HomeMy WebLinkAbout4393ORDINANCE NO. 4393
AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, amending the Kent
Comprehensive Plan and its Capital Facilities
Element to incorporate an updated Park Project List
and the 2O2L Park Impact Fee Study (CPA-2021-1)'
RECITALS
A. The City of Kent Parks and Community Services Department
submitted a proposed amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate an updated Park Project List and the
2O2L Park Impact Fee StudY,
B. The City is currently exploring the possibility of enacting a Park
Impact Fee on new development to pay for additional parks and recreation
facilities to meet the increased level of service capacity needed to support
growth.
C, Pursuant to RCW 82.02.050, impact fees may be collected and
spent only for public facilities which are addressed by a capital facilities
element of a comprehensive plan, and continued authorization to collect
and expend impact fees is contingent on the capital facilities element
identifying: (1) deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development
and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a
I Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to the Capital Facilities Element for
Park Project List and Impact Fee Study
reasonable period of time; (2) additional demands placed on existing public
facilities by new development; and (3) additional public facility
improvements required to serve new development.
D. The incorporation of the Parks Project List and the 2021 Park
Impact Fee Study into the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive
Plan is for the purpose of meeting the requirements of RCW 82'02.050
should the City decide to implement a Park Impact Fee.
E. On December 30, 2020, the city provided the state of
Washington the required 60 day notification under RCW 36.704.106 of the
City's proposed amendment to the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, The 60 day notice period has passed.
F. On September lL, 2020, the City's SEPA responsible official
issued a SEPA Addendum to existing environmental documents consisting
of the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Review and Midway Subarea
Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Draft and Final
(ENV-2010-3) and the Downtown Subarea Action Plan Supplemental EIS
Draft and Final (ENV-2012-3O). The SEPA Addendum explained that the
proposed amendment is not expected to create adverse impacts beyond
those previously identified in the EIS.
G, After providing appropriate public notice, the Land Use and
Planning Board conducted a public hearing on February 8,202L, to consider
the Parks Project List, the 2O2L Park Impact Fee Study, and the requested
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and its Capital Facilities Element.
H.
approved
On March 2, 2021, the City Council for the City of Kent
the capital Facilities Element amendment to the Kent
2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to the Capital Facilities Element for
Park Proiect List and Impact Fee Study
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Park Project List and the 202L Park
Impact Fee Study (CPA-2021-1)'
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE
'EOTION
7, - Amendment The city of Kent comprehensive Plan
and its Capital Facilities Element are hereby amended to incorporate the
Park Project List and the 2O2l Park Impact Fee Study as set forth in
Exhibit A and B, respectively, attached and incorporated by this reference
(cPA-2021-1).
SECTION 2. - Corrections by citY clerk or code Reviser. upon
approval of the city attorney, the city clerk and the code reviser are
authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the
correction of clerical errors; ordinance, section, or subsection numbering; or
references to other local, state, or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations'
SECTION 3, - Severabitity. If any one or more section, subsection,
or sentence of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance
and the same shall remain in full force and effect'
SECTION 4, - Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force 30 days from and after its passage, as provided by law.
