HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 2017-08-22 Item 2C - Update - Fire and Park Impact FeesCity of Tukwila
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director
BY: Richard Takechi, Fiscal Coordinator
CC: Mayor Ekberg
DATE: August 16, 2017
SUBJECT: Fire and Park Impact Fee Update Project
ISSUE
Brief the Finance Committee an the Fire and Park Impact Fee Update project.
Alan Ekberg, Mayor
BACKGROUND
RCW 82.02.050 and WAC 365-196-850 authorize the collection of impact fees by cities and counties
planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA). Impact fees are assessed against new
development projects to assist in funding new or expanded public facilities due to increased demand
caused by the development. These fees are a one-time charge and can be assessed on both
residential and commercial/industrial development. These fees can only be used for system
improvements, and not for repairs and maintenance or facility deficiencies.
The City enacted the initial park and fire impact fee legislation in 2008. The history of the fee
ordinance and its subsequent amendments follows:
Ordinance No.
Date
Purpose
Repealed by ...
2219 Fire Fees
2220 Park Fees
2008
Established initial Fire impact fees
2365
2365 Fire Fees
2366 Park Fees
2012
Adjusted project cost schedule
2486
2486 Fire Fees
2485 Park Fees
2015
Provided fee deferral for mixed use in the
urban center
2521
2521 Fire and
Park Impact Fees
2016
Extended deferrals to single family
residential
DISCUSSION
A comprehensive review and update of the impact fee calculations and methodology, and the capital
facilities lists, has not occurred since the initial enactment of the fee in 2008. To ensure the fee
structure achieves the goal of growth paying for growth, and to remain compliant with state statutes,
an Impact Fee Update Committee was formed in January 2017 to conduct an impact fee review and
update. Representatives from the Mayor's Office, Public Works, Fire, Parks, and Finance
departments comprise the committee. After much discussion, it was determined that technical
assistance in conducting this review and update would produce the best results for the City.
83
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was published on July 12, 2017 and three responses were
received by the July 28, 2017 due date. The Impact Fee Committee interviewed each of the
responding firms the following week and selected Berk Consulting, Inc. to perform the services.
Berk's qualifications were considered the best fit for the City's needs and their cost estimate was the
lowest among the three proposals. Committee members will be meeting with Berk in the
forthcoming weeks to refine the initial plan and schedule which is included below and on page 7 of
the attached Berk proposal.
Task 0: Project Management &
Ongoing Coordination
Task 1: Review Existing Program
(RFP Task 1)
Task 2: Assist Estimating Growth
& Costs (RFP Task 2)
Task 3: Recommend Changes
(RFP Task 3)
2017
September
Project Kickoff
October
November
Review
Work with Staff on Pro ections
Recommend Changes
* Staff
Workshop
■ Optional: Council Workshop
December
■ Council Meeting #1
Document
Task 4: Document Study &
Recommendations (RFP Tasks 4-6) Council Meeting #2 ■
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The fee for services as outlined in the Berk submittal and draft professional services contract is
$24,720; the contract "not to exceed" amount is $38,000 providing flexibility should additional
services be desired. These services will be paid for through unspent budget appropriated within the
Finance department.
RECOMMENDATION
For information only.
ATTACHMENTS
• Berk Proposal, City of Tukwila, Park and Fire Impact Fee Update
• TMC Title 16 Buildings and Construction, Figures 16-1 through 16-4
a Figure 1 Fire Impact Fees Calculation
c Figure 2 Fire Impact Fees Facilities List
o Figure 3 Parks Impact Fees Calculation
a Figure 4 Parks Capital Facilities List
84 Z:1Council Agenda Items\Finance18.22.1711mpact Fees\InfoMemo-impact fees PMc.doc
PROPOSAL
CITY OF TUKWILA
Park and Fire Impact Fee Update
,,,,,,'11111
NMI MI 11 �D0 s D 4 DD
11111111111111111111 El 4 len
■111111111■11■ .► 0000
RIGOR :::::°°
■■■■■■■■■■■■
111111111111,11111111111111111111111111
:::� IMPACT::::
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
B
B
B
B
B
1
B
1
E
1
R
1
K
1
TAP NAB 1 LITY
SUBMITTED July 28, 2017
85
Table of
Contents
Cover Letter i
Profile & Qualifications 1
Team Qualifications 1
Relevant Experience 3
Philosophy & Approach to Impact Fees 3
Staff Capacity 3
Experience 4
Recent Project Experience 4
Scope of Services & Schedule 6
Proposed Work Breakdown Structure 7
Key Project Tasks & Milestones 7
Attachment A: Contact Information A-1
Attachment B: Mountlake Terrace Impact Fee Report B-1
:ill
86
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
:ill BERK
July 28, 2017
Peggy McCarthy, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Tukwila Park and Fire Impact Fees Update 1 PROPOSAL
Dear Peggy and the Consultant Selection Panel:
PRONE II 206.324.8760
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98121
www.berkconsulting.com
BERK Consulting is pleased to submit our proposal and qualifications for the Tukwila Park and Fire
Impact Fees Update. BERK has successfully implemented impact fees in communities throughout the
region, including the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Mercer Island.
We also have extensive project experience with the City of Tukwila, including the recent Facilities
Needs Assessment, as well as the Strategic Plan and PROS Plan Update. We have valued and
enjoyed working with the City and the Tukwila community over the years. We feel that our combined
local experience and subject matter expertise make us ideally suited to support the City in this effort.
Team Availability. The BERK team is available to complete this project on the proposed schedule, with
the final deliverable completed no later than December 31, 2017.
We look forward to discussing this project with you in detail. In the interim, more information about our
firm, approach, team, and client satisfaction can be found on our website:
www.berkconsulting.com.
Sincerely,
g.
Lisa Grueter, AICP, Principal Jason Hennessy, Project Manager
BERK Consulting, Inc. BERK Consulting, Inc.
STRATEGY of ANALYSIS r, COMMUNICATIC ;S
88
Profile & TEAM QUALIFICATIONS
Qualifications About BERK Consulting
■ M.P.P., University of Chicago,
Irving B. Harris Graduate School
of Public Policy Studies
■ B.A., Religion, minors in
Mathematics and Asian Studies,
University of Puget Sound
BERK Consulting, Inc. (BERK) is an interdisciplinary consultancy
integrating strategy, planning, and policy development; financial
and economic analysis; and facilitation, design, and communications.
Founded in 1988, our passion is working in the public interest, helping
public and nonprofit agencies address complex challenges and
position themselves for success. With a mission of helping communities
and organizations create their best futures, BERK focuses on
communicating complex information to a wide -range of audiences so
that participants truly understand the issues and options before them.
BERK has led parks and open space planning, fire system strategic and
capital planning, and impact fee studies throughout the State.
Team Overview
The BERK team will be led by Jason Hennessy. He has developed
and implemented impact fees in communities across the region,
including Mercer Island and Mountlake Terrace. He will be supported
by Lisa Grueter, AICP, a Principal at BERK who specializes in GMA
policy and land use planning. Annie Sieger will serve as the Lead
Analyst, leveraging her knowledge of the City. The team will be
supported by Emily Percival for analytic support.
More information about each team member is in the following section.
Staff Qualifications
Jason Hennessy (Project Manager) is an Associate at BERK who
specializes in financial and policy analysis. He focuses on applying
statistical methods to real-world policy issues and creating data -
driven, actionable solutions.
Jason was the Project Manager and Lead Analyst for the City of
Mercer Island Parks Impact Fee, which was adopted in 2015. He also
led the Impact Fee Update for the City of Mountlake Terrace. Jason
worked with the Seattle Department of Transportation on analysis
of potential impact fees related to parks, transportation, education,
and fire, and then led the analysis for the City of Seattle Parks and
Recreation Parks Impact Fee Development. He has supported the
:111
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
1
89
■ Master of City Planning,
University of California,
Berkeley
■ B.A. Social Ecology, University of
California, Irvine
■ B.A., Political Economy and Law,
University of Washington
■ B.A. in Politics, with Honors,
Whitman College
■ M.P.A.. Universitv of Washinaton
analysis of park and transportation impact fee options for Pierce
County.
