Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM IV-BCITY OF_ *A.iJBURN WASHINGTON Memorandum TO: Councilmember Rich Wagner, Chair, Public Works Committee Councilmember Bill Peloza, Vice-Chair, Public Works Committee Councilmember Virginia Haugen, Member Municipal Services Committee CC: Mayor Pete Lewis FROM: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Director, Planning & Development Department DATE: March 2, 2011 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION & INFORMATION: Ordinance No. 5341 - Fee Deferrals 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. Fallowing 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). During the Planning and Community Development Committee's February 14, 2011 regular meeting, the Planning and Community Development Chair accepted the submittal into the 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. The Municipal Services Committee reviewed the draft Ordinance at its February 28, 2011 regular meeting and identified no substantive issues or concerns with it. Fallowing the Public Works Committee review on March 71h, staff will bring the draft Ordinance back to the Planning and Community Development Committee at its March 14, 2011 regular meeting. EXHIBIT ~il ORDINANCE NO. 6 3 4 1 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 capital 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 development charge fo existing utility s customers for the pu purpose of re structure to ser of reimbursing sewer, watE properties, which as those facilities; and, WHER diminishing number to enact and impose a utility systems fair share of the costs of providing customers or revised uses of existing s utility for the cost of construction of drainage facilities from those nt and use create direct or indirect needs for a result of the current downtown in the local economy, a ial 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 February 8 2011 m~„ra nn~n fiber W-, 2Q 0 Page 1 of 71 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 development charges; and, WHEREAS, the ordinance amendments are procedural in nature and therefore exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review; and, 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: 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 Februar a. 2011 JaAqar 44 D Page 2 of 71 Chapter 13.41 UTILITY SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Sections: 13.41 13,41.020 13.41.030 13.41.040 13.41.050 13.41.060 13.41.070 13.41.080 Definitions. Purpose. Utility systems development charge imposed - Rates - Review. Collection. Credits. Segregation and use of revenues. Appeals. Scope. 13,41.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the A. "Capacity facilities" includes but is not 1. Water system infrastrL interties, pump stations, reservoirs, distribution, an distribution, fire protection 2. Sanitary s force mains, storm drainac storm and su disposal facili es, treatment facilities, standby generators, purtenances needed for ding; lift stations, standby generators, 3nces needed to collect and transport liminate a storm and sanitary sewer 'n infrastructure including: pump stations, standby ties, water quality facilities, stream, creek or river ance lines needed to collect, transport and dispose of storm and sanitary sewer cross connections, eliminate ooding and water quality problems, and treatment and 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 February 8 2011 NoyembeF 17e 2 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 council finds that the public would benefit from a logical long-range approach to the financing of 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 utility rates, taxes, bond interest costs and assessments when core, general or central facilities become inadequate causing a crisis. Operating from crisis to crisis is wasteful, unsafe and not an acceptable method of operating local government; and debt financing should be minimized wherever possible. (Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 §j, 1980.) 13.41.030 Utility syst( A. A sanitary sewer lands inside the bou which utilize either s,, nt - Review. storm drainage utility sys except those lands exen set forth on the city of Au iter utility systems development charge is imposed upon all of the city, and all lands outside the boundary of the city sewer facilities or water facilities or both of the city, and a ns development charge is imposed upon all lands in the city, ed under this chapter, which fees and charges shall be as rn fee schedule. B. The utility systems development charge as set forth in the city fee schedule will be computed to consider the future 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 Februar 2011 dar ^ f~le':917,20-10) r 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.) 3. Ordinance No. 6341 February, 2011 as ^A^ b r a nns n_ar-tn~n Page 5 of 71 Ordinance No. 6341 F& r 8 2011 ~j Page 6 of 71 3. The appeals process authorized in Section 1 13.41.050 Credits. If a developer provides a capacity facility that b within the appropriate utility comprehensive plan, may be granted under the provisions of this cha land developer and the city engineer. Any system, will be documented in writing. (Ord. 5801 § 1, 200: 1990; Ord. 3510 § 5, 1980.) 13.41.060 Segregation and use of reve All funds derived from the utility syster appropriate approved accounting prac portion of the utility systems developmc a utility shall be used for no other pui constructing, and extending capacity 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; 13.41.070 refits other properties as identified systems development charge credit er, and as negotiated between the levelopment charge credits granted Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, development charge are to be segregated by es from all other funds of the city, and that charge calculated and collected on account of use than replacement, major repair, installing, lities of the utility. (Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 3510 § 6, 1980.) Appeals of the public works director's determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be filed with the public 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 A~ .r mhr nn~n February 8 2011 january 6. 20114 Page 7 of 71 (Ord. 6182 § 3, 2008; Ord. 5801 § 1, 2003; Ord. 4830 § 1, 1996; Ord. 4479 § 2, 1990; Ord. 3510 § 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 Code, entitled `School Impact Fees,' regardi within the City of Auburn, is hereby am Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Sections: 19.02.010 19.02.020 19.02.030 19.02.040 19.02.050 19.02.060 19.02.970 19.02.080 19.02.090 19.02.100 19.02.110 19.02.115 19.02.120 19.02.130 19.02.140 of school impact fees city and district. ies plan and data. and appeals. refunds. impact fee formula. Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Dieringer School District. Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School District. Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Kent School District. 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 2n 1 n February 8 2011 daar~ ~aT h.. a nna n_ -47,201- November 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 facilities plan adopted by the school board consisting of: 1. A forecast of future needs for school facilities based on the district's enrollment projections; 2. An identification of additional dema development; 3. The long-range co 4. The schools 5. Thep 6. An inventory of E relocatable facilities; At least a six-year least a six-year fore( projected funding lev includina bond issues ng public facilities by new improvement projects of the district; nstruction or ex ca or new school facilities; of facilities, including permanent, transitional and racing component, updated as necessary to maintain at period, for financing needed for school facilities within and identifying sources of financing for such purposes, iorized 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 reiocatable 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 ©rdinance No. 6341 Novo b^~ February 8, 201 ~ ~ ~ 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 estimated 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 grade span. G. "Design standard" means the space required, by grade span and taking into account the requirements of students with special needs, that is 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 acti, a mobile home, or r means any resic nsion of a buildi nv chanae in the onstruction, including the placement of icture or use, any change in use of a land that creates additional demand for building or structure, school facilities. J. "District" means K. "Elderly" means a 55 or older. I Way, or Dieringer School District or 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 February 8. 2011 Januarv n ti . G nn~ n a ~i4d ,04=0 bPage 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 applicable) and a local share discount factor. R. "Permanent facilities" means facilities of not relocatable facilities. S. °Relocatable facilities" means any strt that is intended to be used as an educai within the district, to provide specialized that families move into new residential d completed on permanent school facilities. T. "Re siting as afL U. "Site cos span of the grade span. a fixed foundation which are are, transportable in one or more sections, r space to meet the needs of service areas ilities, or to cover the gap between the time E)loaments and the date that construction is le facilities cost per student" means the estimated cost of purchasing and itab[e facility in the district for the grade span of the school to be provided of the district's design standard per grade span. student" means the estimated cost of a site in the district for the grade ,ol to be provided as a function of the district's design standards per 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 February 8. 2011 _'^^~A'I 1 r'°^^ 'n~ n h nn~ n 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 facilities that 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 have 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 from 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 an interim basis and the city shall consider adopting by reference the fee amounts that the county has imposed 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 fee 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 Fe ru n_11 datr11 DOG&mb November 17, 2010 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 singl units, and separate student generation rates r type of dwelling unit. For the purpose of this c single-family dwellings, and duplexes and treated as multifamily dwellings. imily and multifamily types of dwelling ;t be determined by the district for each pter, mobile homes shall be treated as ched single-family dwellings shall be F. The fee shall be calculated on a district-wide data to be supplied by the district. The.fee calcul wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all which meet district standards. G. Credit shall be given for school facilities or si district accepts and approves as meeting district capital facilities plan. (Ord. 5078 § 1, 1998.) basis using the appropriate factors and ations shall also be made on a district- available school facilities in the district tes offered by the developer which the needs and standards, consistent within 19.02.040 Interlocal agreement between 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 parties 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 comply 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 ebr r+ 8 2011 Jan ,aua T Nn-Rm e 6, __eeq-hpF6 20-10 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 se 4. The district's overall capacity over th account the available capacity from scho yet built and be a function of the district's number of students which can be housed i 5. An inventory of the dist e next six years, which shall take into of facilities planned by the district but not standard of service as measured by the n district facilities; and ilities. B. To the extent that the district's standard of service identifies a deficiency in its existing facilities, the district's capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding other than impact fees for building or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable 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 the 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 ~eeere Febru 2011 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 making its decision to adjust impact fees, the city council will take into consideration the quality and 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 accounts. All school impact fees shall be paid to the district from the school impact fee account monthly. The city 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 building 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. 