HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 2571 - ATTACHMENTS A & B - 2018 Fire and Park Impact Fee Rate Study / Fire Impact Fee Scheduled Park1
Fee
Rate
Rate Study to Update Tukwila's Fire and Parks Impact Fees
Prepared for:
The City of Tukwila
Prepared by:
BERK Consulting, Inc.
L.
mm
00'
Date:
April 2018
Exhibit A
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study Introduction
Contents
II infrwd ucti o n.,..._............ .,....,.........,.,,,,^,.,,,,.,.,,..,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,_,__,,,_,,~,,,,_,~^,,,,,,,,_,,,~,,,,_,,,^,,,,~,.,3
1,1 Purpose 3
1.1.1 Impact Fee Definition 3
1.1.2 Requirements for Impact Fee Rate Calculation 5
2 Fee CwAcuVafi*ns~..,~.._--..^.,.'.............. -...,........ ....^...^..^..,.-..................... ......... ..-...-~.......... _.~..'�5
2.1 An icipoted Growth 5
2.1.1 Residential: Population, Housing, and Household 3icw b
2.1.2 Commercial: Employment 7
2.1.3 Funding Other than Impact Fees 7
2.1.4 Level of Service and Methodology 7
2.1.5 [op|to| Plans l l
2.1.6 Identified Capital Projects l l
2.1.7 Futons Need 12
2.1.8 Service Areas 13
2.1.9 Unadjusted Rate Schedules 13
2.1.10 Proportionate Share 15
2.1.11 Adjusted Rate Schedule 16
3 P8`,nAnmemdm`eints-,.-.........~.....~..,............ ..,....._......,............. .,,,............ ............... ......... ... 19
3.1 Financial Planning Model and [opko| Improvement Program 19
3.2 Tukwila Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan 19
4 Atta c hm e iinta,....-............. ....... ....... .....,.-.,~...,..... ....... ...~.......~..-,...,....~.....-.....~..__............. 70
4.1 Appendix A: List ofSystem Improvements 21
4.1.1 Fire System Improvements List 21
4.1,2 Parks System Improvements List 21
4.2 Appendix 8'System Valuation for Fire and Parks 22
IFire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Introduction
2
I Kntrod ct°on
1,1 PURPOSE
The City of Tukwila enacted Growth Management Act impact fees in 2008 in order to fund growth -driven
needs |nfire and emergency services and recreation, parks, and open space. In 2017, the City engaged
BERK Consulting to update these rotes to incorporate current growth projections, to respond to newly
adopted fire and parks capital needs, and toaddress perceived shortcomings inthe 20O8fee structure.
This study outlines the purpose and requirements for impact fees, documents the technical assumptions and
methodology for fee calculation, presents the findings from these calculations, and includes proposed
amendments to planning documents and on updated capital projects list.
l,l.l Impact Fee [je,finition
Statutory
Gn»vv1k Management Act impact fees are those fees charged by o local government on new development
to recover portion of the cost nfcapital fod|hY improvements needed toserve that new development.
Specifically, the Washington 3toks Legislature outlined the intent of local impact fees in RCVV 82.02.050:
(/) /t 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 developmentbyestablishing standards bywhich counties,
cities, and towns may require' by ordinance, that new growth and development pay o
proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and
development; and
(c) To ensure that i/npod fees are imposed hhpuuo6 established procedures and criteria so
that specific developments do not pay on6ihnry fees or duplicative fee, for the some
(2) Counties, cities, and towns ... are authorized h» impose impact fees ondevelopment oc6vih'
as part ofthe financing for public facilities, provided that the financing for system
improvements to serve new development must provide for 6o/onoe 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 fod|Nes/ 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 (R[VV 82.02.050(3)). In addition, cities'
"financing for system improvements toserve new development must provide for o balance between impact
foes and other sources of public funds'` — i.e., impact fees cannot be the sole source of funding for system
improvements that address growth impacts.
N,
11
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Introduction
l
| 3
According to the provisions of K[W 82.02.060i impact fees must be adjusted for other revenue sources
that are paid by development, if such payments are earmarked or pronztuWe to particular system
improvements. Likewise, the City must provide impact fee credit if the developer dedicates |on6 o,
improvements identified in the [ity's adopted Capital Facilities Plan and such construction is required as o
condition of development approval. Collected impact fees may only be spent on public facilities identified
in o capital facilities plan and may only be spent on copho| costs; they may not be used to pay for
operating expenses or maintenance activities. (R[VV82.02,050(4)).
PohsnMv/Defic/enuieS
Based on R[\x/ 82.02.050(4), the cupho| facilities plan must identify "[d]eficiencies in public facilities
serving existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within o
reasonable period of time," and must distinguish such deficiencies from "[m]ddkiono| demands placed on
existing public facilities bynew development."
The extent to which deficiencies exist is determined by the level of service (LOS) standard that the City uses
to measure the impact created by development.
As port of developing the 2016 Public Safety Plan, the [hY conducted o Facilities Needs Assessment that
considered the state of the City's four fine stations, both in their ability to respond to current needs and
anticipated future growth. That assessment found that all four stations are undersized and three have
significant deficiencies (Investing in Tukwila, 201J'l 2'l 4, p l 1).
