent (S) Covington (S) _ IQn Count $ Kent „ Covington Sep-06 j 10,230.84 9,448.60 , 1,520.92 i Sep-07 _ 1,253.21 14,125.52 2,712.52 Oct-06 i 11,065.92: 8,714.80 1,603.60 Oct-07 9,510.83 14,155.03 2,683.50 i Nov-06 11,570.97 4,192.12 ; 1,708.81 Nov-07 7 647.92 13,443.12 2,663.61 Dec-06 12,316.96 9,434.95 ; 1,731.04 Dec-07 6,_415.81 13,740.6_9 2,651.55 Jan-07 12,576.97 9,929.53 } 1,808.26 , _Jan -08~ 5,716.92 13,39_2.38 2,673.59 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 Apr-07 14,654.20 ; 10,942.50 2,056.87,!: Apr-08 3,152.65 9,323.40 2,558,52 May-07 ? 15,443.71 i 11,457.22 ' 2,109.90 ; May-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 4 Jul-08 (29048.88 (4,28_4.06) (347.84) Aug-07 11,830.34 ; 13,935.0.2 ; 2,515.87 ; Au -08 (13,290.05) (b,863.35 (833.37) 157,936.96 ! 128,359.00 23,470.40 i 15,750.78 104,726.96 24,265.87 Total interest In FY 06-07 Total,=interest in~FY~_07.08- $309,766.36 S,144;743:61- King County (S) Kent (S).... . Coving"($) _ King Coin (S) Kent (5) Covin ton (S) Sep 08 (94 426.97) ; (67,506,99) ' (12,940.32) ( Sep_09 735.03 968.70 695.15 Oct 08 2 775 07 f 7,743 72 2,151.01 j Oct 09 666.12 1,230.24 688.52 Nov-08 2,847 30 ; 8,021 56 2,194 91 j Nov-09 4_86.57 945.85 608.66 Dec-08 7,311 22 13,340.94 µ 3,319.36 Dec-09-631,24 844,26 514.76 Jan 09 ( 2,684_70 6,777 77 21116.03 Jan-10 8175.34 914.29 564.43 Feb-09 2,774.47 5,763.64 7,066.53 ; Feb-10 737.32 951.82 575.37 Mar-09 1,66714 5,084.06- Apr-09 1857 38 Mar-10 752.50 950.90 533.54 f 971,79 ! 3,687 41 1,941.23 ; Apr-10 1 103 79 1,467.19 619.60 May-09 995 .10 1,919 28 1,356.50 j Ma3•10_ 726.54 893.93 481.48 Jun-09 ; 581.97 564 27 684.36 ; Jun-10 518.65 716.04 388.83 Jul-09 642.29 ' 870 87 689.93 Jul-10 648.22 i 222.84 504.87 - - - - 739.88 Aug-09 752.62 i 47.3 Aug-10 706.47 747.10 528.71 . (70. ,423(12,786.17), E 11,176.80 j _ 15,887.79 11,853.16 _ 6,703.92 Total Interest in FY 08-09 Total Interest In FY 09-10 34,444.87 Washington Center for Real Estate Research 25 Analysis oflntpactsoflllodifredTimittgo School l'ntpactFeePaytuents Appendix E Capacity and Enrollment Comparisons Kent School District Kent School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison 2006 2007 2008 2009 Permanent Capacity to House Students 27824 27598 27150 27321 _ Relocatable Capacity" 1345 1412 1470 1552 Total Permanent and Relocatable Capacity 29169 29010 28620 28873 Actual Enrollment (from next CFP} 25864 25745 25828 25778 Surplus Capacity _ 3305 3265 2792 3095 From Inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools section of the Capital Facilities Plan Kent School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Yearn" Ca acity" Enrollment Surplus Grade School 13570 13239 331 Middle School _ 5196 4283 913 Senior High Sdiool 8765 8256 509 27531 25778 1753 ' Actual counts at end of 2009-2070 (from 2010 CFP) Capacity numbers reflect relocotable capacity required, but not actual available relocotoble copocity Issaquah School District. Issaquah School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison 2006 2007 2008 2009 Permanent Capacity to House Students 14808 14068 14068 14068 Relocata ._.b.le Ca acit~ 2228 2280 2280 2280 Total Permanent and Relocatable Capacity 17036 16348 16348 16348 Enrollment* 15153 15340 15480 15807 Surplus Capacity 1883 1008 868 541 From Elie Inventory and Evaluation of Current Facilities section of the Capital Facilities Plan Issaquah School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Year* Ca acit Enrollment Sur lus Grade School 8224 71,91 1033 Middle School _ 3852 3840_ 12 Senior High School 5344 4776. 568 17420 15807 1613 'Actual counts at end of 2009-2010 (from 2010 CFP) Washington State University 26 Analysis of7»ipactsofModifledTiifingofShcoolImpact.PeePayments Lake Washington School District Lake Washington School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison 2006 2007 2006 2009 Permanent Capacity to House Students 22062 22573 22505 22916 Relocatable Capaci~*_ 3152 2846 2993 3219 Total Permanent and Relocatable Ca adfy 25214 25419 25498 26135 Enrollm_ent* _ 23173 23040 22965 23483 Surplus Capacity 2041 2379 2533 2652 From the Inventory and Evaluatlon of Current Facilities section of the Capitol Facilities Plan Lake Washington School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Year* Ca acct Enrollment Surplus Grade School 13484 13355 129 Middle School 6204 5389 815 Senior Hlgh School 5941 5038 903 25629 23782 1847 * Actual counts at end of 2009.1010 (from 1010 CFP) Washington Center-for Real Estate Res ~ _ Y____ 27 Analysis o Impacts of Afodi fiecl Tuning of School Iutpact Fee Papnelits Appendix F Kent School District Impact Fee Cxpenditul°e---Detailed Report y. 3 City of Ke r`nt i VOUCHER DATE VENDOR ` ITEM(S) FUNDED -j AMOUNT 9/14/2006 Fox Electric : Meadow Ridge Portable 3,206.95 9/14/2006 j Fox Electric NO Portable 7,039 36 - 9/14/2006 ; Wiliams Scotsman Inc MR Portable 88,703.33 i - - - - - 9/14/2006 Wiliams Scotsman Inc NO Portable 88,703.33 ; 11/16/2006 ; Powercom, Inc MR Portable ! 