8341 FebrLWj 8 2011 danua[K§a 44 Qeee by N w°r 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. Ordinance No. 6341 G nn4n ~n~n February 8, 2011 GerembeP4eve Page 16 of 71 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 Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 rme. Page 17 of 71 through 20132 and rior to or at the time of issuance of an multi-Tamil 19.02.080 Exemptions. The following development activiti A. Reconstruction, including nursing housing projects recorded declarat those projects Tr piattea lots unless the covenants have not alreai require the recording of a of the property for other t subsequently used for a n shall be paid. uirements of this chapter: ling or construction of: housing projects for the elderly, ,tirement centers, assisted living facilities or other types of ns age 55 and over, which have recorded covenants or strictions precluding school-aged children as residents of )tion does not include individual single-family homes on abject plat has such recorded covenants. Where such been recorded, but the exemption is sought, the city may :)venant or recorded declaration of restriction precluding use an the exempt purpose. If property using this exemption is exempt purpose, then the school impact fees then in effect 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 Fe- r rv 8, 2011 Jan n~ t, 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 its,predecessor in interest as provided herein and/or was actually imposed by the city or its predecessor in interest, specifically as a mitigation for impacts addressed in this chapter. Proof must also be submitted to the city that the required mitigation has been tendered for the development activity which would otherwise be subject to this chapter. G. Any development activity for which school impacts ha voluntary agreement entered into with the district to pay or improve school facilities, unless the terms of the otherwise. The agreement and development activity ap effective date of fee imposition by the city or its pred herein. Proof must also be submitted to the city, prior activity permit, that the required mitigation has been activity which would otherwise be subject to this chapter. ve been mitigated pursuant to a fees, dedicate land or construct voluntary agreement provide plication must also predate the ecessor in interest as provided to issuance of the development tendered for the development 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.) 19.02.090 Adjustments, 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 payment. 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 February 8. 2011 daauaPy 1T 08964Pb-F 6, 2G40, , Page 19 of 71 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 by 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 re credit pursuant to subsection (C) o the district and the district shall adv making the final impact fee determi F. A developer may p a part of a request for G. may be made by the develo process for the appeal of th Auburn City Code. The plan and the appellant shall have t taking into account the purpo a fee calculation adjustment, exception or a action, the planning director shall consult with planning director prior to the planning director planning director shall review, studies and data as n adjustment, exception, or credit. sion of the planning director with regard to fee amounts lr, district, or other aggrieved party and shall follow the underlying development application, as set forth in the ng director's decision shall be given substantial weight burden of proof that the final fee determination is unfair, s and intent of Chapter 82.02 RCW and this chapter. al 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 daHt#a1 ~nJn h1- n 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 d within six years of receipt by the district; unless there compelling reason for fees to be held longer than compelling reasons shall be identified to the city by tl decision approving such an extension, the city c extraordinary and compelling reasons for the fees to written findings. Provided that an art that voluntar for a permissible use an extraordinary or Such extraordinary or trict in a written report. In any 1 shall identify the district's Id longer than six years in the s ed 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 tax records. 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. 6349 February 8, 2019 Jar4u_aF- 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 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 by statute or city provisions including the Uniform Building Code; and 2. No impact on cases where the faith prior to the or encumbered t with a period o proceeds with the SL eligible for a credit. impact fees paid by similar nature on the determine whether tc following the orocedu H. Interest due upon the refund of impact fees required by this section shall be calculated according to 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 the district has district has expe pplication for a re e fees in good fa three vears the resulted. "Impact" shall be deemed to include nded or encumbered the impact fees in good fund. In the event that the district has expended ith, no refund shall be forthcoming. However, if same or subsequent owner of the property -nilar development activity, the owner shall be ust petition the district and provide receipts of the owner for a development of the same or substantially same property or some portion thereof. The district shall grant a credit and such determination may be appealed by -es set forth in ACC 19.02.090. Ordinance No. 6341 u 044 Win. No w44-,204=0 Fe r. rv 8,A 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 = 131 + B2 + B3 61 = 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 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 Jan ac 2 M 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+1)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 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 8, 2011 Jaftaa^r G0T B^^~°'"~Y ~nsn 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 school facility levies for construction, remodeling, and modernization under RCW 84.52.053. (Ord. 5950 § 1, 2005; Ord. 5096 § 1, 1998.) 19.02.115 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Die The impact fee calculation and schedule below. is t calculation for single-family residences and for n- most recent version of the Dieringer School Distr the Auburn city council as an element of the calculation is the determination of the appropriate public school capital facilities needed to serve i funded by school impact fees based on the factors District. 1 upon a review of the impact fee imily residences set forth in the apital Facilities Plan adopted by 3urn comprehensive plan. The portionate share of the costs of growth and development to be ied in ACC 19.02.020. Effective January 1, 2011, the school impact fee shall be as follows: Per Single-Family Dwelling i Per Multifamily Dwelling Uni 19.02.120 Impact fee ca $0.00 tion 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 anuar„ 2M Dee mbef a Nwomb^r 47, 1 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 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 impact fee calculation and schedule is calculation for single-family residences an most recent version of the Federal Way Sc by the Auburn city council as an eleme calculation is the determination of the app public school capital facilities needed to funded by school impact fees based on the Effective January 1, 2011, the school im Per Single-Family Dwelling Unit $4,C Per Multifamilv Dwellina Unit $2,1 follows: Federal Wav School District. based upon a review of the impact fee and d for multifamily residences set forth in the hoof District's Capital Facilities Plan adopted nt of the Auburn comprehensive plan. The ropriate proportionate share of the costs of serve new growth and development to be factors defined in ACC 19.02.020. shall be as follows: 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 e r r $ 2011 Ja 44 Ge mb&"T, 2 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 fee account for transportatio 19.04.100 Refunds. 19.04.110 Use of funds. 19.04.120 Review and update of.impact fees. 19.04.130 Miscellaneous provisions. 19.04.010 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 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 the new growth and development. The city of Auburn has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on transportation facilities. These studies have contributed 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 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 February 2011 Ja NovembeF 17, 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 permit is required, the term "building permit" shall specifically include business registrations. C. "Capital facilities comprehensive plan amended. plan" means adopted purr D. "City" means the city of Aubu E. "Council" means the city tour F. "Department" means the dep~ G. "Development activity" mean or use, any change in use of a that creates additional demand ; H. "Director" means the direct( designee. plan ent of the city's ind such plan as or expansion of a building, structure, re, or any change in the use of land ortation facilities. department of public works or the director's 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 by the boundary of the Union Pacific Railroad on the west and 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 W^' mber 17, 2010 February 8, 2011 enjbeff5,'!Q4=Q= 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 governmental entity, commencing a land development activity or land use change which creates the demand for additional transportation facilities, and which requires the issuance of 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 of the trip generation calculation, the floor area of any parking garages within the 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 appropriate, "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 danaap. G-~TQeee e ~ ng%ieFA ,or 17, nnan 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 occupancy by one family and containing one dwelli be considered a one-family dwelling, if sited per Che X. "Square footage" means the s leasable area of the development. Y. "State" means Z. "Transportation project imprc are planned and designed to pi the project, and are not trar improvement or facility included be considered a transportation p of building designed exclusively for rig unit. A manufactured home may pter 18.31 ACC. the gross floor area or gross floor Dments" means site improvements and facilities that vide service for a particular development or users of portation system improvements. No transportation i a capital facilities plan approved by the council shall )ject improvement. AA. "Transportation system improvements" 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. 6311 Fe rr ary 8. 2011 Manua B Novo bee,-~,- ~ Page 30 of 71 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 in the identification of uses for the various fec EE. "ITE Manual" means the manual p Transportation Engineers. FF. "Downtown catalyst area" mear Main Street/East Main Street to the Street SW to the south, and "A" Sti Main Street to the south, Auburn A North Division Street to the west. GG. "Downtown catalyst ac 1st Street NW to the south, North Division Street to the HH. "Emergency public inb Parcel No. 0721059053, lo( more particularly as follows: ,pter means a. different use as set forth r uses in the ITE Manual. published by the Institute of areas defined by (1) the boundary of West 'A" Street SE to the east, 2nd Street SE/2nd V to the west; and (2) the boundary of East to the east, 1st Street NE to the north, and area" means the area defined by the boundary of 3t NW to the west, 2nd Street NW to the north, and " means the area defined as King County Tax )1 Auburn Way N., Auburn, WA 98002, described Ordinance No. 6341 Q FebrUary 8-2 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, y 0 v Atiburn 1t :;111 •.'r.•: I and as shown below: (Ord. 6199 § 1, 2008; Ord. 6197 § 1, 2008; Ord. 5604 § 1, 2001; Ord. 5506 § 1, 2001.) 089 § 1, 2007; Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; 19.04.030 Reserved. (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § 1,2( 19.04.040 Assessment of impact fees. A. Effective July 1, 2001, the city shall + the city of Auburn, from any applicant development activity within the city. pact fees, based on the fee schedule of a building permit from the city for any B. Effective May 19, 2003, where a change in use increases the trip generation by more than one whole PM peak hour trip, the director shall calculate a transportation impact fee based on the increases in the trio veneration 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 or more axles and the street capacity used by such trucks in comparison to other vehicles. 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 February 8,_2011 @ 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 have been paid or credit(s) awarded. (Ord. & 5506 § 1, 2001.) and until the impact fees Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. Ordinance No. 6341 Febr iary 8. 2011 -uarv 6. 2014 2040=, , Page 33 of 71 3. Ordinance No. 6341 February 8. 2011 JanuaF) DecemTb„ ' 1... 1 2010 Page 34 of 71 3. Ordinance No. 6341 FebruY 2011 ia.,~,ar„ a 2044 g mb^ n,~'_21 ^ age Page 35 of 71 19.04.050 Independent A. If in the judgment of applicant shall conduct an in alternative tees on a specific by the city. B. Feepayers may opt not to F schedule. Such feepayers sh< calculation for the developmer of the fee categories set forth in the attached )s the impacts of the new development, the fee calculation and the director may impose t based on those calculations, once accepted je the impact fees determined according to the attached prepare and submit to the director an independent fee 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 e Ilr ua=r)t 8 2011 h Pn10- oaf = ~ Page 36 of 71 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 submitted 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 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 principles of fairness. G. Determinations made by the office of the hearing examiner (Ord. 5763 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 19.04.060 Credits and adjustr A. A feepayer can request ti awarded to him/her for transp excess of the standard req improvements, and/or the fa improvements that provide ca the director, at his/her discr, and/or facilities would serve facilities plan. hector pursuant to this section may be appealed to the abject to the procedures set forth in ACC 19.04.080. 1, 2001.) 4s . a credit or credits for transportation impact fees be tion project improvements provided by the feepayer in meets for the feepayer's development if the land, t constructed are identified as transportation system ity to serve new growth in the capital facilities plan, or -r, makes the finding that such land, improvements, y transportation goals and objectives of the capital 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 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 Eebruarv 8. 