However, those three stations with deficiencies are being relocated or nap|oosd with facilities that not only
address existing deficiencies but also plan for additional future growth. For example, capacity for
additional apparatus boys were added to the plans for Stations 51 and 54 '1n accommodate future
population growth" (City of Tukwila, "Public Safety Plan Fine Stohcm Programming and Budget
Implications", Information Memo, 2017'06'08, p 93 of Council Agenda Synopsis for Tukwila City Council
Mueehngof2Ol7'0d'l2).[)n|ythnseporhonsofthep|onstone|ocoteond/orrep|ocestohons,opponztus,
and equipment were considered in this study.
Parks
In the City of Tok*i|o's 2014 Parks, Recreation and [)pen Space Plan, 10 service access gaps were
identified throughout the City (Tukwila PROS Plan: Parks and Recreation Needs Analysis, p 9). These gaps
are based on w Level of Service standard that all residents and visitors should be within 114 to1/2 miles of
a City -owned park (Needs Analysis, p 7). In compliance with R[VV 82'02.050, these 70 gaps are not
included in the capital projects used to calculate impact fees in this study. The capital projects used in this
study are described in 2.1.6 Identified Capital Projects on page l l.
proectFCmhbil/fy
Impact fee legislation requires that impact fees only be used for system improvements that benefit the new
development and relate tnthe demand from new development. To the extent these projects extend five
service and parks capacity, the growth -related portion of capital project costs can be funded by impact
fees. RCVV 82.02.050(3) specifies that impact fees:
IN
�
11
{ Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Introduction
4
(a) Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new
06 36o// not exceed o proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are
reasonably related to the new development; and
(c) 56o0 be used for system improvements that will benefit the new development.
Examples ofthe types ofTukwila Fire Department and Tokvvi|o Parks and Recreation projects that are
impqct'feee||gib|e include building additional square footage to accommodate future additional bays to
planned fire stations, new fire equipment, development ofthe Tukwila Pond Trail and Boordvvo|k, installing
artificial turf to athletic fields to oUnvv increased hours ofuse. A list ofthe specific projects that could support
growth is found in Appendix A.
1.1.2 Requiren0enfSfOrmn�,aadFee Rote�Ccflcu|at�on
Impact fee must be assessed in accordance with the requirements of R[W 82J02 subsections OJ0through
090. The schedule most be based on o fonno|o or consistent method (kCVY R2.O2.0d0(l)),The fees must
be adjusted for the shore of future taxes or other available funding sources. The means by which the
proportionate shone reduction is calculated is guided by RCVV 82.02.060�
(7) ... 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 post or foh/ro payments made or
reasonably anticipated to be mode by ne,, development to pay for particular system
improvements /n the form of user foox' debt service payments, taxes, or other payments
earmarked for orpronoho6/e to the particular system improvement;
(c) The availability ofother means offunding public facility improvemenb;
(d) The cost ofexisting public facilities improvements; and
(e) The methods by which public facilities improvements were financed,
u�
�� Fee �v�~ ���K
n cu
�.
A NT
(_U
Based the available capital project lists, demographic projections, and lO'yeorexpenditure window for
collected impact fees, this study incorporates Onz*th for the l0'yeor period between 2018 and 2027.
Additional consideration was made for the following period within the [ity`s 20'yeor planning period of
the Comprehensive Plan, 2O28'2O3l orlater. Aathe City identifies capital projects inthe later part ofthe
planning period window, the City will update the rote schedule accordingly.
The City of Tukwila provided employment and household growth estimates for 2Dl0'2O30consistent with
the City of Tukwila assumptions for its long-range growth in consultation with P3kC 8ERK incorporated
�
�
� Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
|
5
�
�
�
employment, population, household size, and housing unit data from the Office of Financial Management
(C}FM), Puget Sound Regional Council (P5RC),U.5.Census Boreoo`sAmericon Community Survey (ACS),the
King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the City of Tokvvi|o Comprehensive Plan. Using linear
interpolation to adapt the twenty-year City estimates to the 10'year impact fee timeline, 8ERK found
annual expected growth in employment and residential figures for population, housing, and household size.
These results one split between commercial employees and residents below.
2.1.1 �"opLAmflon,� �()us�n(�,C-1nd HOusehOld S�Ze
The City of Tukwila provided internal estimates nfgrowth in housing units. 8ERKco|o/|oied City ofTukwila
resident population by applying P5R[ household size estimates tuthe [iiy's housing unit estimates. These
projections oounne o linear growth trend, which is different from what the City will oguoUy experience as
projects tend to get built during economic upturns and construction slows during recessions and economic
downturns.
Exhibit l shows household size, housing units, and population projections. Both P5RC and the U.S. Census
Bureau's ACS produce average household sizes for the City of Tukwila. The ACS estimates include a greater
level of detail of the estimated population residing in different housing types, but the P3RC figures more
closely align with the C}FM population estimates prepared for counties and cities planning under the Growth
Management Act. Generally, the P5R[figunes are used in this study except when o greater level of detail
is needed by housing type, in which cuseA[3 estimates one used.