3 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to the Capital Facilities Element for
Park Proiect List and Impact Fee Study
DANA RALPH, MAYO
March 2,2O2L
Date Approved
ATTEST:
March .202L
KIMBERLEY KOMOTO, CITY CLERK Date Adopted
March 5. 2021
Date Published
APPROVED AS TO
ZPATRI , CITY ATTORNEY
4 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to the Capital Facilities Element for
Park Project List and Impact Fee Study
EXHIBIT AParks and Recreation Project List 2021-2026 Capital Facilities ElementLOSRecreational Value87.5$$ 4,620,000 $ ,8,449,669 48.9 ngs 1$ 11,221,000 $ 8,516,000 $ 6,263,000and Willis GreenwaysCampus Park lmprovementsClark Lake Park Development 240thDowntown Park MasterplanDowntown Park Phase 1 lmprovementsDowntown Place-Making KhersonEast Hill Operations Feasibility StudyHill Operations lmprovementsPark RenovationCreek RenovationLandscape RenovationHogan Park at RR Phase 2Huse/Panther Lake Community ParkKent Memorial Park RenovationKVLT - Old Fishing Hole lmprovementsKVLT - Boeing RockKVLT - Phase 2T - RiverviewFenwick Phase 2 lmprovementsHeights RenovationMasierplansMill Creek Canyon RevitalizationMill Creek Earthworks RenovationMonill Meadows Phase 2NPRP - Chestnut RidgeSalt Air VistaScenic Hill Park RenovationLifecycleOrchard Park lmprovementsParks and Open Space PlanParks Land AcquisitionSpringwood Park RenovationSun Meadows300,000 $ 564,647 $187,000331,785276,4881,282,000564,647s9,85341 5,580290,86533,000 169,3941,859,000 2,823,233 1,105,9s,1338.5o5.522$$50,000624,000'1,000,00071,00055,298165,893'1,105,95155,2981,105,951552,975387,083552,975294,510235,6081 17,804235,608200,267294,510294,510176,70658,902s81,081232,432s8'1,081116,216581,081116,21658,1081,1 51,899460,759287,975460,75957,5951,149,254574,627287,313574,627689,552574,627344,776$ 864,647518,7853,453,232235,6081,035,3861,846,64759,853706,445350,237816,689202,394287,313862,6025,788,184805,768886,6461,310,2622,105,951365,510753,682286,3671,970,5994,2B,5,4721,100,000367,323635,323522,5983,438,300459,966282,3233,925,6852,762,293137,910225,85956,465564,647169,394282,323282,323135,515564,647282,323225,8s91,129,293$00.92.30.60.8t.o7U6.3302417.751710.258.515.516414.51.5b4.619.7002.4001.23.6501717.7510.77.258.5011.412.72.90218.303.250.44.804.40012.40.343326.2513300,00081,0001,1 00,00085,000353,0001,178,042 1,162,162 1,151,899589,021 581,081575,9491 15,1904.13.31.12.11.203.250.64.20.62111 .58.251o1?4J3.54b11.54.51042I1E22,263,0001,633,000276,488 294,510 290,541 287,975 287,3131 37,9101.5Potential Potential RV AddedTotal Current RV RV Gained LOS by Project2026202520242023202220212020ParUProjectUrbanNeighborhoodPassive/NaturalUrbanUrbanUrbanNeighborhoodNeighborhoodPockeiNeighborhoodGatewaySpecial UseUndevelopedSpecial UseCommunitySpecial UseTrailUndevelopedPassive/NaturalNeighbofioodUndevelopedCommunityCommunityNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodNeighborhoodhborhoodClassification. Quantified by acreage
City of Kent
PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY
EXHIBIT B
Draft Report
January 2021
Washington
7525 166th Avenue NE, Ste. D215
Redmond, WA 98052
425.867j802
Oregon
5335 Meadows Road, Ste 330
Lake Oswego, 0R 97035
503.841.6543
Colotado
PO Box 19114
Boulder, CO 80301 9998
719.284.9168
www.fcsgroup.com
This entire report is made ofreadily
recyclable materials, including lhe bronze
wire binding and the front and back cove(
which are made from post-consumer
recycled plastic boltles'
*. FCSG ROI.]P
d Solutions-Orien ted Consuldng
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
Page ii
TngLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Section L lntroduction....,........
Section ll. lmpact Fee Legal Overview....
Section lll. Technical Analysis
llt.A. Growth
lll.B. Future Facilities Component..........
lll.C. lmpact Fee Cost Basis....
lll.D. Calculated lmPact Fee...
Section lV. 1mp|ementati0n.,.....................
lV.A. FundingPlan............
lV.B, lndexing.......
.il
.1
.2
.4
.4
,7
l0
t0
{:} FCS GITOUP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
Page 1
Section l. lNrRoDUcTloN
The City of Kent, Washington (City), is a growing city with increasing demands for park facilities.
One of the potentialrevenue sources to fund these increasing demands is impact fees. These fees help
the City to recover the costs of providing services to growth in an equitable manner. The City does
not currently impose impact fees for its park facilities. Thus, in 2020,the City contracted with FCS
GROUP to perform a park impact fee study that would calculate the maximum defensible park
impact fee in accordance with Washington state law.
Consistent with these objectives, this study included the following key elements:
o Overview of Washington Laws and Methodology Alternatives. We worked with City staff to
examine previous impact fee methodologies and develop alternative approaches in compliance
with Washington law.