4,582.66 12/14/2006 Powercom, Inc NO Portable 11,236.08 10/19/2006 Fox Electric Meadow Ridge Portable 2,727.00 , 111112007 Wiliams Scotsman Inc NO Portable 4,272:80 1/11/2007 Wiliams Scotsman Inc MR Portable 4,27280 I 111112007 Fox Electric NO Portable 7,039.36 'i ; 11/26/2007 R.W._Scott Construction CO, KPA Parking Lot 100,000.00 12/20/2007 Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Clsrm. Add 25,627.12 1212012007 Shinstine Associates KL Gym_and Clsrm. Add. 530,481 59 2/8/2008 Shinstine Associates KL G m and Clsrm. Add. 20,455.81 2/8/2008 Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 423,435.48: ! 11/13/2008 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 474,593.60 11/13/2008 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 22,817.00 1/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 210,974.40 1/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 10,143.00 1/22/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 300,392.56 , 1/22/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 14,441.95 2/19/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 112,930.48 2/19/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux, Gym Addition 5,429.35 3/12/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 1,235,258.04 3/12/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 59,387.41 3/26/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 64,538,76 , 3/26/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 3,102.83 4/17/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 1,009,311.79 ; 4/17/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 48,524.60 11/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 131,974.61 _ 11/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 6,314.58 4/8/2010 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 70,696.14 ! 418/2010 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 7,069.61 . 4/8/2010 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 3,720.86 - 5,113,405,24 ! 28 Washington State University Arrrrlysis ofl»ipacts of,Ylodifled Thrrhrg of Schoollmpactlee Payrrrerrts City of Covington VOUCHER DATE ' VENDOR ITEM(S) FUNDED AMOUNT 411712009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 502,253.21 411712009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 24146.79 526,400.00 King County VOUCHER DATE VENDOR ITEM(S) FUNDED AMOUNT 712712007 King County Superior Court PL Property Purchase 900,000.00 L 8/2/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 10 859.04 8/2/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 224,782.07 9/13/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 25,605.68 - - - 9 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 7 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 530,037.63 1011112007 Shinstine Associates LLC KLGym and Clsrm. Add. 24,289.66 - - 10/11/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 502,796.02 11/8/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 21,978.40 11/8/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL G m and Clsrm. Add. 454,952.90 12/13/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add, 18 848.93 12/13/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 390,172.92 21712008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Cisrm. Add. 91823.58 2/7/2008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Cisrm. Add_ 203,347.85 3/6/2008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 21 615.33 3/6/2008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 447,437.37 4/3/2008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 5,228.23 4/3/2008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 108,224.39 211912009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 978,619.75 2/19/2009 BNCC•Inc Panther Lake Replacement 47,049.03 4,925,668.78 ashilrgton Center for Real Estate Research 29