There are some small discrepancies between housing targets. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning
Policies set growth targets for the [hY of Tukwila uf4,800 new housing units between 2006 and 2031.
These targets were updated in the King County Buildable Lands Report 2014, where the 203 1 housing unit
target was adjusted to 4,/73 more units by 2031 based on o base year of 2012 and accounting for
residential building permits. The [ih' of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan contains p 2031 housing target of
4,800hoodng units(p 3'5).This analysis assumes on additional 4,773 units tobeadded between 2012
and 2031 given the updated status of the target. Using linear extrapolation between 2017 and 2031
results in o target of 3,108 new units by 2027.
Exhibit l.Projected Household Size, 2Ol7and 20l8-2027
2017 2'51 7,833 19660
No�*. PSR(" Provides e�tixuuefornve,vge household ,iz* for 2025, 2030' 3035, moJ 20*0 bERKvsed |ioenr
e^t,opn|o/io^ bef°eenthous years mestimm=the nnmvn|houochu|d S�ze�
The King County Countywide Planning Policies set growth targets for the City of Tukwila that represent
40% increase in housing units bythe end of 2027.
�
�
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Fee Calculations
d
The King County Countywide Planning Policies donot differentiate between housing types in growth targets.
To find the expected breakdown of single family and multifamily, 8ERK used the historic housing type
estimates from OFk«'s Postcenso| Estimates of Housing Units reports to find the expected change in single
family/multifamily. Exhibit 2 shows projected housing unit growth by type.
Exhibit 3.Projected Change inHousing Units 6yType, 2010-2027
M�e ORM �ndvdesd`ree cuoeu^r'�es--- 5ing�eFomi|y,wwh�fnmi|y' ond mobile M"mes/5pocR|s/ fo'rhis oov|ys�s,wwhi|e
Homes/5peciob were. iodudedi^Siog|e Family.
2.1.2 [.)rnrnerdcd: Ernp�7yrrienf
The City ofTukwila provided estimates nfemployment growth for 2Ol3'203C\which 8ERK interpolated
using PSR['smost recent 20l5employment estimates tofit the 2OlG-2O27impact fee timeline. Employment
projections for 2018'2027 are shown in Exhibit 3 bdnvv'
Exhibit 3.Projected Employment, 2013-2030
NMI,
�� /111 00110191�|
2013 45J098
2017 50,330
`
2018 50,924
While not as large of on increase as is estimated for housing, the P3RC estimates suggests o significant
increase in employees of 12.596 over ten-year period.
2,�.3 FVn&ngOther thom4mnpact Fees
BERK used historic budget octuo|s provided by the City to find the expected shone of funding related to
growth — please see 2.1 .10 Proportionate Share on page 15.
2.1A Leve�ofService and Methodobgy
To collect impact fees for parks, the City of Tukwila has identified parks facilities and services necessary
to support growth. By law, these projects must be addressed in o copho| facilities plan (RCVV
82.02.050(4)). The Growth Management Hearing Board concluded in MoVittie 1999 that local
governments need o locally -established minimum standard to provide the basis for objective measurement
10
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
|
7
�
of need for those projects necessary to support growth (MoVhhe, 99'3'0016c FD[i at 35)or o Level of
Service (LOS) standard.
The City of Tukwila created five land use categories for determining Fire and Parks Impact Fees. These five
categories are:
* Residential: Single Family
* Reddenho|'Mu|h'Fomi|y
* Commercial: Retail
* Commercial: Office
Commercial: Industrial
Tukwila Fire Department uses o response time approach as o Level ofService standard. /\ response time
L{}S standard is included in both the 2008 Tukwila Fire Department Comprehensive Master Plan and the
2017 City of Tukwila Fire Station Location 3h/6v. The existing system investment is what the City has
determined is necessary to maintain their identified LC}5 standard for the current population.
In order to maintain this standard, the Fire Department needs to o6J capacity to respond to development
driven increases in fire service incidents. To determine the cost of the additional needed capacity on o per
residential unit and per commercial square foot basis, BERK estimated the 2017 replacement cost ofthe
Tukwila Fire Department's system divided by the number of incidents per development type. This created
o cost per incident Combining the average number of incidents per development type with the cost per
incident produced p cost per unit. Each step is described below.
To 6n6 the 2017 replacement cost, 8ERK estimated the cost of the |onJ' facilities, and
equipment/apparatus. The methodology for each is described separately.
Land: Todetermine the replacement cost ofthe Tukwila F|ns Department's land, 8ERKosed G|5 and King
County Assessor data to find the average |unJ value within one -quarter mile of each the four current
Tukwila Fire Department stations. These land values ranged from $8'$15 per square foot; by multiplying
the surrounding aggregate land value per square foot bythe fire lot square feet, 8ERK*shmoted the land
values for each of the four fire station parcels.