. Develop Policy Framework. We worked with City staff to identify, analyze, and agree on key
assumptions and policy issues.
a Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with City staff to resolve technical issues, isolate
the recoverable portion of existing and planned facilities costs, and calculate fee alternatives. The
most important technical consideration involves the inclusion of planned capacity-increasing
improvements and their unique relationship to growth'
a Documentation and Presentation. In this step, we presented preliminary findings to the City
Council and summarized findings and recommendations in this report.
ri) FCS ( ; l{( ) Ll t)
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
page 2
Section ll. lupnCr Frr LrOnL OVERVIEW
Impact fees are enabled by state statutes, authorized by local ordinance, and constrained by the
United States Constitution. They allow cities to recover some of the cost of expanding public
facilities necessitated by growth. These fees allow "growth to pay for growth" in a fair and equitable
manner. Impact fees have a specific definition and associated constraints in the state of Washington.
Impact fees are allowed under RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110 and are permitted for:
o Public streets and roads
o Publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities
o School facilities
o Fire protection facilities
The statute provides specific guidance on the permissibte methodology for calculating impact fees.
This guidance can be broken down into three major categories:
1. Eligibitity Requirements. RCW 52.02.050(3) states that 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 only be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new
development.
These requirements, which exist to protect developers, ensure that impact fees are based on-
and spent for-capacity that will directly or indirectly serve the development' That is why
careful scrutiny is given to the included project list. Moreover, the impact fee that a
developer pays must represent that particular development's fair share of required capacity'
That is why developments pay a unique fee based on land use'
Additionally, RCW 82.02.050(5) states that "lmpact fees may be collected and spent only for
the public facilities . . . which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a
comprehensive land use plan." This means that if a project is not listed in the adopted capital
facilities plan element, then it is not eligible to be included in impact fee calculations'
2. Future Facilities Component. RCW 82.02.060(1) outlines the future facilities portion of
impact fee calculations, stating that the calculation must consider:
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 pro-ratable to the particular system improvement;
c. The availability of other means of funding public facility improvements;
.{> rcs {;t{{}LJP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee StudY
Page 3
d. The cost of existing public facilities improvements; and
e. The methods by which public facilities improvements were financed'
This means that adjustments to the impact fee cost basis must be made for the amount of
outstanding debt that was or will be used to pay for capital facility improvements, as well as
other methods of funding public facilities improvements.
3. Customer Base. The costs determined to be eligible must be proportionately allocated across
the projected customer base.
.:ilFCS GROUP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
Page 4
Section III. TTCHNICAL ANALYSIS
Eligible Portion of
Capacity
lncreasing Projects
This section provides the detailed calculations of the maximum defensible parks impact fee
The eligible portion of capacity increasing projects is the cost of future projects that will serve
growth. Some projects are intended to only serve growth, some projects do not serve to increase the
capacity of the City's park system, and some serve the City's current and future populations' The
following section will detail how the growth eligibility percentage was calculated for each future
project.
The growth in the user base is the anticipated growth in the City's population. However, as residents
are notthe only users of the City's park system, employees of businesses within will be included as
well, at a separate rate that reflects the parks demand characteristics of commercial developments.
The total eligible portion of capacity increasing projects divided by the growth in the user base
results in the park impact fee. Each of these components is examined in further detail below'
III.A. GROWTH
Calculation of growth begins with defining the units by which current and future demand will be
measured. Using the best available data, FCS GROUP quantified the current level of demand and
estimated a future level of demand. The difference between the current level and the future level is
the growth in demand that serves as the denominator in the impact fee calculations.
lll.A.l . Unit of Meosurement
A good unit of measurement allows the City to quantify the incremental demand of one new
development. A great unit of measurement allows the City to distinguish different levels of demand
added by different kinds of development'
lll.A.l.o Options
For park impact fees, demand that can be attributed to individual developments is usually measured
by the number of people who will occupy a development. For residential developments, the number
of occupants means the number of residents. FCS GROUP uses data from the U. S. Census Bureau to
estimate the number of residents for different kinds of dwelling units. For non-residential
Park lmpact Fee
Growth in User
Base
{i} FCS C,ROUP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee StudY
page 5
developments, the number of occupants means the number of employees. We use industry data to
estimate the number of employees per square foot for different kinds of non-residential
developments. However, employees and residents do not have the same amount of time available to
utilize the City's park system, so a conversion to residential equivalents must be made.