Lisa Grueter, AICP (GMA Strategic Advisor, BERK) is a Principal at
BERK. She is a senior land use planner with thirty years of experience
in policy planning for the public and private sectors. Her expertise
includes comprehensive and subarea planning under the state's Growth
Management Act, customized programmatic and planned action
environmental documentation under the State Environmental Policy Act,
shoreline master programs under the Shoreline Management Act, and
the integration of these laws into cohesive, implementable planning
policies. Lisa has led Comprehensive Plans, including Capital Facility
Plans and Level of Service studies for a number of communities in the
Puget Sound such as Kitsap County (involving numerous cities and
special districts including four fire districts), Bremerton, Covington and
others. Currently, Lisa is working with the cities of Issaquah and
Sumner on their Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan
Updates. She is also leading the Pierce County Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan. As part of that effort, Jason and Lisa developed a
parks impact fee which was approved by Council in 2016.
Annie Sieger (Lead Analyst) is a senior associate who focuses on
policy and financial analysis, including economic impacts analysis and
needs assessments, and stakeholder engagement and facilitation. Her
experience includes projects for regional and local government
agencies in the Puget Sound Region and the State of Washington.
Annie served as the Lead Analyst for the City of Tukwila Facilities
Needs and Feasibility Study, and supported the PROS Plan Update.
She is currently working with Pierce County Parks on the PROS Plan,
leading the financial analysis components, and is the BERK Project
Manager for the Issaquah Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
Plan Update.
Emily Percival (Analyst) is an Associate with a background in policy
and financial analysis. Prior to joining BERK, Emily worked for Seattle
Public Utilities providing data analysis to inform ongoing racial equity
and social justice initiatives, and City of Portland's Bureau of
Environmental Services coordinating communities to advance equity in
the urban forest. She uses data and financial analysis to craft
innovative solutions for the public good. Emily is currently working with
the City of Renton and Renton Fire Authority on development of an
impact fee for the newly created RFA.
:ill
90
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
Estimated Level of Effort
Staff Person $/hr Est.
Hrs
Jason Hennessy $125
66
Lisa Grueter $200 14
Emily Percival $125 50
Annie Sieger $150 36
Total: $24,720 166
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
BERK has worked with the City of Tukwila collaboratively for a
number of years, most recently on the Fire Department Strategic
Plan, Citywide Strategic Plan + Implementation, and the Facilities
Needs Assessment. During that time, we have learned much about the
community and have developed strong working relationships with City
staff. As part of the facilities project, BERK frequently presented to
City Council and worked collaboratively with both Council and Staff in
the development of the funding model to support that project.
We know that City Staff and Council will be involved in this effort,
and we have experience in presenting to Council and facilitating work
sessions with both Staff and Council. We appreciate the hands-on
approach the City takes to these types of projects.
Our firm is known statewide as municipal finance experts, drawing
on more than 28 years of experience working with local, regional,
and state government agencies on funding, financing, and economic
analysis. We will leverage our prior project experience with other
communities and our knowledge of the City to deliver a project that is
feasible, actionable, and implementable.
PHILOSOPHY & APPROACH TO IMPACT FEES
BERK has a well -articulated approach to impact fees based on
economic research, deep knowledge of planning legal requirements,
and years of experience working with local jurisdictions. We believe
in working with our clients to a solution that makes sense for their
citizens. We seek alignment between public desires, published goals,
and planned program outcomes, and have assisted jurisdictions make
necessary changes to planning documents for consistency.
STAFF CAPACITY
We confirm that the BERK team is available to support the City
of Tukwila in the impact fee update through the end of 2017, as
requested in the RFP. The anticipated level of effort by staff person is
to the left.
:111
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
3
91
Experience RECENT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
cc
Thank you for all of the work
you did. You did a great job
explaining a very complex set
of policy choices to the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Scott Greenberg, City of Mercer Island
Exhibit 5. Impart Fee Bash with a Value par Capita LOS: Iwo Extreme Stenailat
Scene rio i
Land -rich, aunt -out, restricted
opportunities for acquisition
Lan d+Cackles + Etuildings
I I
I
ProjectListNeed
Refai/ed m Grow[h
f
5 value $ need Bi'5 value $ need
capita capita capita capita
Scenario 2
Less developed, high d
community, with a range at
development opportunities
land FaciIte +Buildings
I I
So.ce MAK, 201,
Project List Need
Related tU Growth
City of Mercer Island Growth -Related Parks Impact Fees
BERK helped the City of Mercer Island assess how current revenue
sources could be augmented to fund growth -related expenditure
needs. The technical memorandum included a comprehensive
analysis of applicable fee methodologies and a consideration of the
characteristics of GMA impact fees in the context of the City's current
parks, open space, and recreational facility inventory and needs, as
well as an assessment of fee recovery projections based on past city
trends and on current projected growth targets.
In Phase II, BERK prepared a rate study for parks impact fees. BERK
worked with City staff to refine a list of impact fee eligible projects
and allocate growth -related costs to future development. Included in
the rate study was an analysis based on residential -only fees and fees
charged to residential and commercial developments. The City Council
of Mercer Island passed the ordinance on December 7, 2015.
• Reference: Scott Greenberg, Development Services Group Director,
City of Mercer Island, (206) 275-7706,
Scott.Greenberg@mercergov.ora
City of Mountlake Terrace Parks Impact Fee
BERK helped the City of Mountlake Terrace update its GMA impact
fees for parks. BERK assisted the City in assessing how current revenue
sources could be augmented to fund growth -related expenditure
needs. Project work included preparation of a rate study, an
addendum to the City's Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Plan, and
an update to the City's Recreation, Parks, and Open Space Element
in the Comprehensive plan, and updates to the City ordinance. The
rate study included a comprehensive analysis of the City's current
recreation, parks, and open space inventory and needs in the context
of current projected growth targets and available funding options.
• Reference: Jeff Betz, Recreation & Parks Director, City of Mountlake
Terrace, (425) 640-3101, JBetz@ci.mlt.wa.us
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
92
Pierce County Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan Update
BERK is assisting Pierce County with an update to their Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The project has evolved in
three stages: 1) 2014 PROS Plan update to remain grant eligible, with
community outreach and a detailed revenue analysis; 2) white papers
on best role, funding and partnerships, capital project prioritization
approach, and an impact fee rate study; and 3) a new vision and
strategic parks plan building on the prior stages. The new impact fee
was adopted in 201 6, and involved intensive review by an Impact Fee
Working Group.
■ Reference: Joseph Coppo, Senior Parks and Recreation Planner, Piece
County Parks, (253) 798-4261, jcoppo@co.pierce.wa.us
Seattle Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Development
BERK helped the Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR) develop a
citywide parks impact fee program. BERK facilitated SPR's evaluation
process for a Level of Service (LOS) definition, including analysis of
the implications for each definition on impact fees and department
management. Using data provided by SPR staff, BERK compiled a
complete inventory list of all SPR's parks and facilities to estimate
system value to create a value -based LOS standard. BERK assisted
SPR in compiling a list of impact -fee eligible capital improvement
projects to develop an impact fee schedule. Using future growth
projects, BERK provided impact fee rate options based on different
parks user assumptions and the creation of service districts.
Seattle Department of Transportation Impact Fee Work Plan
Development
BERK helped the City of Seattle to evaluate whether to adopt an
impact fee program for transportation, park, school, and/or fire
protection facilities. The evaluation process included an assessment
of the implications of an impact fee program, both in general
terms, and in terms of each of the eligible facility categories. The
assessment consisted of taking an inventory of and evaluating current
revenue generation tools in use by the City, as well as conducting a
comparison of possible impact and mitigation fee sources—including
Growth Management Act impact fees, State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) mitigation fees, Transportation Benefit District impact fees,
and mitigation fees assessed through voluntary agreements. BERK
:111
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
5
93
Contact Information
Project Manager: Jason
Hennessy
Jason@berkconsulting.com or
206-324-8760
Task 0: Project Management &
Ongoing Coordination
Task 1: Review Existing Program
(RFP Task 1)
Task 2: Assist Estimating Growth
& Costs (RFP Task 2)
Task 3: Recommend Changes
(RFP Task 3)
Task 4: Document Study &
Recommendations (RFP Tasks 4-6)
also evaluated how an impact fee program could augment the City's
current efforts, assessed program design and associated costs to the
City, and addressed the implications for revenue generation and
development in the City.
■ Reference: Chris Yake, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Seattle,
(206) 727-8719, Christopher.yake@seattle.gov
SCOPE OF SERVICES & SCHEDULE
The schematic below graphically displays our intended scope and
schedule for this project. The following section details our proposed
scope of work.
2017
September
October
November
December
AL
Project Kickoff
Review
Work with Staff
on Pro'ection.
