Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-02 Finance and Safety Minutes City of Tukwila Finance and Safety Committee FINANCEANDSAFETYCO~TEE Meeting Minutes December 2,2008, - 5:00 p.m.; Conference Room #3 PRESENT Councilmembers: Dennis Robertson, Chair; Pam Linder and Kathy Hougardy Staff: Bruce Fletcher, Rick Still, Lisa Vemer, Gail Labanara, Shawn Hunstock, Mary Miotke, Nick Olivas, Steve Rydeen, David Haynes, Jack Pace, Rhonda Berry and Kimberly Matej Guests: Mark Segale, Bill Arthur, Nancy Damon, Mike Hansen, Chuck Parrish and Louis Strander and Joe Desmoine CALL TO ORDER: Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. The agenda was amended to reflect the new order of business as presented below. I. PRESENTATIONS - No presentations. II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Impact Fee Ordinances for Fire and Parks This agenda item is returning to the Finance and Safety meeting for additional discussion prior to returning to full Council. As a result of tonight's discussion, staff is requesting Committee recommendations to Council regarding impact fees. Lisa Verner distributed several pages to Committee members with corrections from information that was included in the original agenda packet (substitution for pages 52, 61 and 62). She also distributed an additional four pages that were not included in the original agenda packet. Lisa reviewed a list of example impact fees that would have been paid by recent developments if impact fees had been implemented and assessed at the time of those projects. Additionally, she distributed a memo from Derek Speck which states his opinion, as Economic Development Administrator, that at the impact fee levels proposed, it is unlikely that development would be lost. However, he is not aware of any way to determine conclusively whether the impact fees would or would not cause a loss in development. Although impact fees may appear high, they are they are a fairly low percentage of the development costs. After this discussion, staff began presentation of the Mayor's recommendations in regards to impact fees. The four specific questions outlined below are the policy questions that need to be answered by full Council. Staff requested recommendations from the Finance and Safety Committee on each issues as outlined below. · Determine if impact fees should or should not be implemented for fire and parks: o Fire Impact Fees - Committee recommends implementation. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. o Park Impact Fees - Committee recommends implementation. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. · Identify the projects which should be included in the list that establishes capital facilities projects resultingfrom new growth as well as the costs associated with those lists for bothfire and parks: o Fire Capital Facilities Projects - Committee supports the list as recommend by the Mayor and presented in the Finance and Safety Committee agenda packet page 57. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. Finance & Safety Committee Minutes December 2. 2008 - Paae 2 o Park Capital Facilities Projects - Committee supports the list as recommended by the Mayor and presented in Exhibit B, page 3, of a document entitled Mayor's Recommendation Impact Fees 12-2-08, which was distributed at tonight's Committee meeting (information attached to minutes). UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. · Determine the City conh'ibution- developer impact fee split (90/10, 80/20, 70/30, etc) o Fire impact fee City contribution - developer split. Mayor's recommendation for fire impact fees is a 90/1 0 split. This means that 90% of the project costs will be funded through the collection of impact fees and the remaining 10% will be funded through City contribution. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. o Park impact fee City contribution - developer split. Mayor's recommendation for the park impact fees is a 80/20 split. This means 80% of the project costs will be funded through the collection of impact fees, and the remaining 20% will be funded through City contribution. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. Committee members asked why Fire fees would be funded at a 90/1 0 split and Parks fees at an 80/20 split. Staff explained that many times the determination of impact fee contribution splits are very subjective. Fire is an essential service provided by the City, and calls for service will increase as development increases. The need for adequate basic safety and life service responses justify the higher developer contribution. The Parks fee split is lower as City staff feels confident that available grants and other such resources can assist in the City absorbing a larger contribution amount. · Determine impact fees calculations/conh'ibutions based on designated land use categories (i. e.: single family, multi1'amily, office, retail and indush'ial): o This was new information presented to the Committee at the beginning of the meeting. Members reviewed the information and felt that it appeared as if the Mayor's recommended contribution splits based on land use designations were acceptable. However, since this is new information they prefer to take more time to review the material and recommend forwarding this item to the COW. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. Several members of the public were in attendance at the meeting. Questions were raised regarding the park use ratios, specifically, data which stated that 70% of users are nonresidents. A comment was made that there is no data identifying what percentage of the nonresident users are employed within the City. Several guests also shared that they believe impact fees will drive development away from this location, stating that development decisions are based on prices, and the assessment per square foot of retail space is significant. Mark Segale communicated that in the impact fee audit conducted by the State for the City of Redmond detail audit work was conducted for fire fees, but not for park fees. He felt that City staff was purely making an assumption regarding park fees and wanted to clarify that no audit had been conducted on Redmond park impact fees. In closing, the Committee reviewed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) pages that are applicable to impact fee projects and requested several wording changes. B. South Correctional Entity (SCORE) Interlocal Agreement (j\1ulti-Jurisdictional Misdemeanor Jail Facility) In relation to the South Correctional Entity facility and formation of a respective public development authority, staff is seeking full Council approval of an ordinance authorizing a SCORE interlocal agreement between all owner cities and formation of the SCORE Development Authority. Rhonda Berry provided an update of information regarding SCORE since the item was last heard at Committee and COW (see Finance and Safety minutes dated March 4, 2008, and COW minutes dated March 24, 2008). She distributed copies of the Powerpoint presentation that will be shown at the COW on December 8, 2008, in order to facilitate an informed discussion of the project. Finance & Safety Committee Minutes December 2. 2008 - Paae 3 There are seven owner cities that will be participating in SCORE: . Auburn . Burien . Des Moines . Federal Way . Renton . SeaTac . Tuk\vila Currently, each owner city is in the process of working with their respective councils to pass the legislation necessary to begin the processes required to form the public development authority and construct the 668 bed facility. Owner cities will adopt an ordinance and appropriate interlocal agreement for formation of the SCORE Development Authority. Due to their jail expertise, the City of Renton has taken the lead on this project and will be the last owner city to adopt the ordinance. They will be responsible for the actual formation of the public development authority. The project cost allocation for each city is based on projected useS, and owner cities will share in the revenue form "rented" jail beds. Staff commented on the number of owner cities stating that there are enough owner cities to pay for the project, but not so many that governance of the authority would become cumbersome. Overall, participating cities are anticipating saving money on jail costs and receiving more efficient services; however, this does not minimize any city's continued desire to consider jail alternative programs (i.e. community work, day reporting, pretrial home monitoring). The total SCORE cost is estimated at $95.8 million, with the City of Tukwila's allocation totaling $7,680,000 (based on the 2007 average daily population). Although projections suggest the City will come out ahead, financially on this project, there is always a potential for costs to increase. However, the capital costs are controllable fixed costs and maintenance and operation (M&O) costs will be more predictable than today's costs which are currently controlled by other jurisdictions. The Committee reviewed the draft ordinance, inter1coal agreement, charter and by-laws and staff provided clarification on the ordinance and interlocal agreement when needed. Based on an inquiry, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock stated that the City of Tukwila will not be liable for other cities bonds in relation to SCORE and the construction of the facility. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO DECEMBER 8 COW FOR DISCUSSION. C. Sales Tax Report Shawn distributed the Sales Tax Report actual receipts received through September 2008. Actual sales tax revenue is slightly below budget (1.94%). If this trend continues, year-end receipts are anticipated to fall short of the budget projection by $369,000. In relation to stream-lined sales tax, it appears as if we are still within range for the Department of Revenue to mitigate the City for potential losses. We are still not aware how much of this decrease in sales tax revenue is a result of economic conditions and how much is due to the implementation of streamlined sales tax. INFORMATION ONLY. ill. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Next meeting: Monday, December 16 - 5 :00 p.m. - Conference Room #3 C\ ).fJ Committee Chair Approval ~M. Reviewed by RB and SH. Distributed at Finance & Safety Committee Meeting on December 2, 2008 Mayor's Recommendation Impact Fees 12-2-08 FIRE Capital Facilities List: Split: Fees SF MF Office Retail Industrial PARKS. . Capital Facilities List: Split: Fees: SF MF Office Retail Industrial TOTAL Fees: SF MF Office Retail Industrial $6,479,500 90% - 10% $ 922 $1,200 $1,624 $ 580 $ 127 $8,000,000 80% - 20% . $1,426 $1,398 $ 837 $ 419 $ 262 $2,348 $2,598 $2,461 $ 999 $ 389 Examples of Impact Fee Payments: FIRE - $6,479,500 in capital projects (90%-10% split) Project Land Use Square Impact Fee per Impact Fee Category F ootagelDwelling 1,000 gsf or per Assessment Units Dwelling Unit Wig development! Retail 230,444 $580 $133,658 Southcenter Square Parkway Place Office 66,000 $1,624 $107,184 16400 Southcenter Pkwy New Bank of America Office 7,451 $1,624 $12,100 building (at mall) . Tukwila Village Multi- 144 $1,200 $172,800 family Retail 52,000 $580 $30,160 Office 2,000 $1,624 $3,248 PARKS - $8,000,000 in ca ital projects (80%-20% split) Project Land Use Square Impact Fee per Impact Fee Category F ootagelDwelling 1,000 gsf or per Assessment Units Dwelling Unit Wig development! Retail 230,444 $419 $96,556 Southcenter Square Parkway Place Office 66,000 $837 $55,242 16400 Southcenter Pkwy New Bank of America Office 7,451 $837 $6,237 building (at mall) Tukwila Village Multi- 144 $1398 $201,312 family Retail 52,000 $419 $21,788 Office 2,000 $837 $1,674 EXHIBIT B Tukwila Parks Capital Facilities List Project List - Impact Fees 2009 to 2015 Project Cost Duwamish Riverbend Hill Develop Phase II $ 2,000,000 Trail Connections Green River Trail to Renton $ 500,000 Black/Cedar River Trail Tukwila Pond Development - Phase IV $ 3,000,000 City of Tukwila Pool [Extend land lease]; expand features $ 500,000 and services TOD Pedestrian Bridge Sounder Connection $ 2,000,000 Total $8,000,000 EXHIBIT A Tukwila Parks Impact Fees, 2008 TABLE 1: 2008 Park Impact Fee Calculations Land Use 2007 2007 2007 Building 2020 Housing 2020 2020 Building Housing Employment. Area -3 Units Employme Area Units -1 2 nt . Siol!le-familv 3,822 4,338 Multi-familv 4,107 6,491 Office 6,245 1,561,250 7,727 1,931,750 Retail . 20,384 10,192,000 25,220 12,610,000 Industrial 20,343 16,274,400 25,169 20,135,200 TOTALS 7,929 46,972 28,027,650 10,829 58,1l6 34,676,950 1. OFM 2. PSRC 2007 Covered Emplooyment Estimates 3. Retail: 500gsf per emp; Office: 250gsf per emp; Industrlal: 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 ResidentINon-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 9% Net Growth, 2008 - 2020 Housing Units - Employment Building Employment: Employment: 4 -5 Area - 3 Tukwila Non-Tukwila Residents - Residents - 9%-6 91%-6 516 2,384 1,482 370,500 133 1,349 4,836 2,418,000 435 4,401 4,826 3,860,800 434 4,392 2,900 11,144 6,649,300 1,003 10,141 ImDact Fee Persons per Use Ratio Total Use % Use by Cost Per Housing Per 1,000 Rounded Housing Unit Between by Land Land Use Allocation Unit GFA** Residents! Use Category Employees Category 2.54 2.44 3,198 11.49% $735,607 $1,425.59 $1,426 2.49 2.44 14,484 52.06% $3,331,715 $1,397.53 $1,398 1.00 1,349 4.85% $310,214 $837.29 $837 1.00 4,401 15.82% $1,012,279 $418.64 $419 1.00 4,392 15.78% $1,010,185 $261.65 $262 27,823 100.00% $6,400,000 Note: $6,400,000 is 80% of$8,000,000 ..