When an agency chooses to impose a parks impact fee on both residential and non-residential
developments, the demand of one additional resident must be carefully distinguished from the
demand of one additional employee. This is usually accomplished by the calculation of a residential
equivalent. One resident is one residential equivalent, and one employee is typically less than one
residential equivalent, as they have less available time to utilize parks and facilities.
lll.A.l.b Recommendotion
The City finds that non-residential developments are a significant source of demand for parks
facilities. We therefore recommend that the City charge parks impact fees for both non-residential
and residential development.
Ul.A.2. Residentiol Equivolence
To charge parks impact fees to both residential and non-residential developments, we must estimate
both (1) how much availability non-residential occupants (i.e., employees) have to use parks facilities
and (2) how that avaitability differs from residential occupants (i.e., residents)'
The calculation begins with the most recent data for both population and employment in Kent. As
shown below, in 2017 (the most recent year for which both population and employment data were
available), 127,100 residents live in Kent, and 72,814 employees work in Kent. Of these,9,445
people both live and work in Kent, as shown in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit I
Residents and Employees in Kent (2017)
Source; WA OFM Population Sfafrsfics, US Census Bureau: OnTheMap Application
Next, we estimate the number of hours per week that each category of person would be available to
use the parks facilities in Kent. The two tables below show FCS GROUP's estimate of maximum
time available for use. It is not an estimate of actual use.
Working inside Kent
Working oubide Kent
Not lrorking
9,445 63,369 72,814
48,772
68,883
Total 127,100
Total
Living lnside
Kent
Living Outside
Kent
.:t rcs (;l{o Lil'
72
72
112Not
rking inside Kent
oubide Kent
Hours per Week of Park
Availability per Person,
Residential Demand
Living lnside
Kent
Living 0utside
Kent
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee StudY
Page 6
Exhibit 2
Available Hours by C
Source: FCS GROUP
Source; FCS GROUP
When the hours of availability above are multiplied by the population and employee counts presented
earlier, we are able to determine the relative parks demand of residents and employees. As shown in
Exhibit 3, the parks demand of one employee is equivalent to the parks demand of 0.213 resident'
Another way of understanding this is that the parks demand of 4.68 employees is equivalent to the
parks demand of one resident.
Exhibit 3
Total Available Hours bY Class
Source; Previous tables
lll.A.3. Growth in Demond
The current (2020) demand for parks facilities is 146,567 residential equivalents. That number is the
sum of 130,500 residents (based on the Washington State Office of Financial Management's official
state population projections), and 16,067 residential equivalents fot 75,257 employees' The number
of employees is based on the 2017 number of employees, inflatedto2020 based on the City's
historical growth.
During the forecast period from 2020 to 2026, the residential population is expected to grow by
8,903 residents to a total of 139,403 residents. Population growth was forecast at l.l I percent
Working inside Kent
Working oubide Kent
2020
Not uorki
Hours per Week of Park
Availability per Person, Non'
Residential Demand
Living lnside
Kent
Living 0utside
Kent
Working inside Kent
Working oubide Kent
680,040
3,511,584
7,714,896
2,136,320
3,51 1,584
1,456,280
7 714,896Notvrp
'11
20.00
11,520
93.68
Hours em
Total
Hours per resident
Residential uivalent 0.213
Total Hours per Week of Park
Availability, 2017
Residential
Hours
Non-
Residential Total Hours
'li> rcs GROLIP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee StudY
page 7
annually, and growth in employees forecast at l.l 1 percent annually (based on the City's historical
growth rate from 2011-20). As seen in Exhibit 4, the existing customer base will grow by 9,999
residential equivalents to a total of 156,566 residential equivalents. Therefore, 9,999 residential
equivalents will be the denominator for the impact fee calculations later in this report.
Exhibit 4
Growth in Residential Equivalents
Source; Previous tables
Calculated Growth 6.39%
By dividing the 9,999 residential equivalents in growth by the total projected residential equivalents
in 2026, we determine that 6.39 percent of the 2026 residential equivalents is attributable to growth.