Recomme d Changes
Sta f ■ Council
Meeting #1
Wo kshop
■ Optional: Council
Workshop
Document
Council Meeting
#2 ■
:ill
94
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
6
Proposed
Work
Breakdown
Structure
Deliverables
■ Kickoff meeting with key
City staff
■ Memorandum presenting
program review findings
Deliverable
■ Future growth projections
and project list with costs
and share related to
growth
KEY PROJECT TASKS & MILESTONES
We have developed the following scope of work based on our current
understanding of the project and our experience in implementing
impact fees in other Puget Sound communities. As shown in the schedule
schematic on the prior page, we have realigned the anticipated
tasks listed in the RFQ. We also are showing project milestones as
deliverables in the call out boxes to the left of each task.
Task 1. Review Existing Program
We will review the City of Tukwila's existing fire and park impact fee
programs, including enacted ordinances, previous supporting materials,
existing planning documents, and expected versus actual revenues. We
will look for opportunities to optimize the City's ability to respond to
growth -related needs.
Task 2. Assist Estimating Growth & Costs
We will work with City staff to project expected future growth that
incorporate expected growth based on GMA Comprehensive Plans
and targets developed with the City and County, recent growth
trends, and the staff's knowledge of expected changes. Changes in
development and demographics will be included in these projections.
Sound growth projections will not only help the City understand future
demand, it is also part of meeting the legally required proportionate
share calculations. This process will result in an estimate change in
demand from changes in population and demographics.
As impact fees can only be collected and spent on system
improvements that are addressed by a capital facilities plan element
of an adopted comprehensive plan, we will work with staff to identify
published projects eligible for impact fee funding. For each eligible
project, we will help City staff find the share related to growth by
determining a consistent method for identifying growth -related park
use. Suggested approaches are usage data (if available), recreation
facility registrations over time, estimations based on park availability
ratios, demographic analysis, spatial estimates using GIS, or a
combination of these methods.
:111
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
7
95
Deliverables
■ Workshop with key
City staff to discuss
methodology options
■ Draft recommendations
■ Present draft
recommendations to the
City Council
■ Memorandum documenting
rate program update and
recommendations, including
schedule of updated
impact fee rates
■ Optional: Workshop with
the City Council
Deliverables
■ Memorandum documenting
rate program update and
recommendations
■ Present program
information to the City
Council
Task 3. Recommend Changes
Building on the work from the previous tasks, we will work with staff to
compile recommended changes. These recommendations will cover, but
will not be limited to, changes in policy, fee calculation methodology,
and rate structure. Policy and methodology changes could include the
City's level of service standards, project categorization, and service
areas. The analysis from the growth and cost estimation task will
inform decisions about rate structure, both in magnitude of need and
in whether including commercial or multifamily fit with the City's policy
goals.
We will determine the maximum growth -fee rates based on the
expenditures necessary to fill the gap between current capacity and
increased need attributable to growth in the City. In association with
this task, we will review the City's Capital Facility Plan for projected
revenue resources over an agreed upon period to find proportionate
share of revenue. We will work with City staff to refine non -impact fee
revenue projections relevant to fire and park capital projects.
We understand that your City Council is an engaged and detail -
oriented, so we would recommend meeting with the City Council
through the process as appropriate. We expect to share draft
recommendations with the Council, and have suggested an optional
workshop with the City Council after the workshop with staff to work
through issues to take place before drafting recommendation.
Task 4. Document Study & Recommendations
We will create a rate study update to be published in support of
the ordinance. The study update will outline the calculation details,
supporting rationale, and include an analysis of balance and
proportionality, per RCW 82.02.050. Rates for each category
of development type will be included (e.g. residential units and
commercial uses).
CITY OF TUKWILA PARK AND FIRE IMPACT FEES UPDATE
96
8
Attachment A:
Contact Information
97
ATTACHMENT A:
CITY OF TUKWILA
CONTACT INFORMATION FORM
Fire and Park Impact Fee Update
CONSULTANT NAME: Lisa Grueter, AICP, Principal
FIRM NAME: BERK Consulting, Inc.
EIN#: 91-1467862
ADDRESS: 2025 1st Ave Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98121
PHONE NUMBER: 206-324-8760
FAX
NUMBER: 206-324-8965
EMAIL ADDRESS. admin@berkconsulting.com
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
Lisa Grueter, AICP, Principal
THIS PAGE MUST BE SIGNED BY A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR THE COMPANY IN
HIS/HER OWN NAME.
Page 6 of 12
98
Attachment B:
Mountlake Terrace
Impact Fee Report
99
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Parks Impact Fee Rate Study
Prepared for:
The City of Mountlake Terrace
Recreation and Parks Department
Prepared by:
""' "'RK
October 2016
100
1
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
Contents
1.0 Introduction 3
1.1 Purpose 3
1.2 Impact Fee Definition 3
Statutory 3
Potential Deficiencies 4
Project Eligibility 4
1.3 Requirements for Impact Fee Rate Calculation 4
2.0 Fee Calculations 5
2.1 Anticipated Growth 5
Population 5
Funding Other than Impact Fees 6
2.2 Approach 6
Level of Service 6
Capital Plans 9
Future Need 9
Service Areas 10
Unadjusted Rate Schedules 11
Proportionate Share 11
Adjusted Rate Schedule 12
3.0 Policy and Plan Amendments 13
4.0 Attachments 13
4.1 Appendix A: List of System Improvements (Land and Facility Plan) 14
2101
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
The City of Mountlake Terrace enacted Growth Management Act impact fees in 2007 in order to fund
recreation, parks, and open space growth -driven needs with a particular focus on the Town Center. In 2016,
the City engaged BERK Consulting to update these rates considering a citywide need for parks and recreation
facilities. This study outlines the purpose and requirements for impact fees, documents the technical
assumptions and methodology for fee calculation, and includes proposed policy amendments and an updated
capital projects list.
1.2 Impact Fee Definition
Statutory
Impact fees are those fees charged by a local government on new development to recover a portion of the
cost of capital facility improvements needed to serve new development. Specifically, the Washington State
Legislature outlined the intent of local impact fees:
RCW 82.02.050 Impact fees—Intent—Limitations.
(1) It is the intent of the legislature:
(a) To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development;
(b) To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which
counties, cities, and towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth and
development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve
new growth and development; and
(c) To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and criteria so
that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same
impact.
(2) Counties, cities, and towns ... 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.
Impact fees may be charged to help pay for: public transportation and road facilities; fire protection facilities;
schools; and public parks, open space, and recreation facilities. Local governments are authorized to charge
fees only for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed a
proportionate share of the costs of necessary system improvements, and are only used for system
improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development (RCW 82.02.050(3)). In addition, cities
"financing for system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between impact
fees and other sources of public funds"—i.e., impact fees cannot be the sole source of funding for system
improvements that address growth impacts.
According to the provisions of RCW 82.02.060, impact fees must be adjusted for other revenue sources that
are paid by development, if such payments are earmarked or proratable to particular system improvements.
Likewise, the City must provide impact fee credit if the developer dedicates land or improvements identified
in the City's adopted Capital Facilities Plan and such construction is required as a condition of development
approval. Collected impact fees may only be spent on public facilities identified in a capital facilities plan or to
reimburse the government for the unused capacity of existing facilities (RCW82.02.050(4)). In addition, impact
102
3
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
fees may only be spent on capital costs; they may not be used to pay for operating expenses or maintenance
activities.
Potential Deficiencies
Based on the language of RCW 82.02.050(4), the capital facilities plan must identify "Deficiencies in public
facilities serving existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within
a reasonable period of time," and must distinguish such deficiencies from "Additional demands placed on
existing public facilities by new development."
The extent to which existing deficiencies exist is determined by the LOS standard that the City uses to measure
the impact created by development. The City of Mountlake Terrace is electing to use an LOS standard for land
acres based on the current inventory, so there are no existing land deficiencies. Similarly, the proposed LOS
standard for facilities is also based on the current inventory of facilities, and so is defined to have no existing
deficiencies.
Project Eligibility
Impact fee legislation requires that parks impact fees only be used for parks system improvements that benefit
the new development and relate to the demand from new development. To the extent these projects extend
capacity for park, facility, and/or trail use, that portion of the project that corresponds to an impact that can
be tied to new development can be funded by impact fees.
RCW 82.02.050(3) The impact fees:
(a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new
development;
(b) Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are
reasonably related to the new development; and
(c) Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development.