Facilities: The City recently received updated cost estimates for replacing and/or relocating three of the
four fire stations (stations 5l,J3,and 54). 8ERKgeneroted pstation-level cost per square foot bydividing
the estimated project cost bythe proposed square footage. The existing station sizes were multiplied by
the cost per square foot to find o replacement cost for the stations as they exist today. The cost of the
Tukwila Emergency Operations [enter (EC>C) was separated from station Jl, where itiscurrently housed,
and brought out os o separate project as part ofthe planned Tukwila Justice Center, which will include the
EC}['
Gqwlpnnmnt and Apparatus: Using o combination of data from the 2008 Tukwila Fire Department
Comprehensive Master Plan, City financial records of fire capital investments from 2008'2017, and the
City`s fleet oa,vioas replacement schedule for fine equipment and apparatus, on estimate of the
replacement costs for the Chy'sfive equipment and apparatus inventory was calculated.
Adding these three figures together, 8ERK estimates that the 2017 total replacement value of Tukwila
Fire Department System is estimated to be approximately $Jl .OM/ please see Exhibit 4 for o
Fire and Parks Impact Fee, Update Rate Study | Fee Calculations
l
�
8
breakdown by investment type. For the complete inventory vo|ouhon see Error! Rmfwmmmwe source not
fwwmd-
Exhibit 4.Tukwila Fire Department System Replacement Cnst,%0l7
Land
Stations
000
Equipment
and Apparatus` '
5uurreT"kwi|o Fire Deputtmevt 2008' [UyofTvk°i|u, 2008-2017. King [m/my Ayecs~o''sOHice, 2017/ BERK[onsu|On0'
With the system replacement cost estimate, the number of incidents were needed tocreate u cost per
incident. Using o 10'yeor period of data, BEHKono|yzed Tukwila Fire Department fire and emergency
responses between 2008 and 2017 (the 2017dotu only covered o portion ofthe year). The46/[75
response incidents from this period were summarized by property type to find the number of response
incidents produced by each of the five impact fee |on6 use categories. The incidents per property type
were analyzed for anomalies and the 2016 incident data, the most recent full data set, was used to project
future incidents. Incidents that could not be directly attributed to one of the five property types were
allocated based on the proportionate share of directly attributable incidents of each property type to the
The Tukwila Fire Department uses the National Fire Incident Reporting System(NF|RS) tocategorize all
department responses by address, response type, duration, etc. 8ERKo|igned the NF|R3categories with
the City's five impact fee categories (Single Family, Multifamily, Retail, Office, and Industrial) to create
annual and total incidents per type. The Tukwila Fire Department incidents analysis is summarized inExhibit
5 below.
10
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Fee Calculations
P
Exhibit 5. Tukwila Fire Department Fire and Emergency Response Incidents by Property Type, 2016
Residential
SinMultifamily
glFamily
e
Commercial
Retail 2~034 38%
Notes� Usioy the Nuf�oon| Fire |ociclef Repvrt�riQ 3/stcm (NRRS),Tukwi|o Fire Depomnemmoixuins �ecords of all
depu�mco asp*^es by odd�ess, ^yp(,"),nel/pe, domtio*efc
Sources. T"kwi|oFite Deponme",,20D8'2Ol7/ BERK,[o^svhi"8'20l7.
Tukwila Parks and Recreation has two U]3 standards, one as outlined in the 2014 PROS Plan based on
access, and one included in the proposed amended version of the 2014 PROS Plan based on the per capita
investment
a
°
1,182 22%
Parks b33 l:AU residents and visitors should be within 114 to 1/2 mile ofo City -owned pork.
Parks L{]5 2. The investment per capita of the [ity's pork systems including land and facilities
commensurate with the current level of investment as growth occurs.
Taken together, these U]3 standards direct the Chy`s response to increased demand, both growth related
and due tochanges in population.
8ERK estimated the replacement value of pork investments per capita for the [ity's park system, including
both land and facilities. This analysis can be used to determine the total new investment that vvno|d be
needed to keep the current level of investment per capita accounting for future population and employment
growth.
Land: to determine the replacement cost of Tukwila Parks and Recreation's land, 8ERK used G|5 and King
County Assessor data to find the average land value within one -quarter mile ofeach of the 22 Tukwila
Parks and Recreation parks. These land value ranged from $5'$21 per square foot; but multiplying the
surrounding aggregate land value per square foot by the parks' square feet, BERK estimated the land
values for each of the 22 parks parcels.
Improvements: to determine the replacement cost ofthe improvements located on pohm parcels, 8ERK
coordinated with Tukwila Parks and Recreation togenerate on inventory ofall fodU!y improvements, and
�
|
� Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate 3m� 6y � Fee Calculations 1 10
their respective replacement costs. Facilities inventoried ranged from playgrounds, nestrooms, and fields to
trails, lighting, and shelters; improvements that increased the usability and capacity of pork |mnd.
Adding these two figures together, 8ERK estimates that the 2017toto| replacement value of Tukwila Parks
and Recreation system is $l 07.9M/ please see Exhibit 6 for o breakdown by investment type.