This is the growth eligibility percentage, which is a proportion that will be used to quantify the
impact fee eligibility of selected projects (known as "proportionate benefit projects") later in the
analysis.
III.B. FUTURE FACILITIES COMPONENT
The future facilities component is the eligible cost of planned projects per unit of growth that such
projects will serve. Since growth (denominator) has already been calculated above, we will focus
here on the future cost component cost basis (numerator).
lll.B.l . Eligibility
A project's eligible cost is the product of its total cost and its eligibility percentage. The eligibility
percentage represents the portion ofthe project that creates capacity for future users. For park impact
fees, eligibility is determined by a level-of-service analysis that quantifies the park facilities that are
needed for growth (and are therefore eligible to be included in an improvement fee cost basis).
lll.B.l.o RecreotionolVolue
The City uses a unique level of service metric called recreational value. Using this approach, each
park is graded based on the number of assets, condition of assets, and type of assets that it contains.
This allows each park to be assigned a recreational value that systematically takes into account
multiple features of the park system. This differs from the traditional level of service metric (acres
per 1,000 residents), which does not account for the quality or condition of parks facilities'
Determining eligibility based on the current level of service means that only those project costs that
will allow the City to maintain its current level of service at the end of the planning period (2026, in
this case) are considered eligible. For example, the City's current inventory of community parks is 43
recreational value points. Based on the current population, the current level of service for community
parks is 0.33 recreational value points per 1,000 totalresidentialequivalents. To maintain this level
Population
Em ployees
Residential
127,100
72,814
15,546
130,500
75,257
139,403
80,391
17,163
8,903
5,1 34
1,096uivalent Em
Total Residential u ivalents 156,566 I,l
1
Growth from
2026 20201o202620172020
.:ir pcs GI{.0Lil)
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
page B
of service in2026,the City will need an additional2.gl reqeationalvalue points in its communtty
parks. However, based on the planned projects listed later in this report, the City intends to add 17.00
recreational value points in community parks. Because the City plans on adding more than the
minimum amount of recreational value points, only some of the costs of these projects are eligible.
There are two approaches to calculating this eligibility, the current level of service approach and the
future level of service approacft. FCS GROUP believes both of these approaches to be equally
defensible. The current level of service is based on the recreational value per residential equivalent
now. For community parks, this value is 17.13 percent (2.91 117.00). Only the first 2.91 recreational
value points are eligible to be reimbursed in the impact fee, because the remainder are enhancing the
level of service.
Thefuture level of service approacft is backwards looking instead. Ln2026, the City plans to have
60.00 recreational value points in its community parks (0.43 recreationalvalue points per 1,000 total
residential equivalents). By projecting the future level of service back to present, we can calculate
that the minimum 2020 recreational value points at the future level of service is 55.86, rather than the
43.00 that actually exist. Using this metric, 4.14 (60.00 - 55.86) recreational value points are eligible
to be included, because the first 12.86 (55.86-43.00) recreational value points serve to correct the
deficiency. This results in an eligibility percentage of 22.42 percent. The full eligibility calculations
for each park type are shown in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5
Expansion EligibilitY
As shown in Exhibit 5, eligibility percentages range dramatically across park categories. However,
the future level of service approach results in equal or higher eligibility percentages for every park
category, so it will be used throughout the rest of the analysis.
lll.B.2. Lond Acquisition
There is one project that does not use the recreational value metric, Parks Land Acquisition. The City
plans to add about 20 acres to the park system over the planning period. As the City currently has
871 acres in its system, Parks Land Acquisition is 100 percent eligible, following the same level of
service calculations shown above. The list ofprojects assessed by acreage and recreational value is
shown in Exhibit 6.