Examples of the types of Mountlake Terrace Recreation and Parks projects that may be impact -fee eligible
include added lighting and/or artificial turf to athletic fields allowing greater hours of use, expanded trails,
added waterfront access facilities, or other improvements that allow greater use. A list of the specific projects
that could support growth is found in Appendix A.
1.3 Requirements for Impact Fee Rate Calculation
The impact fee must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02, subsections 050 through
090. The City updating its schedule of impact fees for each type of development activity that is subject to
impact fees. The schedule must be based on a formula or method (RCW 82.02.060(1)). The fees must be
adjusted for the share of future taxes or other available funding sources. The means by which the
proportionate share reduction is calculated is guided by RCW 82.02.060:
RCW 82.02.060(1) ...In determining proportionate share, the formula or other method of
calculating impact fees shall incorporate, among other things, the following:
(a) The cost of public facilities necessitated by new development;
(b) An adjustment to the cost of the public facilities for past or future payments made or
reasonably anticipated to be made by new development to pay for particular system
improvements in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other payments
earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement;
(c) The availability of other means of funding public facility improvements;
4103
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
(d) The cost of existing public facilities improvements; and
(e) The methods by which public facilities improvements were financed.
2.0 FEE CALCULATIONS
2.1 Anticipated Growth
Based on direction from the City of Mountlake Terrace, impact fee calculations include growth between 2015
and 2035.
Population
The City of Mountlake Terrace adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan in 2015 that included population
growth projects from 2013-2035. For consistency, calculations in this study use the same end year of 2035,
but use 2015 as the starting year.
Exhibit 1. Current and Projected Growth for Population, Housing, and Jobs 2013-2035
2013 2015 2035
Population 20,160 21,090 24,767
Housing Units 8,689 8,862 10,593
Single -Family Dwelling Units (SFDU) 5,474 5,493 5,688
Multi -Family Dwelling Units (MFDU) 3,215 3,369 4,905
Jobs 7,174 7,384 9,486
Source: BERK, 2016; Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace, 2015.
Equivalent Population
Beyond additional residents, development is expected to bring jobs. Added jobs can increase demand on parks
infrastructure through use of the parks by the employees or non-resident visitors to those businesses. Multiple
Washington jurisdictions have attempted to capture this increased usage resulting from growth by using the
concept of equivalent population.' Equivalent population estimates are based on quantifying the amount of
time that parks are available to each group. These estimates are not an estimate of usage, but of possible
usage given the periods that parks are open.
Based on hours of operation and comparisons with other jurisdictions, BERK used an assumption that an
employee can access City parks 40% of the time a resident can access City parks. BERK used this employee to
resident equivalency factor to estimate employee growth and the number of additional resident equivalents
expected between 2015 and 2035. shows population, employment, and resident equivalents growth from
2015-2035.
' Examples of other jurisdictions that have used equivalent population include: the Cities of Issaquah, Redmond, and
Edmonds.
104
5
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
Exhibit 2. Population, Employment, and Resident Equivalent Growth, 2015-2035
Employment
Population Employment Resident -
Equivalents
Total Resident
Equivalents
Current 21,090 7,384 2,967 24,057
Growth, 2015-2035 3,677 2,102 845 4,522
2035 Total 24,767 9,486 3,811 28,578
Source: BERK, 2016; Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace, 2015.
Funding Other than Impact Fees
The City identified possible funding sources for parks capital facilities through 2015-2035 in its 2015
Comprehensive Plan, but the City did not specify funding amounts. At the time of this study, the City is
completing its budgeting process that includes integrating a recently voter -approved levy lift that includes
dedicated funding for Parks.
BERK used estimates provided by the City to find the expected share of funding related to growth — please see
Proportionate Share below.
2.2 Approach
Level of Service
The Growth Management Hearing Board has concluded that local governments need a locally -established
minimum standard, or level of service (LOS) standard, to provide a basis for the objective measurement of
need for those projects necessary to support growth (McVittie, 99-3-0016c, FDO, at 25).
In both the 2009 and 2015 versions of Mountlake Terrace's Recreation, Parks, and Open Spaces Master Plan,
the City adopted an LOS standard for land. The number of land acquisitions in a built out environment, such
as Mountlake Terrace, are limited, and so the City has elected to include an LOS standard for recreation and
parks facilities in addition to the acres -based LOS standard for land. Each LOS standard is discussed separately.
Land
Methods Considered
The City of Mountlake Terrace updated its LOS standards in the 2015 Recreation, Parks, and Open Spaces
Master Plan (RPOS). The RPOS contains descriptions for specific park types, including typical developments in
each, a list of the City's parks inventory, and narratives of future plans for each of the City's parks. The 2015
acre -based LOS has been slightly modified through a RPOS supplement, and integrated into the Parks Element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Final Land Method
For land, the City of Mountlake Terrace is using an acre -based LOS standard. This includes a base LOS standard
based on the City's current inventory and a target LOS based on current inventory plus a geographic
distribution consideration. The target LOS aligns with the recommended LOS from the 2015 RPOS Master Plan
as amended through a supplement.
6105
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
Exhibit 3. Land Level of Service Standard
Recreation/Park Type
Current
Inventory
(Acres)
Base LOS: 2015
Actual
(Acres per 1,000
Resident
Equivalents)
Target LOS:
2015 RPOS
Master Plan
(Acres per 1,000
Resident
Equivalents)
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
Regional Parks
Natural Areas/Greenways
Linear Parks
Special Use Areas
Total
25.94
18.49
54.90
63.04
15.69
9.24
187.30
1.08
0.77
2.28
2.62
NA
0.38
7.13
1.94
1.04
1.90
3.00
NA
0.44
8.32
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace, 2015.
The base LOS is 7.43 acres per 1,000 resident equivalents and is a basis for the parks improvement program
in the capital facility plan and the impact fee. As the future of availability of land is uncertain, the park type
LOS figures are distribution guidelines for acquiring land. However, the City is already relatively built out, so
as opportunities to acquire future parks and recreation acres arise, the City will attempt to keep aligned with
these LOS standards, but the total acre per capita is the base LOS standard. The target LOS is an aspirational
target consistent with the RPOS, and reflects the City's ultimate goal should additional funding become
available.
Facilities
Methods Considered
The City has elected to include an LOS standard for recreation and parks facilities in addition to the acres -
based LOS standard for land, and this standard is being incorporated into the RPOS plan through a supplement
and into the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan. For the facilities LOS standard, the City considered
two options for categorizing facilities and four approaches.
Facility Categories
Of the two options considered for categorizing facilities, the first option was used in the 2015 RPOS to describe
the City's current inventory. This categorization included 10 facility categories that are recreation activity -
specific, such as outdoor basketball courts and disc golf courses.
Alternatively, the City has considered a broader facility categorization of active/scheduled and
passive/unscheduled. Active park facilities are characterized by specialized park development that often
require scheduling because a limited number of people can use at any one time. Passive park facilities tend to
require less intensive or specialized development and involve unscheduled activities (typically non -rivalrous).
A baseball field is an example of an active facility and a nature trail is an example of a passive facility.
The City elected to adopt a facility categorization using active/schedule and passive/unscheduled facilities
categories to allow Recreation and Parks to better adapt to future demand.
Facility Approaches
The City has considered four possible approaches to implement an LOS standard for facilities:
106
7
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
1. Investment value per capita: The residents of Mountlake Terrace have already invested in the current the
facilities; this approach creates an LOS standard to keep that value per person constant by investing an
amount proportionate to the number of new residents or resident equivalents
2. Availability: Expressed in terms of time, applies to active/schedule facility types only
3. Facility per capita: The number of facilities in a given category divided by the number of residents or resident
equivalents
4. Usage/Residents per facility: The inverse of facility per capita, this approach uses a measure of throughput to
identify current LOS
Final Facilities Method
The City recommended a LOS standard for facilities based on the "Availability" approach outlined on page 8
above. This approach uses the number of hours active/scheduled facilities are available to the residents of
Mountlake Terrace and the number of passive facilities per capita. Hours of availability do not apply to
passive/unscheduled recreation facilities by the definition described above.
