Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council Workshop - Minutes - 12/08/2020 Approved City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2020 Date: December 8, 2020 Time: 5:00 p.m. Place: THIS IS A REMOTE MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Council President Troutner called the meeting to order. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Toni Troutner Council President Present Bill Boyce Councilmember Present Brenda Fincher Councilmember Present Satwinder Kaur Councilmember Present Marli Larimer Councilmember Present Zandria Michaud Councilmember Present Les Thomas Councilmember Present Dana Ralph Mayor Present II. PRESENTATIONS 1 Park Impact Fees Brian Levenhagen FCS Consultants 45 MIN. Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services Deputy Director, Brian Levenhagen provided a presentation on the Park Impact Fee Study. He started by reviewing the 2016 Council adopted Park and Open Space Plan and goals. Levenhagen then reviewed the funding sources for Parks Capital Budget. With the budget in mind, he noted that the majority of the current funding bucket is prioritized for overcoming the existing Parks Capital Maintenance backlog and that the Park Impact Fee would pay for growth, rather than the existing tax base. Levenhagen discussed the difference between the Park Impact Fee and a Fee-In-Lieu and noted that the Park Impact Fee would need to be integrated into the Kent City Code to ensure alignment with neighboring cities and market requirements. Members of the FCS Group provided a presentation on the Kent Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study including a proposed fee schedule, funding plan and regional comparisons. Next steps would be to work with Economic and Community Development on how to work the Park Impact Fee into the current Development Code, continue work with FCS Group to refine specifics on the Park Impact Fee, City Council Workshop Workshop Regular Meeting Minutes December 8, 2020 Kent, Washington Page 2 of 2 adopt the Parks project list as a City Comp Plan Amendment and return to Council for an update at a future workshop. Councilmember Boyce inquired about working with the Kent School District as well as the Master Builders Association on this. Levenhagen indicated that they have a good working relationship with the school district, and during the Park and Open Space Plan update they plan on reengaging with the school district. He also noted that it was a very high-level conversation that was had with the Master Builders Association, but there will be more discussion with them as this progresses. Councilmember Larimer expressed her concerns about keeping things equitable and serving all populations with this new revenue source. Levenhagen indicated that it will be a part of the plan moving forward. 2 Levee Program Update Mike Mactutis 45 MIN. Environmental Engineering Manager, Mike Mactutis provided Council with a Green River Levee update. He reviewed a vicinity map and discussed the various projects that are underway from upper to lower Green River. Mactutis discussed the ongoing flood protection for both recreation and habitat in the surrounding area. Mactutis touched on the FEMA Accreditation and the areas that still require work in order to receive accreditation. He also discussed some of the habitat restoration that has been done in places such as the Downey Farmstead. Mactutis talked about future levee projects on the left bank, other levee reaches not yet raised to 500-year flood level as well as projects resulting from damage from past floods, in particular the February 2020 flood event. Mactutis reviewed the process for winter weather monitoring with the National Weather Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Geological Survey and King County and everything that goes into preparing for major events. Councilmember Boyce and Council President Troutner provided kudos to Mactutis on his passion and ability to educate the Council on such an important topic. Meeting ended at 6:18 p.m. Kimberley A. Komoto City Clerk Park Impact Fee Study City Council Workshop – December 8, 2020 Brian Levenhagen, Deputy Director Kent Parks, Recreation and Community Services John Ghilarducci, Principal, FCS GROUP Doug Gabbard, Project