LevelSeruiceCurrent
0.56
0.00
0.14
0.06
0.47
0,16
0.00
0.'11
0.1 3
0.43
73.51
0.56
18.58
7 .21
60.99
21.06
0.00
14.11
16.43
55.86
20.90/"
0.0070
31.6970
49.18Yo
48.95%
14.37V"
0.00%
10.13Yo
8.30%
22.420/"
0.04
1.08
0.46
3.86
0,85
0.00
0.38
0.28
2.91
15.50%
0.00%
27.03%
45.71o/o
45.470k
8.53%
0.000/o
4.00o/o
2.05%
17.130/0
Open Space
Trail
Pocket
Spocial Use
Urban
Concept
Passive/Natural
undeveloped
55
'l
'16
7
13
0
o
4
43
0
4
1
I
10
0
10
14
17
Total 199 88 13.58 1 2.06 20.92o1o
New Quantity
Needed
Units per 1,000
Residents in 2026
Minimum 2020
QuantitYElisibilityCurrentAdded Quantity
.:!r pcs Gl{oul,
Parks Land Acquisition
4h and Willis Greenways
Campus Park lmprovemenb
Clark Lake Park Development 240ft
Dor,rntoun Park Phase 1 lmprovemenb
Dor,rntoun Place-M aking Kherson
Easfidge Park Renovation
Garrison Creek Renovalion
Hogan Park atRR Phase 2
Huse/Panher Lake Community Park
Kent Memorial Park Renovation
KVLT - Old Fishing Hole lmprovemenb
KVLT - Boeing Rock
l(/LT - Phase 2
KVLT - Riverview
Lake Fenniick Phase 2 lmprovemenb
Linda Heighb Renovation
Mill Creek Canyon Revitalization
Mill Creek Earhr,rnrks Renovation
Morrill Meador,rs Phase 2
NPRP - Cheshut Ridge
NPRP - SaltAir Vista
NPRP - Scenic Hill Park Renovation
Park Orchard Park lmprovemenb
Springr,rood Park Renovation
Sun Meadous
Urban
Neighborhood
Passive/Nafural
Urban
Urban
Pocket
Neighborhood
Special Use
Undeveloped
Special Use
Community
Special Use
Trail
Undeveloped
Passive/Nafural
Neighborhood
Undeveloped
Community
Community
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
hborhood
100.00%
14.37T0
20.90T0
10,13o/o
14.37Yo
14.37Y0
49,18T0
20.90%
48.95%
8.30%
48.95Y0
22.42Vo
48.95%
31.69%
8.30%
10.13%
20,900/o
8.30%
22.42T0
22.420k
20.90Vo
20.90%
20.90Yo
20.90o/o
20.90Yo
20.90Vo
3,925,685
124,249
108,406
349,969
148,784
265,361
172,235
170,657
140,644
71,618
2,833,402
180,644
434,026
415,268
174,849
37,043
157,491
1 63,61 1
962,997
246,608
76,757
132,758
1 09,203
96,1 1 5
577,214
28,818
3,925,685
864,647
518,785
3,453,232
1,035,386
1,846,647
350,237
816,689
287,313
862,602
5,788,184
805,768
886,646
1,310,262
2,105,951
365,510
753,682
1,970,598
4,295,472
1 ,1 00,000
367,323
635,323
522,598
459,966
2,762,293
137 910
Gost $ 38,228,709 31.66% $1 2
By Catego ory ble CostTotal Cost Eligibility
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
page I
Exhibit 6
Growth Benefit Projects
As can be seen, of the $38.2 million in project costs, about $12.1 million is eligible to be included in
the impact fee calculation. There is one other project list that needs to be included.
lll.B.3. Proportionote Benefit Projects
The second subset of the City's project list includes projects that will expand the capacity of the
parks system in some way without physically adding new recreational value to the parks system.
These projects are not subject to the eligibility calculations described above but are instead assumed
to benefit both existing and future users proportionately. In addition, there are projects that will not
expand the capacity of the parks system and are not eligible to be included in the impact fee cost
basis. As shown in Exhibit 7, this project list has a total cost of $5.2 million'
.:i> rcs GI{OLJP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
page 10
Exhibit 7
Proportionate Benefit P ects
For eligible proportionate benefit projects, the eligibility percentage is the proportion of total future
demand (156,566 residential equivalents) that will arrive between 2020 and2026 (9,999 residential
equivalents), or 6.39 percent. The total eligible cost basis of these projects is $51,367.