City staff provided BERK with a current inventory of parks and recreation facilities - an overview of this
inventory can be found in Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 4. Park Facility Inventory, 2015
Facility Type
Existing Facilities Active/
City
Hours Other Hours Total Hours Passive
Baseball/Softball Fields 6 26,088 8 17,228 14 43,316 Active
Soccer Fields 4 16,946 9 19,146 13 36,092 Active
Basketball Courts (outdoor) 2 7,084 2 4,796 4 11,880 Passive
Boat Ramp 1 4,469 0 0 1 4,469 Passive
Golf Course 0 0 1 4,469 1 4,469 Active
Disc Golf Course 1 4,469 0 0 1 4,469 Passive
Playgrounds 12 53,628 7 31,283 19 84,911 Passive
Picnic Shelters 10 44,690 3 13,407 13 58,097 Passive
Dog Park 1 4,469 0 0 1 4,469 Passive
Tennis Courts 5 18,494 10 44,690 15 63,184 Active
Gymnasiums 0 0 7 26,614 7 26,614 Active
Total for Active 15 61,528 35 112,147 50 173,675
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace, 2015 and 2016.
The City also provided average daily hours of use for each month of the year for facilities without light, and
the amount of additional hours lighting provides. BERK used these averages to calculate a total number of
hours of availability by facility type. The sum of these hours of availability is the system -wide facility
availability.
Exhibit 5. Facility LOS: Current Situation Description
Facility Type
2015 Existing Equivalent
Facilities Population LOS
Active
Passive
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016.
61,528 hours 2.6 hours
per year per capita
27 facilities 1 facility per 891
The facilities LOS approach is defined by the system -wide availability divided by the current population to
create annual hours of active recreation availability per capita. Under this LOS approach, capital projects can
add hours of active recreation opportunities for residents, either through new facilities or upgrades to existing
8107
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
facilities. For example, hours of availability for sports fields can be extended by adding lights, upgrading turf,
or striping. Mountlake Terrace closes all natural surface fields during the winter months; by upgrading to
artificial turf, these fields become available for an additional three months a year, plus additional time when
natural surface fields would be closed by rain or mowing.
This LOS method for facilities provides direction for the types of capital projects that are needed to respond
to future growth. The City's adopted LOS standard was found using this approach in combination with the
identified capital projects that would be fundable and actionable over the next twenty years. The City's
adopted facilities LOS standard is described in the Facility LOS Standard section on page 10.
Capital Plans
Mountlake Terrace Recreation and Parks provided BERK with a capital projects list, which included the portion
of each project related to growth. Appendix A, List of System Improvements, lists the 20 projects identified by
Recreation and Parks Department staff related to serving new growth. Together, these projects total $20.2
Million. These projects were included in the 2015 RPOS Master Plan and 2015 Ballinger Park Master Plan
descriptively. BERK and City staff extracted these to create a project list that was added by amendment to the
RPOS Master Plan as part of this study process.
From this list, Parks has identified expected completion dates, added project costs for each, and allocated
percent of each project related to growth. BERK used each project's proportion related to growth and
calculated impact fee -eligible costs associated with each project. Citywide, the impact fee eligible need is
calculated to be $5.2 Million.
Future Need
From the LOS standards for land found in Exhibit 3, BERK estimated the City's future land acquisition needs
using the general approach:
Acres per 1,000 Population x Population Growth = Additional Acres Needed
Exhibit 6 below contains the City's estimated additional land needs for both the base and target LOS standards.
The base LOS is the basis for the park improvement program in the capital facilities plan and the target LOS is
aspirational should additional revenue sources be found.
108
9
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
Exhibit 6. Future Land Acquisition Need, 2015-2035
Recreation/Park Type
2015
Inventory
(Acres)
Base LOS: 2015
Actual
(Acres per 1,000
Resident
Equivalents)
Target LOS:
2015 RPOS
Master Plan
(Acres per 1,000
Resident
Equivalents)
Base Anticipated
Need from
Growth
(Acres)
Target
Anticipated Need
from Growth
(Acres)
Neighborhood Parks
Community Parks
Regional Parks
Natural Areas/Greenways
Linear Parks
Special Use Areas
Total
25.94
18.49
54.90
63.04
15.69
9.24
187.30
1.08
0.77
2.28
2.62
NA
0.38
7.13
1.94
1.04
1.90
3.00
NA
0.44
8.32
4.88
3.48
11.85
NA
1.74
21.94
8.77
4.70
13.56
NA
1.99
29.03
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016; City of Mountlake Terrace, 2015
Facility LOS Standard
For the acres -based land LOS, the list of system improvement includes enough identified acquisitions to
maintain the current LOS standard. However, the identified facilities projects will not maintain the facilities
LOS standard. To maintain the current facilities LOS of 2.6 hours of active recreation facilities per resident
equivalent would require more than twice the identified number of projects and, subsequently, a much higher
impact fee. The City adjusted the project list to better align with the available funding and the community's
needs.
The resulting facilities LOS standard is listed as the base LOS standard in Exhibit 7 below. The adopted facility
LOS standards are lower than the current situation, reflecting the likely availability of funding and projects.
Exhibit 7. Facilities Level of Service Standard
Facility Type
2015 Existing Facilities
Base LOS from Project List Target LOS from Project List
LOS Inventory
Base LOS Standard
Anticipated
Additional
Facilities from
Growth
Target LOS
Anticipated
Additional
Facilities from
Growth
Active
Passive
2.6 hours 61,528 hours 2.3 hours
per capita per year per capita
1 facility per 891 27 facilities 1 facility per 904
3,528 hours
per year
5 facilities
2.4 hours
per capita
1 facility per 226
7,056 hours
per year
20 facilities
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016.
In addition to the current descriptive LOS and the base LOS standard, Exhibit 7 includes a target facilities LOS,
similar to the land LOS in Exhibit 3. It is possible to match the current LOS or target LOS by developing the
projects in the target category from the list of system improvements. As resources allow, the City will move
projects from the target category into the funded projects list.
Service Areas
Mountlake Terrace's previous impact fee ordinance authorized impact fees to be collected in two service
areas: citywide and the Town Center development. This two-level service area system authorized impact
fees to be collected citywide for residential development; however, no projects were designated eligible for
impact fees within the citywide service area apart from the Town Center Park/Plaza. Collection of impact
1°109
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
fees for commercial development was restricted to the Town Center subarea to the single purpose of
creating a public plaza, Town Center Park.
Development in the Town Center did not meet projections from 2007 and raised less impact fee revenue
than forecasted. Impact fees collected during this period must be used in the Town Center area to acquire
new land, which became more challenging when impact fee revenues were less than expected. To increase
flexibility, the City has elected to use a single, citywide service area.
Unadjusted Rate Schedules
BERK suggests two fees, one for single-family residences and one for multi -family residences. Based on 2014
U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey estimates, single-family dwellings have an average of 2.70
people living in them compared to an average of 1.95 in multi -family dwellings. Exhibit 8 contains the
suggested per dwelling unit fee before adjusting for future revenue.
Included in The Snohomish County Buildable Lands 2012 are estimates for the City's average square footage
per employee.' BERK converted this number, 400 square feet per employee, to the average number of
employees per 1,000 square feet for ease of use (2.5 employees per 1,000 square feet). Finally, the employee
to resident conversion factor was applied to find 1.00 resident equivalents per 1,000 square feet of
commercial space. These calculations are summarized in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8. Unadjusted Rate Schedule
Single -Family Multi -Family Commercial Total
Growth in population (total resident equivalents) 548 3,129 845 4,522
Identified capital needs $ 5,275,700
Per capita need from growth (total resident equivalents) $ 1,167
Residential Adjusted per Dwelling Unit Fee
Average person per dwelling unit
2.70 1.95
Residential Unadjusted per Dwelling Unit Fee
$ 3,152 $ 2,279
Commercial
Resident equivalent per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial development
1.00
Commercial Unadjusted per 1,000 sq. ft. Fee
$ 1,172
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016.
Proportionate Share
As required by the Impact Fee legislation, BERK estimated the amount of revenue expected from growth.
Residents and employees pay taxes and fees that can be used to pay for a portion of the necessary increases
in capacity.
The City provided future revenue estimates through 2020. BERK projected these estimates through the 2035
to match this study's timeframe. The expected future funding will be paid by both the current residents and
the future population. BERK calculated the proportion of the expected revenue that can be attributed to the
existing population and proportion expected from growth. The amount from growth is then:
2 Aggregate of the employment types on pages 23-24 of The Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report 2012
and the historic development in Mountlake Terrace from 1995-2010 (pages 207-209).