2011 JanuaQ14 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 to and/or within the development in question. G. Determinations made by the director appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19. H. Pursuant to and consistent with the i the fee schedule for the city of Auburn l sources which are earmarked for, or pro 1. In order to grandfather the capacity ric the adopted rates to calculate any iml credits for off-site system improvements when a property owner makes off site during the permit year and nc subdivision of that property to determined to be due. (Ord. 57 19.04.070 Exemptions. A. The following shall be exem rsuant to this section shall be subject to the )80. irements of RCW 82.02.060, the fee rate in been reasonably adjusted for other revenue ble to, funding transportation facilities. of future de, 2003; Ord isting land uses, the director will utilize credits and to determine any surplus the property owner. Only in a situation capacity improvements that qualify in I any surplus credits (value computed ition) remain with the property or any elopment where a traffic impact fee is 5506 § 1, 2001.) from the payment of transportation impact fees: 1. Replacement of a structure 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 February 8-2 Q 11 a Page 38 of 71 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(B). 6. Demolition, or moving of a structure out of the city. Any building permit application that before 5:00 p.m. the business day transportation impact fee rate schedule complete application by the city. 8. All development activity within t 19.04.020(1); provided, that this exE otherwise extended by the city coun 9. All development activity 19.04.020(FF); provided, tl otherwise extended by the 10. Fifty percent of accessory area" as de provided hereby shall fees; provided, that tk otherwise extended by 11. All development a( in ACC 19.04.020(HH 31, 2008, unless other has been submitted to the department before the first effective date of the and subsequently determined to be a owntown plan area" as defined in ACC )n shall sunset on June 30, 2007, unless within the "downtown catalyst area" as defined in ACC iat this exemption shall sunset on June 30, 2010, unless city council. development activity within the "downtown catalyst i in ACC 19.04.020(GG), to the effect that the exemption for 50 percent of the applicable transportation impact xemption shall sunset on December 31, 2008, unless citv council. /ity within the "emergency public interest area" as defined provided, that this exemption shall sunset on December se 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 20-1-1 d.,;a.lece^' Novemb^r 1s,$ 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 made 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. 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 transportation impact fees 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. (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 to this chapter: the transportation impact account. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the 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 annual basis, the financial director shall provide a report to the council on the transportation impact account 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 February 8, 2©11 January 6, 2044 , der Page 40 of 71 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 an party that voluntarily elects to use the alternative fee payment method s ecified in Section 19.04.040 shall sign as a condition of use of the alternative fee payment waiver of right on a torm re area ana rm ion impact fees not spent with the statutory B. The city shall notify potential claimants by States Postal Service at the last known addre or claimant must be the owner of the property. ail deposited with the United aimants. A potential claimant 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.. 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 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 the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the transportation 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 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__~ 2011 Page 41 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. 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 bond issue of the city. C. Transportation impact fees may be but not limited to planning, land acquis necessary off-site improvements in architectural, permitting, financing, and or mitigation costs, and any other expe D. Impact fees ma! incurred by the city previously construct E. In the event that advanced provision of expended, impact fees instruments to the exter the requirements of this § 1, 2003; Ord. 5506 § tsor i for transportation improvements, including ight-of-way acquisition, site improvements, g mitigation, construction, engineering, 7istrative expenses, applicable impact fees rhieh can be capitalized. nsportation improvement costs previously wth and development will be served by the red costs. ids or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the transportation improvements for which impact fees may be may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt it that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with section and are used to serve the new development. (Ord. 5763 t , 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 Feri•+nr ~'2-0 r=G nn~n w,hr,r ~sn~n ruarv8 .201 1Ja,nrip, Y ~:=-=1-~ j~ 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 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 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 "The City of Auburn Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance." (Ord. 5763 § 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 and 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 F kbrruarY-, 2011 Japwa November 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 proportionate share 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 contributed 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 fees for fire protection facilities. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.020 Definitions. The following words and terms shall hav this chapter unless the context clearly re( herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW meaning. .ollowing meanings for the purposes of otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined 090 or given their usual and customary A. "Act" means existence or as h , Chapter 36.70A RCW, as now in 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 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 February 8. 2011v- -o ~i r, d Oi-I- tari r A 7 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 Auburn Downtown Plan dated May 2001 that i, Pacific Railroad on the west and State Route 1E defined as F Street Southeast from State ROL Street from F Street Southeast to E Street Soutl Main Street to 4th Street Northeast. The north Northwest from the Interurban Trail to Northwest/Northeast from D Street North`vest Northeast from Auburn Avenue to E Street Nortl the downtown plan boundary has been slightly rr ~s identified and adopted in the City of defined by the boundary of the Union on the south. The eastern boundary is to 18 to East Main Street, East Main east, and E Street Northeast from East ern boundary is def'ned as 2nd Street ° Street Northwest, 3rd Street to Auburn Avenue, and 4th Street least. For the purposes of this chapter, odified to avoid bisecting properties. J. "Dwelling unit" means a building, occupancy consisting of one or more ro living quarters for one family only. K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set a order to pay for commitments, contractual protection facilities. ion thereof, designed for residential ich are arranged, designed or used as otherwise earmark the impact fees in ions or other liabilities incurred for fire 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 which 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 e ruary 8. 2011 1 J-an oary-Q--241-1 eo~,Iwbo' 61 201 -1 NPA;r 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. Q. "Impact fee" means a payment of mot development activity pursuant to this chapte approval in order to pay for the fire protection development. R. "Impact fee account" or "accoi protection facilities' impact fees coll+ ACC 19.06.090 and comply with the imposed by the city of Auburn on s a condition of granting development ;ilities needed to serve new growth and the account established for the fire -.count shall be established pursuant to s of RCW 82.02.070. S. "Independent fee calculation" means t by a feepayer to support the assessment fee schedule. protection impact calculation prepared impact fee other than by the use of the T. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington 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 F Mr etW 8 2011 Jar~+Faw 20 Page 46 of 71 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, 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 is issued for each unit in the development. The a for any applicant that submitted a complete appl city established the impact fee rates. payer at the time the building permit ant to be paid shall not be increased on for the building permit before the D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior building permit application pursuant to ACC 19.06, complete building permit application, a copy of the It director pursuant to ACC 19.06.060 setting forth awarded. Impact fees, as determined after the appli be collected from the feepaver at the time the buildinc E. The department shall n have been paid or credit(s) For Complete:.. to the submittal of the complete )60 shall submit, along with the tter or certificate prepared by the the dollar amount of the credit ation of appropriate credits, shall permit is issued. ca and until the impact fees through 20132 and prior to or at the time of issuance of an single- family residential building permit for a dwelling unit that is being constructed fof=aale the applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided b the City that requires payment of fire impact fees due and owing b 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 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 hermit. whichever comes first. Failure to nav atome of Glas'"o shall resu ordinance No. 6341 February 8 20 1 ^ N^ Page 47 of 71 a bunging perm . (Ord. 5977 § 1, Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 JanuaryA- , hl-Web ' Page 48 of 71 Ordinance No. 6341 ebrUar 8 1 41-8 d, 6~2Q40 ni Vefflh"' 4 nn~n Page 49 of 71 hospitals, durin 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 b the City, the 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 February 8. 2011"°^T Deb°o rym~.°~ " ~n~ n Page 50 of 71 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. 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 for a refund by the city or additional payment by the feepayer. E. While there is a presumption that the calc valid, the director shall consider the document required to accept such documentation whic inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the al additional or different documentation for con adjust the impact fees on a case-by-case ations set forth in the fee schedule are on submitted by the feepayer, but is not the director reasonably deems to be rnative, require the feepayer to submit calculation, the specific characteristics of the deve deemed by the director to be appropriate based circumstances of the case. F. Determinations made by the office of the hearing examine (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.060 Credits and adju A. A feepayer can reques awarded to him/her for fir feepayer in excess of the land, improvements, and/~ system improvements that plan, or the director, at improvements, and/or facil the capital facilities plan. ation. The director is authorized to s based on the independent fee :)pment, and/or where adjustment is on principles of fairness under the pursuant to this section may be appealed to the to the procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080. that a credit or credits for fire protection impact fees be protection system improvement projects provided by the andard requirements for the feepayer's development if the the facility constructed are identified as fire protection rovide capacity to serve new growth in the capital facilities his/her discretion, makes the finding that such land, es would serve the fire protection goals and objectives of 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 February-8, 2011 Ja D,&G ~e07Q NovomboP1=-, AD 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 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 permit. Any claim not so made shall be d E. Determinations made by the director pursua appeals procedures set forth in ACC 19.06.080. G. Pursuant to and consistent with the re( the fee schedule has been reasonably a earmarked for, or proratable to, funding .fart 19.06.070 Exemptions. A. The following shall be exempted from tl• 1. Replacement of a structure with a same site or lot when such replacem or destruction of the Drior cture of the same size and use at the rs within 12 months of the demolition 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. ian the time of application for a building waived. it to this section shall be subject to the iirements of RCW 82.02.060, the fee rate in usted for other revenue sources which are protection facilities. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) payment of fire protection impact fees: Ordinance No. 6341 February 8. 2011 anUary 2044- geoe be 6= ' , Uavember-4 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. 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 activity falls within an exemption identifi( shall be subject to the appeals procedu 2005.) 