Exhibit 6. Parks and Recreation System Replacement Cost, 2017
TAW
Sources: King GuvofyAsoesso''s{)f f ice, 2017/[hyofTuk°i|o' 2015'2017/ 8ERK (-'cwsvh�g' 201T
2.1,5 (_mpifa� P|or�s
The City of Tukwila has developed o cophu| project list that includes investments to support and foci|hoks
the increased usage ofexisting park and recreation assets tomeet growing demand as well as strategic
expansions of the system as opportunities arise. This list of projects needed to accommodate future growth
is used to calculate o base LC}3 Standard for impact fee rate setting, us described below.
2.1'6 dent�fieci (_opita� Pro'e[S
The City ofTukwila adopted the 2O77'2O22Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement Program
([/P) in December of 2016. The C/P has the identified capital improvement projects for both Tukwila
Parks and Recreation and the Tokvvi|o Fine Department for the next six years. In addition to o description
of each project, the C/Pcontains annual cost projections and expected revenues.
As part ofthe process of updating the fins and parks impact fee rotes, the City has proposed to amend
the[/P to reflect updated project cost estimates and naco|co|oted impact fee eligibility based on
updated growth projections.
With these changes, the amended C/P contains the identified capital projects used to update the impact
fee program. Appendix A' List of System Improvements, lists the 13 projects identified by City of Tukwila
stuff related to serving new growth and Exhibit provides o summary of those system improvements that
are impact fee eligible.
Exhibit 7. Impact Fee Eligible System Improvement Projects
Fire Impact Fee Eligible 4 $74,846,000 $187n91720 25%
I Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
11
Note. D^e,,ompo.mI �o^ pmiecttheTU[ Pedest/io^ Sr/dge, **s |denhf ied iot I IeC/P oS purks knpoc t fee eIigib|� o^d is
uc|vded i^ (mpuc�Fee Eligible Parks Pm�eci,� tot"l.
Smurce,s`CityofTu�,wi|*C/P 2017-2022;BERK[cmsvhing'201T
Working with City staff, 8ERK calculated impact fee -eligible costs associated with each project by
estimating the portion of each project that is related to growth, resulting in on estimated impactfee'e|igib/e
need of$42M'This need isbased nnthe projects identified ot the time ofthis memo; ospart ofthe periodic
update of master planning documents, especially the six -year C/P, the City of Tukwila will update the
capital project list and additional value needed. In addition to the periodic review as required by the
Washington State Growth Management Act, the City has included provisions in both impact fees to allow
for automatic inflation adjustments.
Funclin�) (DM\er than /mpocfFeec
The identified need under the base L{}5 was also reduced by subtracting other funding sources that have
already been identified to fund these projects. The proposed ordinance includes up to 80% discounts of
the fee for low-income housing as allowed in R[YV82.O2.The City identified expected funding for parks
capital facilities inthe C/P.The draft impact fee eligible project list included with this memo identifies any
funding other that impact fees by project.
2.l.7 Future Need
Fire: The future need for fire will be determined by the number of incidents produced by new development.
As described in 2.1.4 Level of Service and Methodology on page 7 above, 8ERK used post incidents
information to estimate typical number of incidents by commercial development type.
Parks: Unlike fire, the Chy's financial need related to growth for Parks is the lesser of two numbers —the
future needs identified by the L[)3 standards orthe capital projects that the City has identified. Any given
L{}5 standard may suggest that City will need to invest in capital projects at o level that is not physically
orfinancially possible. For example, the City`sparks access -based UOS standard may suggest unecessary
investment that in on area where there is no land available.
Exhibit 8below contains the comparison between the expected need using the per capita system investment
LC}3 service standard and the planned capital projects that the City has identified.
Exhibit 8.Parks Future Needs Identified byPer Capita LOS Standard and Identified Capital Projects
Residential 19660 4,707
Visitor (Commercial) 50i330 7,334
Tota1 69,990 $107,900,000 12,041
Per Capita System Investment
Value
U
v Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Fee Calculations | |
12
Expected Need to Keep
Investment per Capita
Planned Projects $23,561,750
Per Capita Share of Planned
Projects
2.],8 Serv�oe Areas
Both the Tukwila Fire Department and the City ofTukwila have one service area that corresponds with the
City`s boundaries. The Tukwila Fire Department has service sharing agreements with adjacent fire districts
which result in some responses to incidents outside of City limits and also results in some City incidents
including responses from other fire departments.
2,1-9 []nad^unted Rate SChecVes
For both fire and parks impact fees, 8ERKfound the expected fee by development before odiorhn8 for
expected proportionate share.
In keeping with the existing impact fee structure, 8ERK calculated five fees depending upon the
development type. These five are:
a Residential: Single Family
� Residential: Multi -Family [determine how ADUs will be addressed]
m Commercial: Retail
W Commercial: Office
w Commercial: Industrial
For residential development, impact fees are charged per dwelling unit, not per person. To connect
residential units bytype tothe number ofpeople, this study used information from the U.5.Census Buneou's
ACS 5-Year Estimates. The single-family dwellings were assumed to have an average of 2.89 people living
in them compared to on average of 2.51 in multi -family dwellings (see Exhibit 2 on page 7 for more
information).