110
11
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
Expected Future Revenue x Share of Revenue from Growth = Expected Revenue from Growth
More specifically, using the previously calculated expected changes in population, BERK found the estimated
proportion of population resulting from growth annually. For each year between 2015 and 2035, BERK applied
the percent of population from growth to the revenue estimates to find the percent of revenue from growth.
BERK totaled this amount and divided by the additional population to find a per capita additional revenue
from growth. The revenues sources and estimate amount are in Exhibit 9 below.
Exhibit 9. Future Revenues
Revenue Source Amount
Expected additional grants from growth (2016$) $ 131,051
Expected additional REETfunding from growth $ 109,991
Total $ 241,041
Expected Population Growth 2015-2035 3,677
Per Capita Revenue $ 66
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016.
Adjusted Rate Schedule
Applying the results from Proportionate Share above, BERK created an adjusted fee schedule incorporating
expected revenue. BERK suggests two fees, one for single-family residences and one for multi -family residents.
As discussed in the unadjusted rate schedules above, single-family dwellings have an average of 2.70 people
living in them compared to an average of 1.95 in multi -family dwellings. Rates are as shown in Exhibit 10
below.
Exhibit 10. Adjusted Rate Schedule
Single -Family Multi -Family Commercial Total
Growth in population (total resident equivalents) 548 3,129 845 4,522
Identified capital needs $5,275,700
Per capita need from growth (total resident equivalents) $1,167
Residential Adjusted per Dwelling Unit Fee
Average person per dwelling unit 2.70 1.95
Unadjusted per dwelling fee $3,152 $2,279
Expected revenue for growth per capita
Expected revenue per dwelling unit $177 $128
$66
Residential Adjusted per Dwelling Unit Fee
$2,975 $2,151
Commercial
Resident equivalent per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial development 1.00
Unadjusted commercial fee per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial development $1,172
Expected revenue per 1,000 sq. ft. of Commercial $66
Commercial Adjusted per 1,000 sq. ft. Fee $1,106
Source: BERK Consulting, 2016.
The impact fee rates in Exhibit 10 represent the final recommended rates necessary to fund the growth -
related portion of the identified capital projects. These three fees, $2,975 per Single -Family residence, $2,151
per Multi -Family housing unit, and $1,106 per 1,000 square feet of Commercial development are based on
the data available at the time of this study and are expressed in 2016 dollars.
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
3.0 POLICY AND PLAN AMENDMENTS
As part of the City's process of updating the park impact fee program, updates are proposed to the 2015
Comprehensive Plan and 2015 RPOS Master Plan for consistency. At the time of the 2015 Comprehensive
Plan, the RPOS Master Plan had not been completed. The Comprehensive Plan would be updated to reflect
the RPOS Master Plan.
Additionally, the RPOS Master Plan is proposed to be amended. The RPOS Master Plan had included projects
in narrative form, but these descriptions were not a complete list of the City's identified parks capital projects.
While the RPOS Master Plan references the Ballinger Master Plan, the Ballinger Park Master Plan identified
capital plans not included in the 2015 RPOS Master Plan. BERK compiled projects from both plans into a
projects list (see Attachments below). The City check this list for completeness and accuracy, and added
project costs and proportion related to growth. This list was appended to the 2015 RPOS Master Plan.
4.0 ATTACHMENTS
4.1 List of System Improvements (Land and Facility Plan)
See the table listing proposed capital and the percentage the facility is related to growth. These estimates are
incorporated into the rate schedules in Section 2.3 of this document. Some projects would occur in the first
10 years of the planning period (2015-2025) and others in the second 10 years of the planning period (2025-
2035).
112
13
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
4.1 Appendix A: List of System Improvements (Land and Facility Plan)
c
0
1
Park Name
Ballinger Park
Park Type
Regional Parks
Project Description
Cos �
Percent
Related to
Growth
Cost Related
to Growth
Base or Facility or
Facility Type
Target Acquisition
Increase in
Available
Hours
Boat Launch Area Development - floating boat dock,
playground, and picnic shelter
$745,000
2
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Floating boat dock, gangway and nearby erosion control
$300,000
30.0%
$90,000
Base Facility Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base Improvement
3
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Restroom with showers, changing and storage areas
$238,000
20.0%
$47,600
4
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Fishing pier north of current pier
$207,000
5.0%
$10,350
5
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
East Side Active Area Development Phase I - swings, trail
development, restroom and showers, water access, and
natural features
$5,122,000
6
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Playground with soft surface by boat launch
$450,000
30.0%
$135,000
Base Facility Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base Facility Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base Facility Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base - NA
Base Improvement Passive
Base Facility Active
Base Improvement Passive
Base - NA
Base - NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base Improvement Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base Improvement Passive
1,668
7
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Big Swings and soft surface east side
$43,000
30.0%
$12,900
8
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Picnic shelter and tables near boat launch
$300,000
25.0%
$75,000
9
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Development of wetlands around trail, east side
$781,000
10.0%
$78,100
10
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Boulder amenities east side
$18,000
10.0%
$1,800
11
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Stone bands
$30,000
10.0%
$3,000
12
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Hardened edge and shore armoring east side
$1,750,000
10.0%
$175,000
13
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Concrete steps and native vegetation at shoreline east
side
$1,750,000
10.0%
$175,000
14
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Entry/perimeter fencing and signage
$110,000
0.0%
$0
15
Evergreen Park
Community Parks
Site master plan integrating all three areas
$50,000
5.0%
$2,500
16
Evergreen Park
Community Parks
Playfield E-1 Lights and turf
$1,800,000
30.0%
$540,000
17
Inter -Urban Trail
Linear Parks
Amenities (benches and trash receptacles)
$50,000
5.0%
$2,500
18
Inter -Urban Trail
Linear Parks
Safety and security lighting along various points of trail
$50,000
0.0%
$0
19
Jack Long Park
Neighborhood Parks
Parking lot security lighting
$10,000
0.0%
$0
20
Lyon Creek Greenway
Natural Area/Greenway
Acquire adjacent properties - Phase I
$333,000
50.0%
$166,500
21
Matt Hirvela / Bicentennial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Replacement / upgrade of play equipment
$85,000
10.0%
$8,500
22
Matt Hirvela / Bicentennial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Expand trail system through park
$25,000
10.0%
$2,500
23
Recreation Pavilion
Special Use Areas
Create design and business plan for a new Recreation
Pavilion
$150,000
10.0%
$15,000
24
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Upgrade playground and add restroom
$350,000
25
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Restrooms
$250,000
30.0%
$75,000
Base Improvement Passive
Base Improvement Passive
Base - NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base - NA
Base - NA
26
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Improve safety surface and playground
$100,000
10.0%
$10,000
27
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Info/Safety signage disc golfers/park users
$5,000
0.0%
$0
28
Town Center Plaza
Special Use Areas
A central plaza for community with water feature
$3,855,000
45.0%
$1,734,750
29
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Demo of maintenance building
$10,000
0.0%
$0
30
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Hall Creek Restoration North
$680,000
0.0%
$0
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
o Park Name
cc
Park Type
Project Description
et
Percent
Related to
Growth
Cost Related
to Growth
Base or Facility or
Facility Type
Target Acquisition
Increase in
Available
Hours
31 Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Hall Creek Restoration South
$2,100,000
0.0%
$0
Base - NA
Base Facility Active
Base Facility Passive
Base - NA
Base - NA
Base - NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base - NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base Acquisition NA
Base Acquisition NA
1,860
32
Evergreen Park
Community Parks
Playfield E-6 lights and turf
$1,600,000
30.0%
$480,000
33
Evergreen Park
Community Parks
Replace and expand support facilities including concession
building and restrooms
$400,000
20.0%
$80,000
34
Forest Crest Playfield
Community Parks
Movable benches or small bleachers
$30,000
0.0%
$0
35
Forest Crest Playfield
Community Parks
Drainage, irrigation and a sand -based playing surface
$100,000
0.0%
$0
36
Inter -Urban Trail
Linear Parks
Interpretive signage (Historical and Natural Features)
$10,000
0.0%
$0
37
Lyon Creek Greenway
Natural Area/Greenway
Acquire adjacent properties - Phase II
$333,000
50.0%
$166,500
38
Lyon Creek Greenway
Natural Area/Greenway
Acquire adjacent properties - Phase III
$333,000
40.0%
$133,200
39
Lyon Creek Greenway
Natural Area/Greenway
Safety, way -finding and interpretive signage along the
greenway.