19.06.080 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the to obtain a building permit. development activity may on development activity will occ unless and until the impact f may appeal the impact fees providing the applicant is will amount in accordance with t the building permit. Alternativ by the director without first pa issuance of the building perm is known. line whether a particular development s section. Determinations of the director forth in ACC 19.06.080. (Ord. 5977 § 1, impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any ly be made by the feepayer of the property where such ur. No appeal submitted under protest shall be permitted ees at issue have been paid. Alternatively, any feepayer determined by the director without first paying the fees, ing to provide a satisfactory security of the appealed fee he requirements of ACC 17.08.010(A) prior to issuance of 1, any feepayer may appeal the impact fees determined ng the fees, provided the applicant is willing to postpone until after the appeal process when the revised final fee 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 Februar 0-2-G-1 1 rua 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 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. 5977 § 1, 2005.) 19.06.090 Establishment of impact fee account for fire protection. 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 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, 20.1_1_daauaB.-6-=01' nQa&P4hQr=S 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.) 19.00.100 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 B. The city shall notify potential claimants by fir States Postal Service at the last known address or claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund the fees to the director withi the date that notice is given, D. Any impact fees for year period shall be rei facilities. E. Refunds of impact 1 impact fees by the city. of impact fees must submit ever request for a refund of im the refund arises or n for a refund has been made within this one- id expended on the appropriate fire protection section shall include any interest earned on the F. If and when the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the fire protection 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 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 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, mail deposited with the United claimants. A potential claimant Ordinance No. 6341 February 8, 201-1 da+i ary-67 7 2010 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.) 19.06.110 Use of funds. 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 or 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 be capitalized. D. Impact fees may be used to recoup fire protection system 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 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. 6341,1,.' AA'' I - e b. uL 011 Ja-nua r. ri44 , P7°~ ~I 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.) 19.06.130 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, 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 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 any reason, such finding shall not affect the val of this chapter. (Ord. 5977 § 1, 2005.) Section 5. Amendment to City Code Code, entitled `Parks Impact Fees,' regarding t the City of Auburn, is hereby amended to read ound to be invalid or unenforceable for ity or enforceability of any other section That Chapter 19.08 of the Auburn City imposition of parks impact fees within lows: Chapter 19.08 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 Be marv 8 2011 JapuaFy-~~ Def° 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 Auburn. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts this chapter to assess impact fees for parks and recreation facilities. The provisions of this chapter shall be 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 requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined 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. 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 February 8. 2011 January M D° m` eF 2-0- 58 of 71 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 order to pay for commitments, contractual o parks and recreation facilities. L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an other similar entity, or department or bureau of any gc land development activity which creates the demand fc facilities, and which requires the issuance of a buildin applicant for an impact fee credit. earmark the impact fees in Dther liabilities incurred for icorporated association, or any ;rnmental entity commencing a additional parks and recreation permit. °Feepayer" includes an M. °Grandfathering" means that the existing land use of a developed property in effect on January 1, 2007, the initial effective 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 rnb February 8 2019 nkLap 17, 201 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 used at such locations and which can be capitalized. V. "Parks and recreation project improvements" i that are planned and designed to provide servic( of the project and are not parks and recreation recreation improvement or facility included in a council shall be considered a parks and recreatio W. "Parks and recreation sys that are either included in the to provide service to service and recreation project improv( X. "Single-family dwelling" r occupancy by one family and home may be considered a or Y. "State" means the state Z. "Surplus credits" For example: ite improvements and facilities articular development or users improvements. No parks and facilities plan approved by the improvements" means parks and recreation facilities of Auburn's capital facilities plan and/or are designed s within the community at large, in contrast to parks is a detached building designed exclusively for taining one residential dwelling unit. A manufactured mily dwelling, if sited per Chapter 18.31 ACC. dits over and above those calculated as an impact fee. 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 February 8. 2011 daftuarv 6 2944 fkg P tkirmiem a -,=2&1-G 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 the 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 19.08.050. 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 to 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. E. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ACC 19.08.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ACC 19.08.050 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. 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.) bui 201 throuah 20132 and prior to or at the time of issuance of any single- Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 January 6. 2011 . wombe"9 Page 61 of 71 applicant may elect to record a covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided b the City that requires payment of arks impact fees due and owing, less an credits awarded b providing for automatic payment through escrow of these Ordinance No. 6341 February 8 2011 air-^"^ Page 62 of 71 Ordinance No. 6341 e_ r r$, 2011 WvGmber 17 Page 63 of 71 thclt all A. 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 schedule. Such feepayers shall prepare and su calculation for the development activity for w documentation submitted shall show the ba; calculation was made. C. A nonreimbursable administrative fee shall k calculation. The fee shall be deposited with tl independent fee calculation upon submittal of the D. After the city completes its and the cash deposit shall bE payment by the feepayer. E. While there is a presume valid, the director shall consi required to accept such do inaccurate or not reliable, a additional or different docui adjust the impact fees on calculation, the specific char deemed by the director to circumstances of the case. s determined according to the fee to the director an independent fee a building permit is sought. The upon which the independent fee ted for each independent fee to pay for city review of the anted independent fee study. and expenses will be determined a refund by the city or additional i that the calculations set forth in the fee schedule are the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not nentation which the director reasonably deems to be may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit station for consideration. The director is authorized to case-by-case basis based on the independent fee aristics of the development, and/or where adjustment is appropriate based on principles of fairness under the 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 February 8. 2011 an ary 2044 Qee~r ef ~ ~e~ Page 64 of 71 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 to 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 estimated cost of the appraisal as deters requests consideration for a credit. D. After receiving the appraisal, the director s certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the applicable, the legal description of the site don adequate description of the project or developm The applicant must sign and date a duplicate c his/her agreement to the terms of th document to the director before the imp applicant to sign, date, and return such E. Any claim for < permit. Any claim II be F. Determinations made appeals procedures set G. Pursuant to and con: the fee schedule has b earmarked for, or prorate sal and shall deposit on account the by the city at the time the feepayer hall provide the applicant with a letter or credit, the reason for the credit, where ated, and the legal description or other ent to which the credit may be applied. opy of such letter or certificate indicating or certificate and return such signed credit will be awarded. The failure of the nt within 60 days shall nullify the credit. ian the time of application for a building waived. director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the ACC 19.08.070_ with the requirements of RCW 82,02.060, the fee rate in asonably adjusted for other revenue sources which are 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 February 8. 2011_ G. 2011 0eeembeP4-2&4=G J Page 65 of 71 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, including but not limited to fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. 4. A change in use wherf threshold stated in ACC 19. 5. Demolition or moving of a 6. Any building permit before 5.00 p.m. the bu fee rate schedule and the city. B. The director shall be authorie activity falls within an exemption i shall be subject to the appeals pr 2006.) the increase in housing capacity is less than the 3.030(B). 5tructu re. cation that has been submitted to the department s day before the first effective date of the park impact :quently determined to be a complete application by to determine whether a particular development ified in this section. Determinations of the director lures set forth in ACC 19.08.070. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 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 tab arv 8, 2011 ~araua_ 11 Beeembc,=v==' Novem or 17, 2010 Page 66 of 71 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 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 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 Febr au rv $ 2Q11 da leu^~ ~~~-T 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 impact fees. 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 extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to ACC 19.08.080, 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 b the City to recover of nark impact fees not spent with the statutorv six-vear 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 ruary 8, r 2011 January 6. 2 6 2041-11-mb^-F 17. 2-0- 10- 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 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 the appropriate parks and recreation facilities. This notice 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 which the impact fees were imposed did not occur. (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.100 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chanter. impact fees: 1. Shall be used for parks and recreation system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development; and 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 8 2011 daA as "'U r,^^^TMh^ Page 69 of 71 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.) 19.08.110 Review and update of impact A. The fee rate schedules set forth in 1 reviewed by the council no later than b schedule attached to the ordinance codi years thereafter. B. The fee schedules set forth in the fee reviewed by the council as it may deem nec4 the annual update of the capital facilities plan (Ord. 6063 § 1, 2006.) 19.08.120 Miscellaneous pr A. Existing Authority Unim requiring the feepayer or t environmental impacts of a Policv Act, Chapter 43. accompanying the underlr RCW, governing plats and consistent with the grovislo B. Captions. The cha only and shall not co of this chapter. schedule of the cit rs after the effectivE this chapter, and no of Auburn shall be late of the fee rate lore than every two the city of Auburn shall be )propriate in conjunction with 3e city's comprehensive plan. paired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from he proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse specific development pursuant to the State Environmental 21C RCW, based on the environmental documents ing development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is is of RCW 82.02.050(1)(c). ction captions used in this chapter are for convenience ct the meaning or construction of any of the provisions 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 Fe 6, 2010; Nevembe Uru.. r 2011 Boni o.,n 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 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. UCE D: CITY OF AUBURN PETER B. LEWIS MAYOR ATTEST: Danielle E. Daskam, APPROVED AS TO FORM: Daniel B. Heid, City Attorney Published: Ordinance No. 6349 February 8, 2011 ba P 09-9 pin~° n eve- 6 7 'I " Page 71 of 71 EXHIBIT 2 31405 116th Ave. So. Federal Way, WA 98003-5433 Tel 253.945.2000 vnrtiv.fivps.orq December 13, 2010 Planning & Conununity Development Committee Auburn City Council Auburn City Hall 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 Dear Chair Norman and Committee Members: y Federal Way Public Schools 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 behalf 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. 