For impact fees collected on commercial developments, fees one charged per 1,000 square feet of
development. The unadjusted rates are os shown in
Exhibit below.
IFire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Fee Calculations
0.024
Exhibit 9. Unadjusted Rate Schedules for Fire and Parks by Development Type
201 6 Residential Units 3,795 4,004 7,799
2016 Incidents per Property Type 973 1,182 2,154
Average Incidents per Residential Unit Type
Cost per Incident
0.256
0.295
$10,870
FFIC 1ND1JSTR
201 6 Built Square Feet 7,087,600 7,183,598 13,778,128 28,049,326
201 6 Incidents per Property Type 2,034 806 329 3,169
Incidents per Built 1,000 Sq. Ft. 0.287 0.112
Cost per Incident
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
I14
Identified Service Area Capital Need from Growth $33,561,750
Per Capita Investment Needed to Respond to
Growth for Service Area Population
Household Size
2'89
Identified Service Area Capital Need from Growth $23'561750
Per Capita Investment Needed toRespond toGrowth for Service Area Population $1,542
Expected Employees per 10X00 So.Ft
Sources: BERK{ona/xinn,20l7
l'23
These schedules represent intermediary steps to o final nz*e schedule; each must be adjusted for the
expected proportion offuture funding contributed by growth.
2.1.1(} Pno�parfimnafe Share
As required RCVV 82.02.030(l), 8ERKcalculated the proportionate share offuture payments reasonably
anticipated tobemade 6ynew development users inthe form offees, debt service payments, taxes, and
other payments specific to the identified public facilities.
To project these on -going revenue sources, BERK evaluated financial octuo|s provided by City staff for
2008'2017(in the case of 2017, budgeted amounts were used as the year had not been completed at
the time of this study). These revenues were inflation -adjusted to a single year dollar basis using the Puget
5oond'oneo All Urban Consumer Price Index. In total, 15 revenue sources were projected through the study
period. Revenues were finally converted into per capita estimates for consistency with this study's growth
projection methodology.
The historic portion nfgeneral fund used tofor fire and parks projects was used and applied to projected
future general fund revenues tofind the amount expected to be spent on fire and parks capital projects
from general fund revenues.
� Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
15
Exhibit 10. Proportionate Share of Expected Fire and Parks Revenues
Average 2018-2027 Annual Fire Capital Revenues $2,562,800
Average 2018-2027 Service Population 76,291
Estimated 2018-2027 Fire Per Capita Contribution
$33.59
Average 2018-2027 Annual Parks Capital Revenues $1,052,487
Average 2018-2027 Service Population 76,291
Estimated 2018-2027 Parks Per Capita Contribution
Note: AH ornounts show in 2037 cioilco..s., Source: BERK Consulting, 20'1 7,
$13.80
21 1 1 Adijusted Rate ScheduDe
BERK incorporated the proportionate share revenue estimates in the unadjusted rates to create adjusted
rate schedules. The park rate schedule for commercial property types was further adjusted to reflect the
usage differential between employees and residents, referred to as the population coefficient adjustment
(assuming 9 hours x 5 days = 45 hours per week for employees versus 12 hours x 7 days = 84 hours for
residents). These rate schedules represent the final rate study calculation of suggested impact fee rates.
The adjusted rate schedules are presented in Exhibit 11 below.
Exhibit 11. Adjusted Rate Schedules for Fire and Parks by Development Type
201 6 Units 3,795 4,004 7,799
2016 Incidents per Property Type 973 1,182 2,154
Average Incidents per Unit 0.256 0.295
Cost per Incident $10,870
Unadjusted per Unit Fee $2,785.67 $3,207.96
Expected Revenue per Capita $33.59
People per Unit 2.89 2.51
Expected Revenue per Unit
$96.94
$84.45
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
16
RIAL TOTAL
2016 Built Square Feet 7,087,600 7,183,598 13,778,128 28,049,326
201 6 Incidents per Property Type 2,034 806 329 3,169
Incidents per Built 1,000 Gross Sq. Ft. 0.287 0.112 0.024
Cost per Incident $10,870
Unadjusted Fee per 1,000 Gross Sq. Ft. $3,119.80 $1,219.63 $259.36
Expected Revenue per Employee $33.83
Employees per 1,000 Gross Sq. Ft. 2.47 2.22 1.23
Expected Revenue per 1,000 Gross
Square Feet
IMO
Before effect of City policy decisions.
$82.87 $74.58
$41.19
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Fee Calculations
17
Identified Service Area Capital Need
from Growth
Per Capita Investment Needed to
Respond to Growth for Service
Area Population
$23,531,750
$1,542
Household Size 2.89 2.51
Unadjusted per Unit Fee $4,448.83 $3,875.51
Expected Revenue per Capita $13.80
People per Unit 2.89 2.51
201 6 Built Square Feet 7,087,600 7,183,598 13,778,128 28,049,326
Identified Service Area Capital Need from
Growth
Per Capita Investment Needed to Respond
to Growth for Service Area
Population
Expected Employees per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
2.47 2.22 1.23
Expected Employees Adjusted for 1.32 1.19 .66
Population Coefficient
$23,531,750
$1,542
Unadjusted Fee per 1,000 Gross Sq. Ft. $2,034.97 $1,834.56 $1,017.49
Expected Revenue per Employee $13.80
Expected Employees per 1,000 Sq. Ft. 2.47 2.22 1.23
Expected Revenue per 1,000 Gross Sq. Ft.