$20,000
0.0%
$0
40
Matt Hirvela / Bicentennial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Access point north side of the park via purchase or
easement
$50,000
10.0%
$5,000
41
Melody Hill
Neighborhood Parks
Area in need of a neighborhood park
$1,000,000
50.0%
$500,000
42
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Property acquisition to expand/protect
$200,000
50.0%
$100,000
43
Terrace Ridge Park
Neighborhood Parks
Connect via trail to Cedar Way and Lyon Creek-powerline
easement
$200,000
50.0%
$100,000
44
To Be Determined
Natural Area/Greenway
Future natural area/greenway acquisition to be determined
as opportunities arise (approximately 7 acres)
$700,000
50.0%
$350,000
45
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Athletic Field Area Development - splash pad, restrooms,
and viewing area
$1,060,000
46
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Splash pad by Playfields
$500,000
20.0%
$100,000
Target Facility Passive
Target - NA
Target Improvement Passive
Target Improvement Passive
47
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Parking lot
$210,000
0.0%
$0
48
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Restroom with showers and storage areas near Splash
Pad
$300,000
20.0%
$60,000
49
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Benches and tables near Splash Pad
$50,000
5.0%
$2,500
50
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
West Side Natural Area Development Phase 1 - wildlife
viewing platform, discovery pads, trails, and natural area
development
$687,000
51
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Asphalt Trails
$506,000
70.0%
$354,200
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
52
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Development meadow around trail
$150,000
10.0%
$15,000
53
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Discovery pads
$31,000
90.0%
$27,900
54
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Wildlife viewing platform on west side of park over water
$100,000
70.0%
$70,000
55
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
West Side Natural Area Development Phase II - trails, walls,
and habitat construction
$2,243,000
12.3%
$276,150
Target
Facility
Passive
56
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Development of creekside trail with walls and habitat
snags west side
$420,000
10.0%
$42,000
Component Passive
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
oCost
CC
Park NamePark
Type
Project Description
Percent
Related to
,Growth
Related
to Growth ,
Base or Facility or
TargeL Acquisition
Facility Type
Increase in
Available
Hours
57
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
New bridge over Hall Creek near Clubhouse
$638,000
10.0%
$63,800
Component Passive
Component Passive
Component Passive
Component Passive
Component Passive
58
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Boardwalk over the wetland and creek
$155,000
40.0%
$62,000
59
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Crushed rock trails
$93,000
15.0%
$13,950
60
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Soft surface trails
$14,000
15.0%
$2,100
61
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Development of wetlands around trail, west side
$923,000
10.0%
$92,300
62
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Community Terrace Development - wetland trails, runnel,
rain garden, plaza, and community garden and shed
$702,000
63
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Development of wetlands around trail, north side
$55,000
10.0%
$5,500
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Facility Active
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Active
Target Improvement Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Improvement Passive
Target Facility Passive
Target Improvement Passive
1,668
1,860
64
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Development of wetlands around trail, main/clubhouse
$226,000
10.0%
$22,600
65
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Community garden and shed
$240,000
10.0%
$24,000
66
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Runnel and rain gardens
$81,000
10.0%
$8,100
67
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Plaza south of clubhouse
$100,000
10.0%
$10,000
68
Ballinger Park
Regional Parks
Athletic Fields - playfield lights and turf
$1,600,000
30.0%
$480,000
69
Evergreen Park
Community Parks
Improve pathways and trail access
$100,000
5.0%
$5,000
70
Evergreen Park
Community Parks
Playfield E-4/5 Lights and turf
$1,600,000
30.0%
$480,000
71
Fire Fighters Memorial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Park amenity upgrade including benches, tables and signage
$5,000
10.0%
$500
72
Fire Fighters Memorial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Playground upgrade
$50,000
15.0%
$7,500
73
Forest Crest Playfield
Community Parks
Site master plan
$50,000
10.0%
$5,000
74
Forest Crest Playfield
Community Parks
Restrooms with storage and concession capability
$300,000
25.0%
$75,000
75
Inter -Urban Trail
Linear Parks
A third trail head connect the Inter -Urban Trail to Premera
Blue Cross
$150,000
20.0%
$30,000
76
Inter -Urban Trail
Linear Parks
Small-scale recreation facilities such as a play area or fitness
stations
$20,000
10.0%
$2,000
77
Jack Long Park
Neighborhood Parks
Expand trail system through park
$15,000
10.0%
$1,500
78
Jack Long Park
Neighborhood Parks
Playground equipment upgrades
$25,000
30.0%
$7,500
79
Lyon Creek Greenway
Natural Area/Greenway
Develop formal trailheads
$30,000
30.0%
$9,000
80
Lyon Creek Greenway
Natural Area/Greenway
Trail amenities (lighting and benches)
$20,000
5.0%
$1,000
81
Recreation Pavilion
Special Use Areas
New Recreation Pavilion as directed by the master plan
$30,000,000
40.0%
$12,000,000
82
Recreation Pavilion
Special Use Areas
New trailhead into Lyon Creek Greenway with kiosk
$10,000
20.0%
$2,000
83
Recreation Pavilion
Special Use Areas
Playground
$55,000
40.0%
$22,000
84
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Improve crossings 48th Avenue West pedestrian/disc golf
access
$10,000
10.0%
$1,000
85
Terrace Creek Park
Neighborhood Parks
Trail head features (interpretive signage) to Lyon Creek
Greenway
$10,000
10.0%
$1,000
86
Terrace Ridge Park
Neighborhood Parks
Playground equipment and site furnishings
$85,000
30.0%
$25,500
87
Veteran's Memorial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Enhance trails and access points (surface and lighting)
$200,000
50.0%
$100,000
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE PARKS IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RATE STUDY
1' 0
88
Park Name Park Type
Project Description
Percent
Cost Related to
Growth
Cost Related Base or Facility or
to Growth Target Acquisition
Increase in
Facility Type Available
Hours
Veteran's Memorial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Site master plan with adjacent natural, transportation, civic
features
$50,000
30.0%
$15,000
Base Subtotal
Target Subtotal
Total
$20,506,000
$39,177,000
26% $5,275,700
36% $14,246,450
Target Improvement Passive
$59,683,000 33% $19,798,300
Passive Active Hours
Facilities per Year
5 3,528
15 3,528
20 7,056
Figure 16-1
Tukwila Fire Impact Fees, 2008
TABLE 1. Tukwila Fire Impact Fee Calculation, 2008
2007 2.7
Land UST Housing ErnfSlaOi}me
Units -1 nt - 2
Net Growl h.2008-2020
Impact Fee
Musing Building Employme
l'niils-3 Area - 4 nt-5
Per
Residential Per f;l.A 1'cr 1,000
Sit. Ft. GF
Unit
Single tamih.
3.822
227
516
117
8%
S922
Multi -family
866
Multi -family
4.147
349
2.384
261
296
SI .21}0
705
491
0Pik e
Office
6.245
10%
370,500
1,482
625
51.62
51,624
Retail
148
20384
1.,.55336
2,418.0170
4,836
22%
50.58
5580
Industrial
31%
20,343
7L5
3860.800
4,826
51,403,649
50.13
5127
TOTALS
111
46,972
508
6,649,300
11,141
25.0
120
8%
1. 0fM ambers
2. PSRC 2007 Coveted Eutplo3m ent Fst uwts
3- 43 SF diner. rest is lar from 2007 Buildable Lands Report
4. Retail. Megsf Per emp, Office: 250gsf per emp; tmdustrnat ltapgsf per emp: X emp growth
5 9( at Buildable lands Report est ielate& t same % as 2007 emplo n a
TABLE 2. Tuk►xila Fire Service Demand Calculation, 2008
Lund Use
2007 Responses
Incident
Responses
Proportion
Based al
1 on Net Reallocatio
Total n of
"Other"
Revised
2007 Responses
Incident
Responses.