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 from 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 classroorns and school facilities. The result negatively impacts the students generated by the new homes as well as existing City residents served by District schools. 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 the 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 plartned capacity project or shift the full costs of the project to existing residents. The unique planning and construction funding 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 Sarnmantish only allow for the deferral of traffic and park fees to closing, but do not allow the deferral of school impact fees. 1 In the cities of Bainbridge Island, Battle Ground, Bellevue, Bellingham, Bothell, Burlington, Camas, Carnation, Covington, Duvall, Edgewood, Fife, Issaquah, Kenmore, La Center, La Conner, Lynden, Maple Valley, Marysville, Mount Vernon, Puyallup, Renton, Ridgefield, Samtnamish, Sedro-Woolley, SnoquaItnie, Sultan, Tumwater, Vancouver, Washougal, Woodinville, and Yacolt, and in Clark, King, Pierce, Skagit, and Snohomish Counties, school impact fees are collected at the time of building pennit issuance,2 Notably, the cities of Kent and Federal Way recently considered deferral ordinances. After hearing 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/perk 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 pen-nits deferral of impact fees to final inspection. Thus, the District respectfully requests that the City recognize that, to meet growth-related infrastructure 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 me at (253) 945-2042. Thank you. J 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. 2 Note that the City of Kirkland, identified in the City's staff report, does mot have a school impact fee ordinance. -2- Sincerely, r Sally McLean Assistant Superintendent: Business Services Cc: Board of Directors Rob Neu, Superintendent Rod Leland, Director of Facilities Denise Stiffarm, K&L Gates -3- EXHIBIT 3 - - 1 Analysis of Impacts o l i Ts on of School Rmpact Fee Payments Submitted to: Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties Submitted by: Washington Center for Real Estate Research College of Business Washington State University PO Box 644844 Pullman, WA 99164-4844 509-335-7080 wcrerCwsu.edu February 2011 iJO, is less. t rice to Fare. Analysis of Impacts of 11odi fled finning of School Impact Fee 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 paint 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 them) 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, cities, 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."z Each county and/or city seeking to collect impact fees, in addition to adopting a local ordinance by which the impact fees are imposed, must 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 ten 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.' Of the ten jurisdictions that currently collect impact fees on behalf of the three studied school districts, six require in 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-tip."' 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 - $2.02.090 (2009); specifically § 82.02.050(2). Id. at § 82.02.050. Id. at § 82.02.050(4). 1d. at § 82.02.070(3). See Extension of Impact Fee Expenditure Deadline section for further discussion. s 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 Cade 18.120.050. Washington Center for Reol Fstote Research Analysis of filipacts of Modi fied Thning of School Impact l,ee Payments 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," 13 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.28.154.14 Districts are also required to submit the following which are usually incorporated into the capital facilities plan; 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. ® The district's standard of service. An inventory and evaluation of district facilities which address the district's standard of service. ® 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. `S Management of Impact Fees School districts that receive impact fees are required to document the amount of impact fees received, and the interest earned from the fees, as well as the ultimate expenditure of the fees. 16 "If an impact fee ordinance has been adopted on behalf of a school district, the district shall also submit in 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 shall 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..." " 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 he could provide specific information on impact fees. In response to WCRER's formal 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. Forainato, 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. " !d. " Id. at 21 A.43.020, " to. at § 21A.28.152, " King County Code § 21A.28.152 Covington Municipal Code §18.75.110 " Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(1). Seeolso 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 acccont and expended for the purpose or purposes identified in subsection (2) of this section." See also KCC § 21 A.43.090. Woslliilgton Stote University Analysis of Impacts of Modified Thning of School Impact Fee Payments 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. r$ To supplement the information provided in response to the requests of each school district, WCRER also obtained the Budgets and Annual Financial Reports provides[ 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 on 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 Expenditure 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 in each jurisdiction. Cent School District Impact Fees are collected on behalf of Kent School District by King County, the city of Kent, and the city of Covington. The fees are held by the collecting jurisdiction until the end of the month at which time they are transferred to an interest bearing holding account maintained by King County. King County maintains the fees in these accounts (separated by collecting jurisdiction) until the District has an expense for which it plans to use the fees. The district does not recognize the impact fees as revenue until they are transferred out of the holding accounts for expenditure, they do however keep an accounting of the timing of receipt and expenditure of impact fees. Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures Kent School District Receipts Interest Expenditures FY 06-07 $2,619,136.82 -$309,766.36 - $1,357,424.78 FY 07-08 $2,541,024.61 $144,743.61 $3,864,358.89 FY 08-09 $1,053,418.62 $(72,032.67)' $5,123,914.55 FY 09-10 $1,466,308.62 $34,444.87 $219,775.80 --_~T $7,679,890.67 $416,922.17 $10,565,474.02 'In 2008, a number of King County's investments lost value, the county spread these fosses over all school districts in the county; the negotive interest numbers reflect this action. 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 take 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. Woshington Center for Real Estate Research Analysis of Impacts of lfodified Thning of School hn pact Fee Prryjfrerrts 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 tite 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 impact fees 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 expenclitttre. 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 tire he 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. 'rhe 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 o11 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.21 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 an 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 Sammamish. 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 existinglotttstanding 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, he 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. ivlr. Turney kindly made this conversion tinder the misassumption that the calendar year numbers were preferred. " Please see Appendix A for monthly receipts and expenditure of impact NO. See the Capital Projects section of this paper for an analysis of the percentage of total proyect expenditures funded by impact fees. Washington State University Analysis of Impacts. of Xfodi Pied Timing of School linpact Pee Payinestts The fiscal year collection numbers showed an increase in impact fee collections by the city of Annual Impact Fee Collection Bellevue during the 2003-2009 fiscal year. This and Expen&tures*- Issaquah School District perplexing spike in impact fee collection All jurisdictiotis-By Calendar Year prompted uncertainty about the accuracy of the ts Expenditures Rece~ numbers, A comparison of the calendar year and fiscal year figures revealed inconsistencies between R CY 2006 $3,005,554,00 $3,005,554.00 the numbers provided. Mr. Raney concluded that _ CY 2007 $1,915,195,00 $1,915,195.00 an error had occurred in the process of converting CY 2008 _ $1,238,942.00 $1,238,942,00 the numbers from the fiscal year to the calendar CY 2009 $756,904.00 $756,904.00 916,595,00 916 595.00 $6 $6 year form. He provided corrected calendar year , , , "Information from annuul collection/expenditures tables provided by the numbers and offered assurance that the fiscal year Issaquah School D sukt- see discussion of impoct fees corrected by King numbers were correct." Upon comparison of these County for comparison with 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 esta te 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 Kbr.` Cam ly 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 The numbers in the annual collection/expenditure tables provided by the district and the numbers in the detailed spreadsheet on the use of impact fees collected by King County reflect a difference of $139,719,05 in the four year totals which suggests that the tables provided by Martin Turney may not be precise. Collection Expenditure Collection/ Expenditure _ CY 2006 $b16,2D0.71 $616,200,71 $613,565.00 CY 2007 $646,961.15 $619,283.77 $510,873.00 _ CY 2008 $300,796.90 $326,066.92 $299,853.00 CY 2009 $72,266.29 $74,673.65 $72,215,00 $1,636,225.05 $11,636,225.05 $1,496,506,00 Otlrt°r t.:oilt'clirig fill is,fictinris 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 Issaquah New Castle Port Blakely Renton Sammamish Total CY 06 $141,171.00 $372,344.00 $490,358,00 $686,282,00 $245,272.00 3456,562.00 $2,391,9E 1 CY 07 $29,601.00 $297,178,00 $228,031,00 $261,222,00 $313,295,00 $274,995,00 51,404,3: CY 08 $84,294.00 $290,667.00 $41,610.00 $43,964.00 $119,531.00 _ $359,017,00 $939,Of CY 09 $177,929.00 $46,7 61.00 $6,136.00 _ $47,818.00 $28,501.00 $377,544,00 $684,6E CY Total $432,995,00 _ _ 51,006,950.00 $766,135.00 $1,039,286.00 $706,605.00 $1,468,118.00 "Mr. Turney attributed the increase in Bellevue impact fees to a planned development for vrhich a large number of building permits were obtained.. Washington Center for Real F_state Research Analysis of Impacts of Modified Thning of School hnpact Fee Payments Because the monthly collection and spending numbers reflected in the detailed King County report did not match exactly, the fact that tyre 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 the 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 Sammarish 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 the 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. The 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 lump 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 provided by the district reflect very general information on the expenditure of impact fees. While the information provided technically answered the request for information on the spending of impact fees, some of the information was not tied to a specific year and/or was somewhat ambiguous.23 The district also provided some of the reports the district is required to file with the collecting jurisdictions reporting the annual expenditure of impact fees, but several of these reports were unavailable. Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures Lake Washington School_Distrlct Receipts Expenditures' 2006 CY $626,173.80 $5,085,624.48 2007 CY $542,818.26 $2,691,650.48 _ 2008 CY $464,924.25 $343,033.35 2009 CY $180,154.21 $235,481.61 $1,814,070.52 $8,355,789.92 "For purposes of tracking annual spending, the expenditure attributed to' 200612007'was divided equally between the ttvo 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. Lake Washington School District Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-by Collecting jurisdiction Kilf~ C'olwly As of August 2010, the ending fund balance for impact fees collected by King County was $87,845.63. This arnotint is considerably less than the amount of fees collected in 2006 through 2008, more than the amount collected in 2009 and almost equal to amount collected so far in 2010. The 2008 expenditures oil the report provided to WCRER ($1,986,617.21) did not match the annount reported to King County as part of the District's annual reporting requirement ($829,445.62). After WCRER discussed the discrepancy with John Love, the Capital Projects Fund Analyst for Lake Washington School District, Mr. Love Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditures Impact Fees Collected by King County Total IF Revenue* Expenditures 2006 CY 2007 CY ` $406,167.14 $5,383,300.95 $225,583.83 2008 CY $126,779.67 _ 2009 CY $54,034.40 $812,565.04 $5,383,300.95 _204-0-Ca" $84,944.68 $437,640.83 $2,884,126.93 $5,820,941.78 *King County tracks the interest but the district only receives a report of the total revenue. * %furabers for the 2010 Colendor year only represent fees collected through August 2010. "one of the incidents where funds were "reclassed" was attributed to a two year period (200612007), another reclassification occurred aver "various' time periods. Washington Stote university At►alysis of Impacts of 4iodi fed Thiring of School Impact Fee 11'ayinents reported that an accounting error was responsible for the discrepancy. The $1,986,617.21 on the report provided to WCR1?R was the correct amount. Mr. 