Manager, FCS GROUP Luke Slaughterbeck, Senior Analyst, FCS GROUP Why a Park Impact Fee? •In 2016, the City Council adopted the Park and Open Space Plan, which directly aligns with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and emphasized the following goals: •Quality Public Spaces: Provide a high quality park system that promotes Kent as a livable city. •Performance-based Approach: Plan and maintain the system with the help of a performance-based set of assessment tools. (Recreational Value Based Level of Service) •Transformation Through Reinvestment: Reinvest in the existing system to successfully transform it into a vibrant and relevant urban park system. •Sustainable Funding: Implement a funding model which adequately supports a Level of Service that reflects the community's priorities. 2 The performance based level of service transformed the way we looked at our park system. 3 Why a Park Impact Fee? What are our current Funding Sources for Parks Capital Budget? B&O Tax Revenue Real Estate Excise Tax 4 King County Parks Levy RCO Grants KC Conservation Futures Tax Developer Fee-In-Lieu City Property Actions Donations Sponsorships Volunteers Partnerships •Majority of current funding bucket is prioritized for overcoming existing Parks Capital Maintenance Backlog •Park Impact Fee would pay for growth, rather than existing tax base Park Impact Fee Existing Funding Sources How do we pay for new/expanded Park/Rec facilities needed to support growth? What Parks/Rec Facilities could we build in part with a Park Impact Fee? New Parks/Trails •Panther Lake Community Park •West Hill Neighborhood Park •132nd Ave Neighborhood Park •Central Park •Midway Park Outdoor Recreation Facilities •More Synthetic Turf Fields Indoor Recreation Facilities Increased Capacity in Existing Parks/Trails •Mill Creek Canyon Park •Clark Lake Park •Lake Fenwick Park •Uplands Playfields •Neighborhood Parks •Better Connections to the Green River Trail, Interurban and Soos Creek Trails Indoor Field House Connectivity In / Through Natural Areas Covered Destination Playgrounds Flexible Event/Rental Space Strategic Goals and Engagement 7 City of Kent Park & Open Space Plan 2016 •Recommended Park Impact fees as a funding source for Parks Capital. Rally the Valley - Kent Valley Industrial Subarea Plan • Implementing Park Impact Fees help achieve 3 of 4 plan goals City of Kent 2020-2028 Comprehensive Recreation Program Plan •Strategy 1. B. Explore the Feasibility to create and utilize impact fees. City of Kent Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission •Passed motion supporting establishment of Park Impact Fee at Nov 2020 meeting. *Kent already has impact fees for Traffic, Fire and both School Districts Park Impact Fee is different than Fee-In-Lieu •Developers of Plats (larger than 10 lots) are required to dedicate and construct 450 square feet of recreation space per unit. •Short Plats (under 10 lots) pay a Fee-In-Lieu of providing recreation space. •The fee-in-lieu is allowed for Plats only in unique situations, such as a city park being immediately adjacent to the planned project. •Park Impact Fee would need to be integrated into our code to ensure we are still in line with neighboring cities/market requirements. Park Impact Fee is different than Fee-In-Lieu •If we decide to move forward with a Park Impact Fee, we will pull back on the onsite recreation/Fee-In-Lieu Program. •Current onsite recreation/Fee-In-Lieu amounts will factor into any staff recommendation on the Park Impact Fee $ amount •We already had one meeting with the Master Builders Association and are happy to meet with any other interested stakeholder groups. Slide 10 FCS GROUP John Ghilarducci, Principal Doug Gabbard, Project Manager Luke Slaughterbeck, Senior Analyst December 8, 2020 Kent Parks & Recreation Impact Fee Study Slide 11 FCS GROUP Agenda What is an Impact Fee? Statutory Basis Calculation Framework Results Regional Comparison Slide 12 FCS GROUP What is an Impact Fee? •Is a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval •Pays for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that are reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities •Is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development •Does not include a reasonable