III.C. IMPACT FEE COST BASIS
By adding these two fee components together, a combined impact fee cost basis of $12.2 million can
be calculated, as shown in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8
Impact Fee Cost Basis ComParison
III.D. CALCULATED IMPACT FEE
This section combines the eligible costs from the two project lists and applies adjustments for fund
balance and compliance costs. The result is a total impact fee per residential equivalent. Recall that
there is a projected growth of 9,999 residential equivalents in the City over the next 6 years (Exhibit
4). By dividing the $12.2 million impact fee cost basis by the growth in residential equivalents, the
impact fee per residential equivalent can be calculated, as shown in Exhibit 9'
639% $
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.39%
0.00%
6.39%
15,047
18,289
18,03'l
Dountown Park M asterplan
East Hill Operalions Feasibility Study
East Hill Operations lm provemenb
Gater,uy Landscape Renovation
Masterplans
Park Lifecycle
Parks and Open Space Plan
235,608
59,853
706,445
202,394
286,367
3,438,300
282,323
$
Total $ 5,211,291 $ 51,367
Project Total Cost ibility Eligible Cost
Eligible cosb by category:
Proportionate Benefi t Projecb
Gror,lffr Benefit Projecb (by Acreage)
GrovMh Benefit Projecb (by Recreational Value)
51,367
3,925,685
8,178,726
$
Total eligible costs by cateogry $ 12,155,779
lmpact Fee Cost Basis
.:lr rcs GtiluP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee Study
Page 1 1
Exhibit 9
Im act Fee per Residential uivalent
Census data is then used to estimate the number of residents per dwelling unit and calculate impact
fees for residential dwelling units. For non-residential development, we provide both an impact fee
per employee and an estimate of the number of employees per 1,000 square feet of different types of
non-residential development.
lll.D.l . lmpoct Fee Schedule
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, we determined that the
average single-family home in Kent has 2.700 residents, while the average multi-family dwelling unit
has 2.016 residents. We previously determined that an employee is equivalent to 0.213 residents. By
multiplying the $1 ,216 impact fee per residential equivalent by these numbers, the impact fee per
dwelling unit and per employee can be calculated'
Exhibit 10
Comparison of Calculated Impact Fees
Source; American Community Survey and Previous Tables
There is one further step to calculate the final impact fee schedule. As the number of employees at a
commercial enterprise can fluctuate, the City plans to charge non-residential development based on
square footage. Thus, the per employee fee must be converted to a sq. ft.-based fee, by dividing the
per employee fee calculated above by the sq. ft. per employee. This is shown in Exhibit 11. Because
different types of commercial development have different employment densities, impact fees for non-
residential developments are distinguished by land use.
Grovtth in Residential Equivalents
Total Cost Basis
9,999
16ResidentiallmFee
$ 12,155,779
$1
Calculated lmpact Fee
Single Family Duelling Unit
M ulti-Fam ily Duelling Unit
2.700
2.016
0.213
3,282
2,451
260
$
Per Em
Equivalent Residential
MultiplierLand Use Category lmpact Fee
.:ir rcs GI{OLJP
Single-Fam ily Residential
Multitumily
M anufacturing
Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities
Retail
Finance, lnsurance, and Real Estate
Services (not including food services)
Governm enVEd ucation
Restaurant
3,281.97
2,451.19
0.52
0.26
0.37
0.74
0.65
0.87
1.30
0.01
per Duelling Unit
per Duelling Unit
per Sq. Ft.
per Sq. Ft,
per Sq. Ft,
per Sq. Ft.
per Sq. Ft.
per Sq. Ft.
per Sq. Ft
000
700
350
400
300
200
nla$
I
20,000MineFt.
Sq. Ft. per
EmployeeParks lmpact Fee Schedule UnitFee
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee StudY
page 12
Exhibit 11
Im Fee Schedule
Source: Snohomlsh County Buildable Lands Report and Previous Tables
lll.D.2. Comporison to Other Jurisdictions
Exhibit 12 shows how the recommended parks impact fee compares with respect to selected cities
and districts. As can be seen, the calculated impact fees are generally lower than most other
Washington jurisdictions that levy park impact fees'
Exhibit 12
Local Jurisdiction ComParison
lssaquah
Sammamish
Kirkland
Redmond
Shoreline
Puyallup
Renton
Covington
9,107 $
6,739
5,533
4,738
4,090
4,017
3,946
3,922
3,500
3,282
2,859
2,379
5,591 $
4,362
3,1 54
3,289
2,683
2,314
2,801
2,761
3,500
2,451
2,490
1,739
0.97
1.28
$
0,87
burn
0.74
1.1B
Kent (calculated)
Tukwila
Vancouver
Single Family
Residence Multi-FnsonParks lmpact Fee C
Office Bldg. {per
sq.ft.