1
nl
lncidaIncident
Responses Responses
per 1,010 per 1,111117
Units Employee
Increase in Annual Incident
Responses due to Growth
Capital Costs
Allocated by
1 Incident
s Responses due
to G rowth
Incident
Responses
Single family
619
13'-o
19°0
249
868 _
19'0
227
117
8%
5475,668
Multi -family
866
19%
26%
349
E 1215
261
296
705
491
52,861,894
Office
445
10%
131
179
625
131
100.0
148
101
1.,.55336
Retail
1.039
22%
31°'6
415
1,458
31%
7L5
346
24%
51,403,649
Industrial
362
8%
111
146
508
111
25.0
120
8%
5488,804
NET TOTAL
3,332
71%
100°.6
1,341
4:673
100%
1,437
100%
55,831,550
Other
1,341
29%
TOTAL
4,673
1001
10IPe
L341
4,673
1001
1001
55,831,550
Note: The 513.031,550 capital cost is 901 of 514,479,560 t he growlh related fire capital cost}_
Figure 16-1
Tukm. ila Fire Impact Fees, 2008
TABLE 3. 2007 Incident Responses hy Proper y Type Si Allocation to Impact Fee Categories
Fire Dept. land
Ellie Aid Total
Lise Categories
IMPACT FEE CATEGORIES
Single- Slulli-
{Office Retail Industrial TOTAL
Family family
Public Assembly
12
42
54
54
Educational
18
30
48
48
Health Care"
27
90
117
70
47
Single-family
159
460
619
619
Apartments
224
570
794
79.1
Boarding Rouse
0
2
2
2
Hotels
102
203
305
305
Business**
441
590
1,031
351
680
Industrial
12
2
14
14
Manufacturing
57
47
104
104
Storage
81
163
244
244
91.113TOTAL
1,133
2,199
3,332
619
866
445
1,1139
362
3,332
PFR[EilPDF
SUBTOTAL
19%
26%
13%
31•l
11
100!
Special Property
275
855
1,130
Unclassified
148
63
211
SUBTOTAL
423
')18
1.34 I
Rea lloratinn of
Special Property
& Unclassified
243
3.19
179
418
146
1.341
TOTAL
INCIDENT
RESPONSES B'l
IMPACT FEE
CATEGORY
868
1.215
625
1,458
5118
4,673
* split 60% Multi -family, 40% Office (Redmond)
** split 34° Office, 66% Retail (2007 Tukwila)
Figure 16-2
EXI-IIBIT B
Fire Department Capital Facilities List
Capital Facility Cost
1. Construct/build relocated Station 51 —5,000 gsf $2,000,000'
addition due to new growth in TUC
2. Purchase aid car for Station 51 (new) $185.000
3. Purchase engine for Station 54 to replace aerial $750,000
ladder truck
4. Purchase land for relocated Station 52, if Station 51 $544,5002
is relocated
5. Construct/build relocated Station 52, if Station 51 is $3.000.0003
relocated
TOTAL $6,479,500
1) 5,000 gsf building addition x$400/psf building construction cost
2) 1/2 acre site (21,780 sf) x $25/psf land cost
3) 7,500 gsf building x $400/psf building construction cost
Page 1 of 1
119
Figure 16-3
Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008
TABLE 1: 2008 Park Impact Fee Calculations
Land Use
2007 2007 2007 2020 Housing 2020 2020
Housing Employment Building Area. Units Employme Building Area
Units -1 - 2 -3
nt
Single-family
3,822
3,329
1 L78%
4,338
2,384
Multi -family
4,107
2.49
14,781
6,491
370,500
133
Office
_
6,245
1,561,250
435
7,727
1,931,750
Retail
3,860,800
20,384
10,192,000
2,900
25,220
12,610,000
Industrial
10,141
20,343
16,274,400
25,169
20,135,200
TOTALS
7,929
46,972
28,027,650
10,829
58,116
34,676,950
1. OFM
2. PSRC 2007 Covered Emplooyment Estimates
3. Retail: S00gsf per emp; Office: 250gsf per emp; Industrial: 800gsf per ernp; X emp growth
4. 43 SF du/yr; rest is MF from 2007 Buildable Lands Report
5. 90% of Buildable Lands Report estimates, at same % as 2007 employment
6. Tukwila Resident/Non-Tukwila resident breakdown based on 2000 census data
In 2000, the number of residents who live and work in Tukwila is 1,502, out of a population of 17,181
Net Growth, 2008 - 2020
Housing Units - Employmen Building Employment Employment:
4 t -5 Area - 3 : Tukwila Non -Tukwila
Residents - Residents -
9%-6 91%-6
516
2.54
3,329
1 L78%
50
2,384
SO
2.49
2.49
14,781
1,482 _
370,500
133
1,349
50
4,836
2,418,000
435
4,401
50
4,826
3,860,800
434
4,392
2,900
11,144
6,649,300
1,003
10,141
9%
Impact Fee
Persons per Hours per Total % Hours Cost Per Housing
Housing Unit Week Hours Allocation Unit
Per 1,000
GFA**
Rounded
2.54
2.54
3,329
1 L78%
50
50.00
SO
2.49
2.49
14,781
52,32%
50
$0.00
50
1.00
1,349
4.77%
50
50.00
SO
1.00
4,401
15.58%
50
50.00
50
1.00
4,392
15.55%
50
50.00
50
28,251
100.00%
Note: $11,025,000 is 90% of 512,250,000
120
Figure 16-3
EXHIBIT A
Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008
(80% itnpact fees; 20% city contribution
TABLE 1: 2008 Park Impact Fee Calculatior(80%- 20% split)
Land l'se
2007 2007 2007 Building 2020 ]lousing 2020 2020 Building
Housing Employment Area -3 Units Employment Area
Units -1 -2
Single-family
3.822
2.44
3.198
4.338
$735,607
]Multi -family
Multi -family
4.107
Multi -family
2,49
6,491
Office
52.06%
Office
370.500
6.245
1,561,250
Retail
7,727
1,931.750
12c to i I
435
20.384
10.192,000
S837.28
25.220
12,610,000
Industrial
4.392
20,343
16,274.400
11,144
25,169
20.135,200
TOTALS
7,929
46.972
28.027,650
10.829
58,116
34.676.950
1. OFM
2. PSRC 2007 Covered Employment Estimates
3. Retail: 500gsf per emp; Office: 250gsf per emp: Industrial: 800gsf per emp; X emp growth
4. 43 SF du/yr; rest is MF from 2007 Buildable Lands Report
5. 90% of Buildable Lands Report estimates, at same % as 2007 employment
6. Tukwila ResidenttNon-Tukwila resident breakdown based on 2000 census data
In 2000, the number of residents who live and work in Tukwila is 1,502, out of a population of 17,181, or 9%
Land Use
Net Growth, 2008 = 2020
Housing; Employment Building Area - Employment: Employment:
Units - 4 -5 3 Tukwila Ion -Tukwila
Residents - 9% Residents - 9.1% -
-6 6
Single-family
516
2.44
3.198
11.49%
$735,607
]Multi -family
2.384
S1,426
Multi -family
2,49
2.44
Office
52.06%
1.482
370.500
133
1.349
Retail
4,836
2.418.000
435
4.401
Industrial
S837.28
4,826
3.860,800
434
4.392
TOTALS
2.900
11,144
6.649.300
1,003
10,141
Land Use
Persons Use Ratio Total Use by
Land Use
Category
per Between
Housing Residents/
Unit Fmpiovees
Impact Fee
% Used by Cost Allocation Per I -lousing
Land Use
Category
Unit
Per 1,000
GFA**
Rounded
Single-family
2.54
2.44
3.198
11.49%
$735,607
1 $1.425.59
S1,426
Multi -family
2,49
2.44
14,484
52.06%
$3.331.715
$133397.53
S1,398
Office
1.00
1,349
4.85%
$310,214
S837.28
S837
Retail
1.00
4.401
15,82%
$1.012.279
S418.64
S419
Industrial
1.00
4,392
15,78%
$1,010,185
$261.65
S262
TOTALS
27,823
100.00%
$6.400,000
Note: $6.400,00 s 80% of $8.000,000
121
Figure 16-4
Exhibit B
Tukwila Parks Capital Facilities List
Project List — impact Fees 2009 to 2015
Project Cost
Duwamish Hill Preserve
Develop Phase 11
S-27000-040
*S2,500,000
Trail Connections
Green River Trail to Renton
Black/Cedar River Trail
$500,000
Tukwila Pond
Development — Phase FV
$3,000,000
City T<<kw 4a Pont
{Extend Land 'easel; expand
*$500,000
of
features
and servicc5
TOD Pedestrian Bridge
Sounder Connection
2,000,000
Total
$8,000,000
* Tukwila Pool removed from list due to the formation of the Metropolitan Park District in 2011;
those funds were added to the Duwamish Hifi Preserve project.
NOTE: Previous version of Exhibit B (prior to strike -through changes resulting from formation of
the MPD) was included as an attachment to Ordinance No. 2220.
Revised January 2012
122