Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 11/27/1995 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PRESENT: Paul Mann Tom Brubaker Tim Clark Gary Gill Mayor White Don Widatrom Brent McFall May Miller Roger Lubovich ABSENT: Jim Bennett MILL CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Wickstrom explained that this is a carry-on of studies we have been conducting on Mill Creel-,in conjunction with Auburn and King County; all sharing the costs to help resolve the flooding problems south of the Green River. He noted that this is already budgeted Committee unanimously recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Mill Creel-, Interlocal Agreement. Discussion: Tom Brubaker suggested that the indented paragraph of the Agreement on Page I be removed and inserted as another paragraph on Page 2 because that is the statement of intent and purpose for the entire Agreement. Committee concurred. WASTE REDUCTION RECYCLING GRANT - COMPOST 151N DI$TRIBUTION PROGRAM Wickstrom said that this is a grant we received for special events in the recycling area. This project costs about $41,400 and the grant will pay 60% or $24,840. We will be matching with our Countywide Waste Reduction &-Recycling Grant. Essentially, it is 100% funded. In response to Clark, Wickstrom said that advertising for this program is being made thru the Mayor's T.V. forum with the Conservation Specialist as well as flyers in the utility billings. Committee recommended authorizing the Mayor to sign the Grant Agreement with the WQA State Dept of Ecology, for staff to accept the grant and, establish a budget for the 1 4 Compost Bin Distribution Program. STREET UTILITY Brent McFall stated that the City has implemented its Street Utility in accordance with State Statute in 1992 and the revenue from that utility has been designated specifically for major projects associated with the Transportation Plan which-is a component of the Comp Plan which is required by the Growth Management Act. He noted that the two most significant projects both in terms of cost and Comp Plan and the ability to achieve the required concurrency of infrastructure concurrent with development, are the two corridor projects. McFall said that when the State Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which the State Statute requires cities to impose the street utility was unconstitutional (they ruled that residential component of the street utility was unconstitutional), there has been no ruling on the commercial component. There has been no ruling on the statute, only specifically on Seattle's residential utility. However, McFall noted that it is clear from the wording in the decision that they would further find other street utilities that were applied in a similar manner to be unconstitutional. He said that leaves us with a "hole" in our Transportation Improvement budget - about $1.4 Million Dollars annually which is dedicated to the corridor projects. McFall stated that it is the advice of the City Attorney as well as AWC that we need to repeal the Street Utility fee. However, the Growth Management Act requires us to have concurrency between infrastructure - if the infrastructure is not built, it at least has to have a financially viable plan to have it built within a six year period to accommodate growth. If we do not have that concurrency, there are potentially state sanctions regarding the distribution of gas tax monies and other state distributed taxes that come back to the City. The other implications, if we are not able to build the corridor projects, are that we basically do not have concurrency as required by GMA which means we then can have a couple of options. One is to stop development activity in the City, literally issue no more building permits or, as a policy matter simply lower the level of service. McFall said that as a staff,we have tried to identify the options that are available. He referenced the packet of material previously mailed to the Committee, going thru those options with them. One option is, a 1%increase in the utility tax would roughly replace the revenue lost by repealing the street utility. We now charge $1.90/month per residential unit and$1.90/employee for each business per month. The utility tax would basically replace that revenue. We could repeal the Street Utility, impose the utility tax increase at a revenue neutral level and the advantages are that it's in place, it's collected now, it would simply be at a different rate and we wouldn't add any costs to collect it. 2 It is basically paid by the same people who pays the street utility fee now, residences and businesses. It is paid in roughly the same ratio. McFall said that what we can't tell you is that for each individual customer that they will see no impact up or down because the utility tax is dependent upon usage. McFall said that this option was the recommendation of the Mayor's Street Utility Task Force and it is the recommendation of the Mayor to proceed this way in order to fund the corridor projects, which allows us to have concurrency, which allows continued development of the City. Further, if that option is taken, it needs to be done in conjunction with each action in conjunction with the other. And also, that the funds be dedicated specifically for that purpose. McFall stated another option is a second quarter percent real estate excise tax which is collected at the time of sale of property, that's an extremely volatile revenue source in that it depends on real estate transactions and generates approximately $570,000. He noted that it's not a reliable source of revenue and by itself does not replace the $1.4 million. The Business License option is something that Renton did a number of years - they charge $55 per FTE annually as the business license fee. In order to replace the $1.4 million,we would have to add$36 per FIT per year on top of our existing business license fee. The disadvantage of this is, it shifts the entire cost to replace the street utility revenue to business. Another option is B&O Tax. This would have significant administrative overhead costs to collect the B&O tax. Another option - the Property Tax Lid lift. This would require about $.35 per thousand of assessed value increase in property tax rates and subject to voter approval. The final option is Transportation Benefit District - also subject to referendum which would again be about $.35 per thousand of property tax increase. McFall stated that the Mayor's Task Force felt that the only responsible option was to provide funds to construct the corridors, which have a significant impact on the future of the city and to do it in the form of a utility tax increase, earmarked specifically for the corridor projects and transportation projects, and done concurrently with the repeal of the street utility. We would then show that it truly was a replacement revenue not a new increase in fees. Mayor White noted that the longer this goes on, the greater the risk of our being challenged on the utility. Therefore, this needs to be done in a timely manner as soon as Council is ready to act on it. The Mayor stated that he has made a recommendation and if Council has some other recommendation,we would be happy to listen. He noted that we have invested a tremendous amount of City funds in acquiring property, 3 4 "•v ate,.,� condemnation procedures, etc. Committee recommended that the City Attorney prepare the appropriate Ordinance repealing the existing Street Utility fee. Committee recommended authorization for the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinances to implement an alternate revenue source for our street utility, that alternate being a 1%increase in the Utility Tax, earmarked specifically for street purposes, which would be a replacement of the Street Utility and, that those ordinances be adopted at the next full Council on December 12th. 100TH AVENUE EXTENSION - NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Committee recommended that the 100th Avenue Extension meeting be held at East Hill Elementary School on Thursday, December 14th at 5:00 P.M Meeting adjourned: 5:30 p.m. 4