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 hinds. 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 i44anager 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 for a new development. Because this number does not actually represent the receipt or Expenditures expenditure of impact fees, the number has been excluded 1 2D0 6 6 ` CY - Report - unavailable from both values for purposes of this evaluation. Because 2007 CY Report unavailable John Love reported that the .$829,445.62 expenditure 2008 CY $829,445.62 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 $1,260,184.48 provided to WCRER by the district, this nunnber 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. City ofSowil ullkli At the end of August 2010, the ending fund balance of the city of Sammamish impact fee account was $176,232.00. This number surpasses the amount of impact fees collected in 07-09 but is close to the annount collected so far this year. However, it appears that as of December 2009 the district had committed all impact fees collected up to that point; the ending balance reflects only the impact fees collected in 2010. The report provided by the district on the spending of impact fees collected by the 'Numbers for the 2010 Calendar year only repfesent fees collected through August city of Sammamish was somewhat 2010. ambiguous as to the date of expenditure of some 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 riot 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. WCR1R did not endeavor to obtain the reports directly from (lie city. Annual Impact Tee Collection and Expenditures Impact Fees Collected by the City of Sammamish Receip! Interest Total Revenue Expenditures* 2006 CY $218,508.50 $1,498.16 $220,006.66 X2,393,974,00 2007CY $101,788.00 $8,122.11 $115,910.11 _ - 2008 CY $124,871.5 0 $3,029.51 $127,907.01 $343,033.35 2009 CY _ _ $32,988.78 $28,974.11 $61,972.89 $484,162.78 $41,623.89 $525,796.67 $2,737,007.35 2010 CYO $175,726.78 $506.00 $176,232.00 $61,697.82 5659,889.56 $42,129.89 $702,028.67 $2~804,705.i7 Washington Center for Real Estate Research Analysis of Impacts ofModifted Thning of School Impact Fee Payments t:iljv 1~~dluroilr! 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 has been collected on behalf of the district in - - Receipts Interest Total Revenue Expenditures - any single year, 2006 CY 2007 CY $197,260.00 $4,064.32 $201,324.32 The report provided to WCRER reflecting the 2008 CY $208,025.94 $2,211.63_ $210,237.57 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 $462,807.48 $12,9.01.33 $475,708.81 $247,570.79 reclassification of fees on two occasions; $73,739.31 an Einstein Elementary, and 2010 CY $72,753.22 $1,995.86 _ $74,749.08 ? $173,831.48 on Redmond Elementary, for a 5535,560.70 $14,897.19 $550,457,89 _$247,570.79 total of $247,570.79, The report did not reflect 'Numbers for the 2010 Calendar yenronly represent fees collected tiunugh 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 $235,481.61 was spent in 2009. Assuming the two reports refer to the same Annual Impact Fees-From Report expenditures, it is not clear why these numbers do not match. Provided to City of Redmond Neither John Love nor Lynne Pyke could explain the difference, Collection/Exl)enditure - It appears from the vagueness of the records provided that the = - 2006 CY district's record keeping process for impact fees is not 2007 CY Report Unavailable particularly precise. Also, they apparently do not maintain a 200$ 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; perhaps a delay in collection would not warrant much notice." 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 sortie 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-fluid 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, the transfer of impact fees (from King County at least) is already a slow unpredictable process. Capital Projects Fund Per the OSPI Accounting Manual for Public School Districts, impact fees are reflected within the Capital Projects Fund." 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 systents.j2'The Capital Projects Fund is generally financed from the proceeds of the sale of bonds, state matching revenues and special levies (impact fees stake tip a very minor portion of the fund revenues). Developer Inipact/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 irnpact fee spending and they decided not to provide WCRER with this information. "School Apportionment and Financial Services, State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, The Accounting Manual for Public Schoof 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 Accounting Manual for Public School Districts in the State of Washington, at 9-16. 8 Wrlshington State University Analysis of Impacts of Uodi fled Thning of School Impact Fee l'ayj.nents Impact fees, under the Growth Management Act, are also restricted to specific schools impacted by the development.23 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." `t'hese statements present the amiual 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 front 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. Kent School Distdct. 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: " 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 16,656,599,00 $11,861,358.41 Total Other Financing Sources (Bonds) $35,076,749,95 $1_6,828,004.45 $24,877,920.27 $1 S,000,000.00 $(223,638.29; Total Revenues & Other Flnancin Sources* $43,328,014.65 $28,063,627.82 $40,037,441.80 :121,656,599.00 $11,861,358.41 Sites/Wilding Coital Outlay $19,171,480.93 $25,672,864.32 _$32,920,964.94 a32,z.52,356.00 $10,076,304,05 Total Expenditures $25,271,295.96 $33,048,177.50 $38,557,378,64 $40,401,754.00 $13,406,650,OC 'these numbers were directly transcribed from the line in the Annual Financial Statement entitled "Total Revenues and Other Financing Sources," it is undeor v,,hy these numbers do riot consistently equal the suns of the numbers in the "Total Revenues" and the 'Total Other inoncing Sources"fines. 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 (Budget) FY 09-10 Four Years Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised of 32,229b 22,84% 7.10% 2:7.0345 12,3696 16.7196 Impact Fee Receipts Percentage of Total Revenues Sr Other Financing 6.0496 9.0596 2,630,0 6.77% 12.3690 6,230,0 Sources Comprised of Impact Fee Recei)ts Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised of 5.37% 11.6996 13.29% 0.54% 1.6496 9.58910 Impact Fee Expenditures rovided to WCRER by Kent School District and these figures provided to the ures tween the fi t b e these figures are colculoted assuming agreemen g p OSPf 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. The sum of impact fees collected over the four year period is equal to 6.23 percent of the suns 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 Stale of Washington, at 9-17. " http://rA,,%,j.kl2.v~a.us/5afs/reparts.asp 10 The 2009-7010 Annual Finandal Statements were published on the OSPI svebsite on December8, 2010. " Kent School District Capital Facilities Man (2009). Woshington Center for Real Estate Research Analysis of Impacts ofModifled 74ining of School Impact Fee Payments 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. 33 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 596,052,503,40. 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, 1Fs, Etc.) $8,650,669.11 $8,762,494,21 $10,088,378 18_ 9,136 518,00 $14,806,665.02 _ (Bonds) Total Other Financing Sources $75,083,375.00 $60,181,050.25 $30,205,525.00 $29,870,000.00 $30,113,018.10 _ Total Revenues Sr Other Financingg_Sources* $83,734,044,11 $68,943,544.46 $40,293,903,18 39,006,518.00 $44,919,683,12 Sites/BuildingC apltalOutlay $7,674,354.68 $11,730,606.81 $54,928,739,30 $121,550,000.00_ $83,902,645.73 Total Expenditures $13 256,40132 $15,808,063.77 $58,918,578.82 y l 38,200,C00.00 $94,772,188.84 'These numbers s".ere directly transcribed from the line in the Annual l'inarxiol Statement entitled "Total Revenues and Other Finorxing Sources. " 1n the statements provided by Issaquah School District these numbers rto consistently equal the sum of the numbers in the "Total Revenues"and the "Total Other financing Sources" litres. 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 Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised of impact Fee Receipts Percentage of Total Revenues br Other Rnancing Sources Comprised of Impact Fee Receipts FY 06-07 FY 07.08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 09-10 Four Years -(Budget) 341496 21.86% 12.28% 8.23% 5.1140 16.3596 3.599.5 2.7896 3.070% 1.944h 1.699.0 2,919b Percentage of Total Expenditures 22.679b 12,12% 2.1 09,6 0.55°5 0.8045 3.78% ~ Comprised of Impact Fee Expenditures -1 and Expenditure of Impact Fees Years These figures ore calcolated assuming agreement between the figures provided to WCRFR by Issaquah School District and those figures provided to the 05P1 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 stem 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 suns 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. 33 lrr February 2010, voters rejected a $234 million bond issue. The district's annual use of bonds is reflected in the accompanying table under the '"Total Other Financing Sources" heading. Impact fees are included tinder the "Total Revenues" heading in the accompanying table. Issaquah School District, 2009 Capital Facilities VIan. 2009 Lake Washington School District Capital Facilities Plan 10 Woshinrgton State University Analysis of Ianpracts of 11odifled Thning of school Impact Fee Payments 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 (Taxes, IFs, Etc.) $24,201,077.92 $20,744,658.38 $19,769,260.73 820,941,120.00 $19,045,152.32 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 Total Revenues & Other Financing Sources* $105,360,929.95 $102,123,542.09 $100,425,350.73 5120,941,120.00 $59,279,648_27 Sites/Bulldinq Caj)ital Outlay $18,929,248.04 $36,020,112.49 $46,950,192.82 $83,635.039.00 $57,051,351.39 Total Expenditures 127,410,374.51 $44,856,871.25 $57,923,703.73 $95,67Q433.00 $68,679,641.78 _ 'These numbers were directly transcribed from the line in tire Annual Financial 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" or?d tine "Total Other financing Sources" fines. 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% 2.620a 2.35% 0.869b 0.95% 2.17% Receipts _ Percentage of Total Revenues & Other Financing 0,59% 0.530.5 0.46% 0.15% 0.30% 0.491),5 Sources Comprised of Impact Fee Receipts Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised 18,5595 6.00% 0,59% 0 2514b 0.340,6 4,209 of Impact Fee E.tpendittares *This Table reflects a Comparison of Revenues and Total Expenditures during fiscal Year vvith Receipts and Expenditure of lmpoct Fees from Calendar Years **Expenditure amounts from 2006 & 2007 reflect equal division of amount provided by district as recimed in 200611007. * These figures are calculated assuming agreement between the figures provided to WCRER by Lake Washington School District and those figures provided to tile 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 sum 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 sunr 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 Municlpel Code § 18.120,090(2) Washington Center for Real Estate Research 11 Analysis of Impacts of Alodi,0ed Tithing of School Ifnpact Pee 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 (front 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).' Sent School District WCRER was able to sort the detailed expenditure reports provided by Kent School District by tlhe 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 % Funded Date of IF Contribution Total Cost' by IFs Expenditure Meadow Ridge Portable $103,492.74 $106,700.00 96.99'0 912006-11/2006 Neely-O'Brien Portable $118,290.93 $106,700.00 110.8696 9/2006.1/2007 Panther Lake Property Purchase $900,000.00 $4,485,013.00 20.070/0 712007 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 70.1890 8/2007.4/2008 Panther Lake Replacement $3,904,550.62 $26,700,000.00 14.6296 2/2009- Kent-Meridian Aux, Gym Addition- _ $1,439,139.73 $2,500,000_00 _ 57.5745 - - 11/20084/201 0 $10,565,474.02 $41,248,413.00 HMO, *Numbers reflect anticipated cost as presented in CFPs Most 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." Issaquah School Districi 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.3' 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 Ustrfct. " Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons which reflect the changes in district capacity over the fouryear period. " Between December 2009 and August 2010, the district collected and expended an additional $62,858.04 in impact fees collected by King County; the 2010 expenditures are included in the calculations in the table at Appendix C. 12 Washington State university Analysis of Impacts of btodifred Timing of School hnpact Fee Payments Issaquah Projects Funded In-part By Impact Fees Collected By King County oject KC - IF Spent Total Spent lementary (E-14) $845,23.55 $21,611,111.00 school - $571567.12 $88,356,144.00 tentary (C-15) $16,462.79_ $22,667,284.00 _hool $202,671.59 $47,160,975.00 51,636,225.05 $179,795,514.00 % Funded Date of by KC IFs Expenditure 3.9195 01/2006-05/2( - -0.6545 0412007-0512( 0.0746 12/2008-03/2( 0,4345 07.12007-1112( 0,910,10 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 plans (including the 2010 plan), the district has yet to report any expenditures for those inIpToven le fits. 31 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 0% Funded Date of IF Source Project IF Contribution** Total Cost* by LW_Irs Expenditu Rosa Parks $5,383,300.95 $18,137,316.00 29,684'o 200612007 King Co. Parks Portables $437,640.83 $500,000.00 87.5346 2009 _ Inglewood $2,393,974.00 $7,625,000.00 31.400,6 Various (2006) Sarnrnamish Carson Elem. $343,033.35 $24,600,000.00 1.3945 10/31 /2008 Carson Portables $67,697.82 $500,000.00 13.54% 2009/2010? _ 6nstein $73,739.31 Not Available _ 2009 Redmond Redmond Elem. $173,831.48 Not Available 2009 *Numbers reflect ontkipoted cost os presented in CFPs -1nipoct tees spent to date - incomplete projects may receive additional impact fee funds in the hrture 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 Through 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 montlily interest accrued on impact fees within Kent and Lake Washington School Districts reflect negative numbers for July, August and September of 2008. According to 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 the four year period. " Please also see Appendix E for capacity and enrollment comparisons whlch reflect the changes in district capacity over the four year period. " Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.0700), " Despite this claim, the impact fees collected on behalf of the district are not spent immediately and arguably should be maintained in interest-hearing accounts. Wosliington Center for Real Estate ReseorcI7 13 Analysis of Iru,pacts of Alodi f ed Timing of School Impact Tee Paynae its September, 2008) including Levy, Bond, and Impact Fee accounts. It is not only the Impact Pees accounts which were in the negative for that period but all interest accounts." 