":i> rcs (;ROUP
City of Kent
January 2021
Park lmpact Fee StudY
page 13
Section lV. IUPLEMENTATIoN
This section addresses practical aspects of implementing impact fees
IV.A. FUNDING PLAN
Even if the City implements the parks impact fees calculated previously, impact fee revenues will not
be sufficient to fund the project list. Instead, they can only be expected to fund about2SYo ofthe
project list. An additional $31.3 million will need to be raised from other, non-impact fee, sources.
This is shown in Exhibit 13.
Exhibit 13
Funding Plan
IV.B. INDEXING
The City already annually indexes its transportation impact fees to the to the Engineering News-
Record Seattle Area Construction Cost Index (KMC 12.14.060 (C)). We recommend that the City
continue this practice for park impact fees as well, as it provides an adjustment to the impact fee
which at least partially responds to the cost basis over time. We also recommend that the City
continue its practice of periodically updating its impact fees to ensure that they recover the full cost
of growth's impacts on City facilities'
Resources:
Beginning fund balance
lm pact Fee revenue
Other Needed Revenue
Total resources
Project list (total cos$
Ending fund balance
Total requiremenb
43,440,000
$
43,440,000
$
$
$
43 440,000
irements:
12,155,779
31,284,221
Funding Plan
.:ir pcs GI{OLJI)
C\Fz(
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath that he is the
Vice President of Advertising for Sound Publishing,
which publishes the
Kent Reporter
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general
circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date
of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language
continuously as a weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The
Kent- Covington Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of
the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County.
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of
the Kent- Covington Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly
distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed
notice, a:
Public Notice #KENs2oB61
was published on March
The full amount of the fee
5,202L
charged for said foregoing publication is the
sum of $
Rudi Alcott
Vice President, Advertising
Subscribed and sworn to me this 5s day of March, 2O2L .
Tribbett,Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
Washington
$
e)(p
g.flTARF
PuBt-tc
Classified Proof
CITYOF KENT
NOTICE OF
ORDINANCES
PASSED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL
The following are sum-
maries of ordinances
passed by the Kent City
Council on March 2,
2021.
ORDINANCE NO. 4393
-AN ORDINANCE ofthe
City Council of lhe Cityof Kent, Washington,
arnending the Kent
Comprehensive Plan
and its Capital Facilities
Elem€nt to incorporate
an updated Park Prqect
List and lhe 2021 Parklmpact Fee Study
(cPA-2021-1).
This ordinanc6 shall take
effect and be in force 30
days from and after its
passage, as provided by
law.
ORDINANCE NO. 4394
- AN ORDINANCE ofthe
Cig Council of lhe Cigof Kent, Washington,
amending the K€nt
Comprehensive Plan
and its Capital Facilities
Element to incorporate
an updated Transporla-lion Proiect List andamending the Kent
Comprehensive Plan to
replace the content ollhe Transportation Ele-
ment with the updated
Transportalion Master
Plan (CPA-2021-2).
This ordinance shall take
effect and be in force 30
days from and after its
passage, as provided by
law.
ORDINANCE NO. 4396
-AN ORDINANCE ofthe
Ci$ Council of the Cityof Kent,'\lVashington,amending section
3.28.050 of the Kent Cily
Code establish a sland-
alone six- acre square
footage threshold for cal-
Proofed by Jennifer Tribbett, 03/03/2021 1 1 : 13:06 am Page:2
Classified Proof
culation of Outdoor
Warehouse SPaoe
square footage tax, ef-
fectiv€ January 1, 2021.
This ordinanoe shall take
effeot and be in lorce
five days from and after
its publication as proviC-
€d bv RCW 35A.11.090
and'RCW 35A.12.130;
howovor, the revisions to
KCC 3.28.050 regarding
square footage tax on
outdoor warehousing oP-
eralions shall apply ret-
roactively and be effec-
tive January 1, 2021 .
A copy of the compbte
texl of eny ordinence will
be mailod upon r€queat
of the City Cl6rk.
Kimberloy A. Komoto,
Ciw Clo*
Kkirnnto@KentWA.gw
253-856-5725
#920861
3t5121
Proofed by Jennifer Tribbett, 03/03/2021 l1:13:06 am Page:3