A 71377:77,5Z,ZSV-
Sourcesi BERK Consulting, 2017
Behure effect of policy decisions by City,
.03 $30.63 $16.92
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study Fee Calculations
I 18
"11'�
(
i� ��rn��n��
||:
�
����^s
As port of the process of updating the fine and parks impact fee rotes two City planning documents
were amended *zreflect updated information
1,1 F
NAN0ALPLANN
NG MOD
EL AND (-ANTAL WPR(D'V
EM
E
NT PROGRAM
The City amended the 2077'2022 FhronckJ Planning Model and Improvement Program ([/P) to
reflect updated project cost estimates, recalculated impact fee eligibility based on current growth
projections, and adjusted projects.
"A
R
KS, RECREAT ON AND OPEN SPACE PLAI,4
The City amended the 2014 Tukwila Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS Plan) to include a
second Level of Service standard of maintaining the system value per capita as growth occurs, tuallow
the City to respond to growth in those unsos where o pork was already within 114 to 1/2 mile of
development oswell ostorespond to growth in newly developing oneos'
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study | Plan Amendments
lP
4 Att, men
4.1 AP
"EN DID X A:
iST OF SYSTEM
4 „1 are System Omprovements List
4,1.2 Parks System Vmprovements List
MDROVEMENTS
Fire and Parks Impact Fees Update Rate Study I Attachments I 20
4
.1 A
"PEND1X A: UST OF SYSTEM MPROVEMENTS
4.11.1 Fire System Vmprovennents List
P C
Relocate Fire Station 51 $12,509,000 Yes $4,254,320 34%
Replace Fire Station 52 $17,652,000 Yes $7,455,960 42%
Replace Fire Station 54 S14,753,000 Yes $7,081,440 48%
Fire Apparatus & Equipment
$29,932,500 Yes 0
Sources: City of Tukwila and Tukwila Fire Deportment, 2017; BERK Consulting, 2017,
4:1.2 Parks System Ornprovernents List
Park Acquisition $2,200,000 Yes $2,200,000 100%
Park Improvements $1,838,000 Yes $459,500 25%
Duwamish Hill Preserve
$8,018,000 Yes $2,004,000 25%
Tukwila Pond Trail & Boardwalk $7,250,000 Yes $5,437,500 75%
Tukwila South Trail $6,525,000 Yes $4,893,750 75%
Macadam Winter Garden & Wetland $1,450,000 Yes $725,000 50%
Open Space Improvements $5,800,000 Yes $4,350,000 75%
Tukwila Urban Center Pedestrian Bridge $10,741,000 Yes $1,317,000 12%
Synthetic Turf Field 2,900,000 Yes $2,175,000 75%
Sourcee City of Tukwila, 2017, BERK Consulting, 2017,
I21
4.2 APPEND
„42_11 Fire
X B: VALUATV0r4,
Exhibit 12. Summary of Fire Assets and Values
- 0
R
R
AND
)ARAKS
Apparatus 45 vehicles and equipment, including 5 pumpers
$8 224 500
4,„
Land 4 Parcels $2,838,167
Fire Stations 4 Stations 1 EOC $46,800,328
11p40611001triv#
illy11,010p0'610$14104640,4,00kreAr001,1114,,l'ol!moi
teN,
i1044 ""
'44li144'4(i(40(q
Exhibit 13. Fire Equipment and Apparatus
Chevy Lumina sedan
Ford Taurus sedan $40,000
`rt(t(13310„11(q#
6,10 11,111„,tkb,ho ,1,,d4wAit 01101,11044',11
PIMMOMPANZ111,14040001400$001#0414004RbliMht,,,ii,,,,4„.