'z Kent School District Kent School District provided the most detailed record of impact fee management," It is apparent from these records that Kent carefully tracks the interest earned from the impact fee accounts. While the amount of interest collected by Kent School District is relatively paltry in comparison with the overall capital projects budget, the amount of interest accrued over the four fiscal years is roughly enough to fund four relocatable classrooms. Lake Washington School Disirict The accompanying tables only reflect interest from impact fees collected by Sarnmamish and Redmond on behalf of the district. King County maintains the impact fee account for fees collected on behalf of Lake Washington School District within the county. King County tracks the interest but the district only receives a report reflecting the total revenue. The interest on King County receipts would be more substantial because King County collects the most impact fees on behalf of the district. The monthly report of receipts and interest of impact fees collected by 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 528,974.11. The origin of this number is unclear, it may be the result of the correction of an accounting error, or may itself be an error, but for purposes of this evaluation this number has been excluded. Because Lake Washington has only received a total of $1,814,070.52 in impact fees in tire last four years the amount of interest collected on impact fees is relatively insubstantial. Kent Impact Fee Receipts and interest-All Collection Jurisdictions _ Receipts Interest FY 06-07 -$2,619,138.82 $309,766.36 1 FY 07-08 $2,541,024.61 $144,743.61 FY 08-09 $1,053,418.62 $(72,032.67) FY 09-10 $1,466,308.62 $34,444.87 - $7,679,890.67 $416,922.17 LWSD Impact Fee Receipts and Interest-Sammarnish - - Receipts 1F - - Interest 1 - 2006 CY w $218,508.50 _ $1,498.16 2007 CY $107,786.00 $8,122.11 2008 CY $124,877.50 $3,029.51 2009 CY $32,988.78 $3,230.61 5484,162.78 $15,880.39 LWSD Impact Fee Receipts and Interest-Redmond Receipts Interest 2006 CY - 2007 CY $197,260.00 $4,064.32 2008 CY $208,025.94 $2,211.63 7 521 54 $G 625 38 Arguably, a potential harm suffered by the school districts, in the 2009 CY event of a delay in collection of impact fees, may lie in the 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 Redmond adopted interim amendments 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).' "Tile 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 Iohn 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 I npact Fees in the Kent School District accounts. " Redmond Community Development Guide 20D.60.10-030; Redmond, WA, Ordinance No. 2501. (2009). " id. 14 Woshington State University Analysis of Impacts ofModifierd Timing of School Impact Fee Payments To determine the effect of the collection Redmond Irrlpaet Fee Comparison delay in the city of Redmond, WCRER compared the amount of impact fees King collected on behalf of the Lake Reclnlond County Samrnamish Washington School District by the city IF coii c-ted in 2007 compared with the 42.62q0 55.51% 40,5795 of Redmond, the city of Samrnamish and sum of IF collected in 2007 through 2009 by King County. The accompanying IF collected in 2008 compared with the 44.95% 31.20°6 47.0196 table represents the comparison of the sum of IF collected in 2007 throb 2009 impact fees collected each year with the IF collected ht 2009 compared witli (lie 12.4396 13.30% 12,42015 sum of impact fees collected in the 2007 sum of IF collected in 2007 through 2009 - through 2009 calendar years by all three IF collected in 2009 compared with IF 27 6595 42.6290 26,4296 jurisdictions, as well as a comparison of Collected In 2008 impact fees collected in 2009 with those collected in 2008." The numbers collected by Redmond, in general, reflect conformity with the impact fee collection trends in King County and the c ity 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 lie 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." 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, 't'ile public testimony given prior to the amendment provides some 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 yews 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 wilt 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."50 Opposition claimed the period for expenditure was too long and that "[t]he bill Should be amended to allow impact fees to be collected at tine time of occupancy, rather than at the time of development approval."" Those testifying in support of the bill argued that "ftjhe 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 not 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.210.10-130(1) of the Redmond Community Development Guide). Wash. Rev. Code § 82.02.070(3). " Senate Bill Report, 59 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 Swarlhont, 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 Fstate Research 15 Analysis of Impacts ofAFodifaed ThningofScltoot httj)actTeeYaytttetits 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 ftulding 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 lie 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. Miller 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 Mr. 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 ruin) er of homes to be built in the platted area. Conclusions and Recommendations Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure 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 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 Woshington State University Analysis o f linpacts of Modi f ed Thning of School M11)act Fee Payments 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. Capita! 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 Sa Other Financing Sources'; impact fees collected oil behalf of Issaquah School District equaled 2.91 percent, and impact fees collected oil behalf of Lake Washington School District equaled only 0.49 percent. The majority of the funding for capital projects comes from tine 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 tine 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 € rojects 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. Issaquah School District has collected and expended impact fees to fund 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. Lake Washington School District front funds 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 oil 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 oil substantive buildings rather than on relocatable classrooms. Apparently under the six year time limit, school districts were forced to spend impact fees oil 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. Intevest 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 rip for investment losses, interest is already an unreliable washirigtori Center for Reol Estate Research 17 Analysis of Igupffcts of Modified Thning of School Impact Fee 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 Grnpaci Fees 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 tike later date. Length of Collection Delay Based on the information provided by Mr. Young and 1\4r. 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. Recoromendaiions 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 tike delayed payment program. A successful delayed payment plan will need to address collection difficulties. Dennis Lisk, 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 I~edmond'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 concerns 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." 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 tike collecting jurisdictions. "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.210.10-130(1) of the Redmond Community Development Guide). s, 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 hulk permits, with the remainder due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 18 Washington State University Analysis of Impacts of Afod i fierl 'I'hidtig of School luipact Pee Payments Kent School District--Covington Monthly Receipts and i xpendittires FY 06-07 Recei its (5) Interest Expend ($a) FY 07-0$ Recei its S lnterest Ex ~encl (S) Sep-06 4,147.00 1,520.92. Oct-06 14,423.50 1,603.60 Nov-06 4,147.00 1,708.81 Dec-06 22,808.50 1,731.04 Jan-07 12,441.00 j 1,808.26 Feb-07 18,661,50 1,824.20 Mar-07 58,476.00 1,809,63 Apr-07 6,220.50 2,056.87 { May-07 2,07150 2,109.90 fun-07 51,986.00 2,407.20 . Jul-07 12,441.00 2,374.10 Aug-07 12,831.50 2,515.87 220.657.00 23.470.40 FY 08-09 Receipts Interest (5) Expend (3) Sep-08 ! (12,940.32) Oct-08 5,11_0.00 j 2,151.01 Nov-08 2,194.91 Dec-08 - I - 3,319.36 Jan-09 - ~ - 2,116.03 Feb-09 41,074.00 7,066.53 Mar-09 5,110.00 1,857.38 Apr-09 1,941.23 526,400.00 Maw-09 _ 1,356.50 Jun-09 684.36 61,902.00 11,176.80 526,400.00 Sep-07 43,422.50 2,712.52 Oct-07 12,320.00 2,683.50 Nov-07 7,001.50 2,663,61 Dec-07 21,004.50 _ 2,651.55 Jan-08 35,688.50 2,673.59 Feb•09 4,928.00 2,615.87 Mar-08 5,110.00 2,495.00 Apr-M 51,200.00 4558.52 _ May-08 20,440.00 2,246.21 Jun-08 20,440.00 2,146.71 Jul-08 40,698.00 _ (347,84) Aug O8 ^ 10,220.00 (833.37) 272,473.00 1 24,265.87 W oQ-1n Parnlntc 00 Intrwoa f M Fmond tsl Sep 09 7,665.00 695.15 Oct-09 5,110.00 688.52 Nov-09 0.00 608.66 Dec-09 0.00 514.76 Jan-10 0.00 564.43 Feb-10 2,555.00 575.37 Mae-10 10,788.00 533.54 Apr-10 2,697.00 619.60 may-10 2,697.00 481.48 Jun-10 26,970.00 388.83 Jul-10 37,758.00 - 504.87 Au •10 53,940.00 528.71 150,180.00 6,703.92 705,212.00 65,616.99 526,400.00 22 Washington state University Aimlysis of Impacts of Mocfl)ierl Timbig of School Impact Fee Payweiits z- Expenditures Kent Schc7o! i')is :l icf: - Kelii: Monthly Receipts and E 1 {5) W n7-nsz RprPin4c ! l Interest (5) Emend (5) FY 06-07 Receipts (5) Interest (5) xpenr Sep-06 90,725.00 , 9,448.60 ; 187,652.97 Oct 06 74,688.00 8,714.80.! - Nov-06 47,031.00 9r 192.12 4,582.66 Dee-06 38,200.00 9,43495 11,236.08 Jan-07 76,553.00 9,929.53 18,311.96 Feb-07 136,760.00 10,384.38 Mar-07 92,102.00 10,009,47 Apr-07 80,916.00 10,942.50 May-07 158,093.00 j 11,457.22 jun-07 68,839.00 ; 12,557.61 Jul-07 202,048.00 12,352.80 Aug-07 116,131.00. 13,935.02 1,182,086.00 128,359.00 221,78167 FY 08.09 Receipts (5) Interest (S) -Expend (S) Sep-08 15,330.00 (67,506.99) Oct-08 20,076.00 7,743.72 Nov-08 5,292.00 8,021.56 497,410.60 Dec-08 - 28,314.001 13,340.94 6,777.77 Jan-09 66,430.00 i _53.5,951.91 _ Feb-09 52,846,001 5,763.64 - 118,359.83 47,542.00 5,084.06 Mar-09 1,362,287.04 Apr-09 157,562.00 3,681.41 9 1,057,836.3 - 21,216.00 1,919,28 May-09 . - Jun-09 127,296.00 564.27 - 169,728.00 870.87 Jul-09 _ Aug-09 47,736.00 947.30 759,368.00 (12,786,17) 3,571,845.77 Se p-O7 118,119.0 14,125.52 Oct-07 63,911.00 14,155.03 Nov-07 73,920.00 13,943.12 _100,000.00 Dec-07 49,280.00 13,740.69 - Jan-08 69,864.00 13,39238_ 556,108.71 Feb-08 74,466.00 11,477.15 443,891.29 Mar-08 91,070.00 9,459.75 Apr-OR 152,572.00 9,323.40 Ma -08 96,052.00 8,386.15 Jun-08 107,310.00 7,871.18 _ Jul-08 127,750.00 (4,284.06) Aug-08 45,990.00 (6,863.35) ( 1,070,304.00 104,726.96 1,100,000.00 Fy ()Q-11) Receipts (5) Interest (S) Expend (5) Sep-09 63,648.00 968.70 Oct-09 84,864.00 1,230.24 Nov-09 15,912.00 - 945.85 138,289.19 Dec-09 21,410.00 844.26 - Jan-10 48,366.00 914.29 Feb-10 50,162.00 9 51.82 Mar-10 172,698.00 950.90 Apr-10 _ 113,274.00 1,467.19 81,486.61 May-10 139,392.00 893.93 Jun-10 102,486.00 716.04 Jul-10 91,698.00 1,222.84 Auk 10 59,334.00 747.10 963,244.00 11,853.16 219,775.80 3,975,002.00 232,152.95 5,113,405.24 Washington Center for Real Estate Research 21 Atanlysis ofltttpacts of Modified Tiinltlg of School htipact Fee Paymetrts Appendix A Kent School District . King County IVionthiy Receipts and EXpellditLlres FY O6 07 R c ei 'Its (S Interest (5) Expend (5) FY 07.08 Receipts ~5 Interest Expe i Sep-06 ) 35,848.54 10,230.84 Oct-06 219,353.42 11,065,92 Nov-06 33,682.64 11,570.97 Dec-06 127,992, 86 12, 316, 96 Jan-07 29,468.50: 12,576.91 Feb-07 44,140.59 11,879.62 Mar-07 400,722.49 14,614.79 Apr-07 48,897.40 14,654.20 May-07 79,771.50 15,443.71 Jun-07 114,602,61 15,520.04 Jul-07 54,946,00: 16,232,60 900,000.00 Aug-07 26,969.31 11,83034 235,641.11 1 216 395-87 157.936.96 1,135,641.11 FY 08-09 Receipts (5) Interest (5) Expend (S) 65,121.54 Seep-08 (94,426.97) - Oct-08 12,411.00 2,775.07 Nov-08 16,113.00 2,847.30 _ Dec-08 10,801.50 7,311.22 Jan-09 8,101,54 2,684.70 Feb-09 5,789.74 2,774.47 1,025,668.78 Mar-09 26,454.28 1,667.14 Apr-09 - - - (52,685.43) 971.79 - May-09 - 32,870,00 995.10j_____ Jun-09 42,196.26 581.97 Jul-09 29,860.00 642.29 Aug-09 35,115,19 752,62 232,148.62 (70,423.30) 1,025,668,78 Sew 363,945.50 11,253.21 555,643.31 Oct-07 249,897.00 9,510.83 527,085.68 Nov-07 106,871.00 7,647.92 885,953.15 _ Dec-07 25,589.50 6,415.81 - Jan-08 21,692.50 5,716.92 Feb-08 25,618.50 4,769.63 213,171.43 Mar-08 221,222,00 3,799.57 f 469,052.70 A r-08 54,394.50 3,152,65 113,452.62 OS 35,410.50 3,000.36 )un-08 51,155.00 2,822.81 )u1-08 29,331.61 (29,048.88) Aug-08 13,120,00 (13,290,05) 1,198,247,61 15,750.78 2,764,356.89 rv nn-1 n Porpi k M Interest (S) Expend Sep-09 36,024.50 735.03 Oct-09 37,409.09 666.12 Nov-09 42,691.34 486.57 - Dec-09 31,151.00 631.24 Jan-10 _ 26,974.74 8,175.34 Feb-10 50,038.30 737,32 Mar-10 44,352.00 752.50 A r-10 231108,00 1,103,79 Ma -1y 0 15,160,00 726,54 Jun-10 ___15,250,24 518.65 _ -Jul-10 12,545.41 648.22 Aug-10 18,180.00 706.47 352,884.62 15,887.79 2,999,676.67 119,152,23 4,925,668.78 20 Washington State University ililalysis of Inrpacts of Modified, Thning of School Iniprrct Fee Payments Conclusion Based oil 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 inipact 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 plain 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. Washington Center for Real Estate Research 19 Analysis of Impacts of Morlitled liming of School ItttpactFee Paytttents Appendix B Issaquah School District Collection and Expenditures By Fiscal Year Annual Inspect= Fee Collection and Cxpendiftires-Fiscal Year Impact Fees Collected by King County Collection Expenditure _ FY 06-07 - _ $558,008.76_ $5_05,216.58 FY 0 7-08 $422,6 68.17 $362,909.96 _ Wf4 08-09 _ - $58,795.92 1,346.31 $17 -FY 09-10 - _ $94,647.19 _ - $94,647.19 $1,134,120.04 S1,134,120.04 Annual Impact Fee Collection and Expenditure-By Fiscal Year _ Bellevue _ L IssagL4 Newcastle Port Blakely Renton 5atyitmn sh FY Totals _ 2006-07 $64,385.22 $188,209.04 $71,151.00 $308,894.00 $122,058.00 - $251,202.00 _ - - $1,045,899 26 2 007-08 -6T- $60 325.00 $430,406,25 - $198,489.00 _ $95,700.00 $306,685.00 $331,864.50 $i,423,469.75 2008-09 $203,197:50 $46,299.71 $6,136.00 $12,491.00 $27,49 $162,574.00 - 75458,195.21 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 $383,626.72 $774,179.98 $312,592:00 5463,153.UU SSU:51 666. 1U 31,1J9,Uzz.UU Issaquah School District---Percentage of Revenues and Expenditures Comprised oiF Impact Fees FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 0808 FY 09-10` Percentage of Total Revenues Comprised of Impact Fee Receipts _ 16.51% 21.05:'0 5:12035 g,8_3% Percentage of Total Revenue & Other Financing Sources Comprised of Impact 1.71% 2.6845 1.28Rn 2.300,6 Fee Receipts Percentage of Total Expenditures Comprised of Impact Fee Expenditures 6.78% 11 _6790 - 0.8896 Issaquah Pi-ojects Funded in-part by In--pact Fees on Funded Project KC • IF Spent Total Spent ~y KC IFs_ Date of EVenditure Grand Ridge Elementary (E-14) $845,523.55 $21,611,111.00 3.9195 0112006-0512007 Issarluali High School $595,819.58 $88,356,144.00 0.67% 0412007-0512010 Creekside Elementary (E-15) $17,872.82 $22,667,284.00 0.08% 1212008-0612010 5kvllne Hirth School $239,867.14 $47,160,975.00 0.5145 0712007-0712010 Washington Center for Reol Estate Research 23 Analysis of Irnpacts of A1odirled Tinting of SclaooI Impact Fee Payments Mar-06 ul-06 Nov-06 Dec-O6 Jan-08 Feb-08 M Appendix C issaqUah School District - King County receipts and Fxpenditrlres Amount Date of Amount Date of Collected (5) Expenditure_ Project- Collected (S) Expenditure Project 144,711.71 21112006 Grand Ridge Elem. Jan-07 59,204.01 218/2007 Elementary 14 37,855.56 211512006 Grand Ridge Elern. Feb-07 122,109.33 3/29/2007 Elementary 14 79,547.70 3122/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Mar-07 - 66,930 4/26/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. ApY07 55,589.09 511712007 IH5 Predesign 65,18.6.58 511712006 1 Grand Ridge Elem. May-O/ 48,009.50: 711912007 Elementary 14 60,310.68 1 6/21/2006 1 Grand Ridge Elem. Jun-07 134,367.32 715/2007 IH5 Predesign I - 32,827.10 711 912006 I Grand -Ridge Elem. Jul-07 1 34,699.67 ; 8/30/2007 Skyline Add./Mod, ; 77,593.58 8/30_/2006_ Grand Ridge Elem. Aug-07 1 52,792.18 912712007 SkylineAdd./Mod. i 5,330.M Grand Ridge Elem._ Sep-07 1 31,122.87 1012512007 Skyline Add./Mod. 28,041.01 10/4/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Oct-07 7,620.91 1112912007 Skyline Add./Mod. I 5,17 - - 83 10/18/2006 Grand Ridge El em. Nov-07 73,768.89: 1112912007 IH5 Predesign 12,687.44 12/6/2006 Grand Ridge Elem. Dec-07 27,677.38 1/10/2008 IHS Predesign T Total Collected in CY 2006: $616,200.71 _ Total Collected in CY 2007: $646,967.15 Amount Date of Collected Expenditure 18,150.90 2/7/2008 19,835.77 2128/2008 14,334.73 1 4/24/2008 36,200.98 5/15/2008 14.399.59 1 5/22/2008 Jul-08_ J 20,741.51 1 Aug-08 1112,550.39 1 3ep-08 5,852.97 i _ Oct-08 10,058.45 1 Nov-08 2,407.36 IHS IHS IHS Sky IHS IHS in CY 2008: Amount Date of ct Collected Expenditure Project n _ _ Jan-09 5,001.52 1/29/2009 Creekside Design n ~ Feb-09 n Mar-09 9,053.91 4/23/2009 Creekside Design n Apr-09 - (Mod. May-09 12,085,91 6/18/2009 IH5 Design n Jun-49 n Jul-09 14,335.80 712812009 Skyline Add./Mod. Aug-09 Nod. _Sep-09 Nod. Oct-09 Nov-09 31, 789.15 11 /23/2009 Skyline Add./Mod. - Dec-09 .90 Total Collected in CY 2009: $72,266.29 , Amount Date of Collected Expenditure Project Jan-10 Feb-10 8,872.53 312/2010 Skyline Add./Mod. Mar-10 Apr-10- 21,629.18 4/29/2010 Skyline Add./Mod. May-10 24,252.46 5/25/2010 IH5 Design Services Jun-10 1,410.03 6/30/2010 Creekside Design Jul-10 6,693.84 8/6/2010 Skyline Add./Mod Aug-10 - Total Collected in CY 2010: $62,858.04 To tal Collected in Calendar Years 2006-2010: $1,699,083.09 24 Washington State University Altalysis of hnpacts of Afodiyied l imilly of School Ilatpact Fee Payrtietits Appendix D Kent School District /accrued Interest--By Collecting Jurisdiction King County [Cent Covington Sep-06 10,230.84 9,448.60 1,520.92 Oct-06 11,065.92 8,714.80 1,603.60 Nov-06 11,570.97 9,192.12 1,708.81 Dec-06 12,316.96 9,434.95 1,731.04 Jan-07 12,576.97 9,929,53 ; 1,808.26 Feb-07 11,879.62 10,384.38 1,824.20 Mar-07 14, 614.79 10,009.47 1,809.63 Apr-07 14,654.20: 10,942,50 2,056.87 May-07 15,443.71 11,457.22 ' 2,109.90 Jun-07 15,520.04 12,557.61 2,407.20 ' Jul-07 16,232.60 12,352.80: 2,374.10 ' Aug-07 11,830.34 13,935.0.2 , 2,515.87 157,936.96 ! 128,359.00 + 23,470.40 Total Interest in FY 06-07 $309,766.36 King County Kent (S)_ Covington (S) Sep-08 - (94,426.97) (67,506.99) (12,940.32)_ j Oct-08 2,775.07 7,743.72 2,151.01 Nov-08 2,847.30 8,021.56 2,194.91 Dec-08 7,311.22 13,340.94 3,319.36 Jan-09 I 2,684.70 6,777.77 __2,116.03 Feb-09 ! 2,774.47: 5,763.64 7,066.53 Mar-09 1,667,14 5,084.06 1,857.38 Apr-09 - 971.79 3,687.41 1,941.23 May-09 1 995.10 1,919.28 1,356.50 Jun-09 1 581.97 564.27 684.36 1ul-09 642.29 870.87 689.93 Au9-09 - 752.62 947.30 739.88 - (70,423.30) (12,786.17) 11,176.801 Total interest in FY 08-09 (72,032.67) Kinn (minty M Kent (S) Covington (S) se -07 11,253.21 14,125.52 2,712.52 Oct-07 9,510.83 14,155.03 2,683.50 Nov-07 7,647.92 13,943.12 2,663.61 1 Dec-07 6,415.81 13,740.69 2,651.55 - Jan-08 - 5,716.92 13,392.38 2,673.59 Feb-08 4,769.63 11,477.15 2,615.87 Mar-08 3,799,57 9,459.75 2,495.00 Apr-08 3,152.65 9,323.40 2,558.52 a -08 3,000.36 8,386.15 2,246.21 _ fun-08 2,822.81 _ 7,871.18 2,146.71 Jul-08 (29,048.88) (4,284.06) (347.84) Aug-08 (13,290.05) (6,863.35) (833.37) 15, 750.78 104, 726.96 _24, 265.87 Total interest in FY 07-OS $144,743.61 1(inn Cminty (S) Kent (5) Covincton (S) 5e -09 735.03 968.70 695.15 Oct-09 _ 666.12 1,230,24 688.52 Nov-09 486.57 945.85 608.66 Dec-09 631.24 844.26 514.76 Jan-10 8,175.34 914.29 564.43 Feb-10 737.32 951.82 575.37 Mar-10 752.50 950.90 533.54 Apr-10 1,103.79 1,467.19 619.60 May-10 726.54 893.93 481.48 Jun-10 518.65 _ 716.04 388.83 Jul-10 648.22 1,222,84 504.87 Aug-10 706.47 747.10 528.71 15,887.79 11,853.16 6,703.92 Total Interest in FY 09-10 34,444.87 Woslhington Center for Real Estate Research 25 Analysis of lutpacts of Modified Tithing of School ltttpact Fee Paywettts Appendix E Capacity and Enrollment Comparisons Kent School District Kent School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison 2006 2007 2008 2009 Permanent Ccity to House Students -27824 27598 27150 2.7321 Relocatable CaLoy* _1345 1412 1474 _ 1552 Total Permanent and Relocatable Ca )acit 29169 29010 28620 28873 Actual Enrollment (from next CFP) 25864 - 2.5745 25828 25778 Surplus Capacity 3305 3265 2792 3095 * From inventory and Capacity of Existing Schools section o f the Capital Facilities Plan Kent School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Year* Capacity"*_ Enrollment 5ltrllus Grade School 13570 13239 _ 331 Middle School 4283 5196 913 Senior High School 8765 8256 509 27531 25778 1753 * Actual counts at end of 2009-2010 (from 2010 CFP) Capacity numbers reflect relocatoble capacity required, but not actual available relocatoble capacity Issaquah School Districi Issaquah School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison 2006 2007 Permanent Capacity to House Students ] 14808 14068 14068 14068 Relocatable Capacity* 2228 2280 2280 2280 Total Permanent and Relocatable Capacit 17036 16348 16348 16348 Enrollment* _ 15153 15340 15480 15807 Surplus Capacity 1883 1008 868 541 *From the inventoryand Evaluation of Current Facilities section of the Capital Facifities Plan Issaquah School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Year* Ca acity** Enrollment Surplus Grade School 8224 7191 1033 _ Middle School 3$52 3840 12 Senior High School 5344 4776. 568 17420 15807 1613 * A(Wal counts at end of 2009-2010 (Iron) 1010 CFP) 26 Washington 5tote University Analysis ofltttpacts of jlodiJ7ed I'irningofSchoolInipact.Fee Poyments Lake VVasilington School District Lake Washington School District-Capacity and Enrollment Comparison 2006 2007 2008 2009 Permanent Capacity to House Students 22062 22573 22505 22916 lWocatahle CJ~cit " 3152 2846 2993 3219 _ Total Permanent and Relocatahle Ca ap city 25214 25419 25498 26135 Enrollment" 23173 23040 22965 23483 Surplus Capacity 2041 2379 2533 2652 From the Inventory and Fvafuotion of Current Facilities section of the Capital Facilities Plan Lake Washington School District Capacity and Enrollment in 2009-2010 School Year' Capacity** Enrollment Surplus Grade School 13484 13355 129 Middle School 6204 5389 815 Senior High School 5941 5038 903 25629 23782 1847 Actual counts at end of 2009-2010 (from 2010 CFP) Washington Center for Reol Estate Research 27 Atralysisofltxpactsof Alodilied 1'itningofScltoolltnpactFeel'ay-inettts Appendix F Kent School District Impact Fee Expenditure--Detailed Deport city of Kurt VOUCHER DATE VENDOR ITEM(S) FUNDED 9/14/2006 - _ Fox Electric - Meadow Ridge_ Portable 9/14/2006 Fox Electric NO Portable 9/14/2006 Wiliams Scotsman Inc MR Portable 9.11412006 Wiliams Scotsman Inc NO Portable 11/16/2006 Powercom Inc MR Portable AMOUNT 3, 206.95 7,039.36 88,703.33 88,703.33 4,582.66 - _11,236.08 - - 2,727,00 , 4,272.80 4,272.80- 7,039.36 100,000.00 25,627.12 530,481.59 20,455.81 423,435.48 474,593.60 22,817.00 210,974.40 10,143.00 300, 392.56 14,441.95 112,930.48 5,429.35 1,235,258.04 59,387.41 64,538.76 3,102,83 1,009,311.79 48,524.60 131,974.61 6,314.58 70, 696.14 7,069.61 3,720.86 5,113,405.24 12/14/2006 Powercom, Inc NO Portable_ 10/19/2006 Fox Electric Meadow Ridge Portable 111112007 Wiliams Scotsman Inc NO Portable 111112007 Wiliams Scotsman Inc MR Portable 111112007 Fox Electric - _ NO Portable 11/26/2007 R.W. Scott Construction CO. KPA Parking Lot 1212012007 Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Clsrm_ Add. 1212012007 Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 2/8/2008 Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 2/8/2008 Shinstine Associates KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 11/13/2008 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 11/13/2008 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 1/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 1/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 1/22/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 1/22/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux, Gym Addition 2/19/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 2/19/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 3/12/2009 SNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 3/12/2009 SNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 3/26/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 3/26/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 4/17/2009 SNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 4/17/2009 (SNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 11/5/2009 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 11/5/2009_ Serpanok Construction, Inc KM_Aux. Gym Addition 4/8/2010 Serpanok Construction,_Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 4/8/2010 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 4/8/2010 Serpanok Construction, Inc KM Aux. Gym Addition 28 Washington State University Awilysis ofhnprrcts of lforlifierl Binigagof SclroollrrrpactFeePayrnerrts 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 24,146.79 526,400.00 K hi4g'i County VOUCHER DATE VENDOR _ ITEM(S) FUNDED AMOUNT 712712007 King County Superior Court PL Property Purchase 900,000.00 81212007 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 Kt Gym and Clsrm. Add. 25,605,68 911312007 Shinstine Associates LLC Kt. Gym and Clsrm. Add. 530,037.63 1011112007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 24,289.66 1011112007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 502,796.02 111812007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 21,978.40 111812007 Shin stine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 454,952.90 12/13/2007 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add,- 18,848.93 12/13/200 7 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 390,172.92 . _ 2/7/2008 Shinstine Associates LLC_ KL Gym and Clsrm. Add. 9,823.58 21712008 Shinstine Associates LLC KL Gym and Clsrm. 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 2/19/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 978,619.75 2/19/2009 BNCC-Inc Panther Lake Replacement 47,049.03 4,925, 668.78 Washington Center for Real Estate Research 29