'11000,11101,00 P t w 14
Ford Crown Victoria sedan $55,000
Ford Expedition SUV $70,000
Ford Expedition SUV $42,322
International rescue truck $275,000
Darley pumper
$700,000
Darley pumper $700,000
MCI Tow vehicle $80,000
Quad Cab Pickup 4x4 $79,000
Ford Expedition SUV $65,000
Trailer, mass casualty $35,000
Trailer, mass casualty $35,000
Aerial ladder truck, Pierce $1,800,000
Pumper, Ferrara $700,000
Pumper, Ferrara $700,000
Pumper, Pierce $875,000
Pumper, Pierce $875 000
Van, Chevy Astro $30,000
1/2 Ton Pickup, Chevy $50 000
3/4„ Ton Pickup, Ford $60 060
3/4 Ton Pickup, Ford extended cab S65„000
1/2 Ton Pickup, extended cab $80,000
Ford Expedition SUV $80,000
Ford Expedition SUV $80,000
Trailer $2,000
Trailer, 32 FT
$25,500
416
on)
1
Fire and Park Impact Fee Rate Study, 201 8 I Attachments I 22
Trailer, Strong Boy, Tria-axle $71,000
Trailer, Carnai, Rescue boat $1,500
Trailer, Utility $3,000
Trailer, Whiteman $10,000
Trailer, Haulmark $90,000
Trailer Cargomate $10,000
Utility, John Deere HPX Gater $12,000
Flatbed Ford Super duty $60,000
Forklift Hyster $20,000
Boat, rescue $30,000
Generator, trailer -mounted $25,000
Trailer, EZ Loader $10,000
Boat, Woolridge (50% Fire, 50% Police) $25,000
Boat, Woolridge (50% Fire, 50% Police) $25,000
Trailer, EZ Loader
$5,500
Ford Escape SUV $30,000
Trailer, Cargomate $10,000
Trailer, Cargomate
S10,000
Aid Car, Ford Rescue $190,000
Exhibit 14, Fire Land Values
t CT
Station 51 444 Andover Park E 81,000 $15.32 $1,241,182
Station 52 5900 S 147th St 50,530 $8.14 $41 1,454
Station 53 4202 S 115th St 111,064 $7.76 $862,121
Station 54 4237 S 144th St 38,860 $8.32 $323,411
Exhibit 15. Fire Station Values
-- PROJECTED
.."."?..,
SO FT REPLCEMENT
Station 51 444 Andover Park E 17,700 $1,048 S21,247,262
Station 52 5900 S 147th St 3,350 $1,171 $3,779,372
Station 53 4202 S 115th St 14,000 $15,794,389
Station 54
4237 5 144th St 5,300 $1,165 $5,979,304
EOC (Housed in Station 51) 444 Andover Park E $1,350
Fire and Park Impact Fee Rate Study, 2018 I Attachments
23
4 2.2 Parks
Exhibit 16. Summary of Parks Assets and Values
Equipment and Investments
Land
N
NA(
NNN NNNOINONNNyi NNON „
IN„,4„.NNNINNIHNNNNNNN,,„NvN
N„ NoloNtN INN 'VW*
H JIH1111,1„.1H,H1q
•
Exhibit 17. Parks Land Values
„.110
INNINIINtIONIVIONION010
itr011tiA"HOHHH,HHO,filt,011..0,
$33,224,1 1 0
$74,675,648
E LAND
57th Ave South Park 17,424
Cascade View Park 104,544 $12.08 $1,2041125
Crystal Springs Park 479,160 $7,26 , $3,502,305
Hazelnut Pork 26,136 $7.44 $211,610
$11.39 $53,156
S 1 0.44 $24950,349
$16.46 $995 237
,
Codiga Park 291,852 $14,99 S4,479,299
378,972 $13,40 $A 574 921
Fort Dent Park (Starfire Sports Complex) 2,234,628 $7.11 $17„300/293
Ikawa Pork (Japanese Garden) 8,712 $13.57 $133,423
Macadam Wetlands & Winter Garden 431,244 $7.60 $3,422,262
Riverton Mini Park 4,356
Tukwila Park 278,784
Bicentennial, Park 56,628
Duwamish Hill Preserve
Tukwila Community Center
553,212 $13.00
Tukwila Pond Park 513,480
Black River Lot
Christensen Road Property/Riverview
130,680
Plaza Riverfront
Green River Lot 4,356
74,052
Southgate Park 474,804
Tukwila Hill 78,408
Tukwila Parkway
Wilcox Drive/Pcimela Drive Open Space
Interurban Hill Lot
13,068 $6,19
$17,30
$13.28
$6.83
$9.63
$6.84
43,560 $15.17
30,492 $4.02
$7,10E,095
$19 269 943
$78,589
$2,371,865
$65 665
$587t357
$4 666 669
S586 807
S741,420
$202 492
Fire and Park Impact Fee Rate Study, 2018 1 Attachments
24
CITY OF TUKWILA
FIRE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Exhibit B
RESIDENTIAL - per dwelling unit
(a)
(b)
Single family
(d)
With fire sprinkler system installed
Multi -family
COMMERCIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL
- per 1,000 square feet of development
(c)
(c)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Unadjusted Adjusted Fee FIRE
Fee fee (e) Reduction Impact
(e) (f) Fee
$ 2,786 $ 2,689 40% $ 1,671
$ 1,571
$ 3,208 $ 3,124 40% $ 1,925
Retail $ 3,120 $ 3,037 40% $ 1,872
Office $ 1,220 $ 1,145 40% $ 732
Industrial/manufacturing $ 259 $ 218 40% $ 156
Attached accessory dwelling units are exempt from impact fees.
A structure with more than two dwelling units.
See the more detailed land use descriptions in the Land Use Categories document.
6% discount for single family units with fire sprinkler system installed representing the portion of all
incidents that were fire only - as opposed to emergency medical incidents. Per 16.26.120, B. 9. of the
Tukwila Municipal Code, "A fee payer installing a residential fire sprinkler system in a single-family
home shall not be required to pay the fire operations portion of the impact fee."
From the "Tukwila Fire and Park Impact Fees Rate Study, 2018".
Fee reduction to retain economic competitiveness.