permit or application fee •Only applies to incremental development An Impact Fee: Slide 13 FCS GROUP Statutory Basis Authorized by the Growth Management Act •RCW 82.02 RCW 82.02.050(2) •“The financing for system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees” Slide 14 FCS GROUP Statutory Basis RCW 82.02.050(3) •System improvements must be reasonably related to the new development •Impact fees cannot exceed a proportionate share of system improvement costs •System improvements must reasonably benefit the new development Slide 15 FCS GROUP Statutory Basis RCW 82.02.060(3) •Credit for the value of system improvements that developers are required to make RCW 82.02.070 •“Earmarked . . . and retained in special interest-bearing accounts” •“Expended only in conformance with the capital facilities plan element of the comprehensive plan” •Ten-year limit on spending Slide 16 FCS GROUP Calculation Framework allocable capital cost applicable customer base = Impact Fee Denominator should represent total customer base growth that will be served by the projects in the numerator. Numerator should represent total capital cost of serving the customer base growth in the denominator. Slide 17 FCS GROUP Projected Growth within Kent Growth rates based on historical data 1 employee = 0.213 residents (based on time allocation) 2017 2020 2026 Growth from 2020 to 2026 Population 127,100 130,500 139,403 8,903 Employees 72,814 75,257 80,391 5,134 Residential Equivalent Employees 15,546 16,067 17,163 1,096 Total Residential Equivalents 142,646 146,567 156,566 9,999 Calculated Growth Eligibility Percentage 6.39% Slide 18 FCS GROUP Growth Benefit Projects Eligibility determined by increase in Recreational Value by park category Project list from Parks 6-year CIP (adopted in 2021-22 budget) By Category Total Cost Eligibility Eligible Cost Parks Land Acquisition 3,925,685 100.00%3,925,685 4th and Willis Greenways 864,647 14.37%124,249 Campus Park Improvements 518,785 20.90%108,406 Clark Lake Park Development 240th 3,453,232 10.13%349,969 Downtown Park Phase 1 Improvements 1,035,386 14.37%148,784 Downtown Place-Making Kherson 1,846,647 14.37%265,361 Eastridge Park Renovation 350,237 49.18%172,235 Garrison Creek Renovation 816,689 20.90%170,657 Hogan Park at RR Phase 2 287,313 48.95%140,644 Huse/Panther Lake Community Park 862,602 8.30%71,618 Kent Memorial Park Renovation 5,788,184 48.95%2,833,402 KVLT - Old Fishing Hole Improvements 805,768 22.42%180,644 KVLT - Boeing Rock 886,646 48.95%434,026 KVLT - Phase 2 1,310,262 31.69%415,268 KVLT - Riverview 2,105,951 8.30%174,849 Lake Fenwick Phase 2 Improvements 365,510 10.13%37,043 Linda Heights Renovation 753,682 20.90%157,491 Mill Creek Canyon Revitalization 1,970,598 8.30%163,611 Mill Creek Earthworks Renovation 4,295,472 22.42%962,997 Morrill Meadows Phase 2 1,100,000 22.42%246,608 NPRP - Chestnut Ridge 367,323 20.90%76,757 NPRP - Salt Air Vista 635,323 20.90%132,758 NPRP - Scenic Hill Park Renovation 522,598 20.90%109,203 Park Orchard Park Improvements 459,966 20.90%96,115 Springwood Park Renovation 2,762,293 20.90%577,214 Sun Meadows 137,910 20.90%28,818 Total Growth Benefit Cost 38,228,709$ 31.66%12,104,412$ Slide 19 FCS GROUP Proportionate Benefit Projects Project Total Cost Eligibility Eligible Cost Downtown Park Masterplan 235,608$ 6.39%15,047$ East Hill Operations Feasibility Study 59,853 0.00%- East Hill Operations Improvements 706,445 0.00%- Gateway Landscape Renovation 202,394 0.00%- Masterplans 286,367 6.39%18,289 Park Lifecycle 3,438,300 0.00%- Parks and Open Space Plan 282,323 6.39%18,031 Total 5,211,291$ 51,367$ Slide 20 FCS GROUP Calculated Impact Fee Proportional Projects $51,367 Growth Benefit Projects $12,104,412 Growth in Res. Equivalents 9,999 Fee per Res. Equivalent: $1,216 Slide 21 FCS GROUP Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Parks Impact Fee Schedule Fee Unit Single-Family Residential 3,281.97$ per Dwelling Unit Multifamily 2,451.19 per Dwelling Unit Manufacturing 0.52 per Sq. Ft. Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities 0.26 per Sq. Ft. Retail 0.37 per Sq. Ft. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 0.74 per Sq. Ft. Services (not including food services)0.65 per Sq. Ft. Government/Education 0.87 per Sq. Ft. Restaurant 1.30 per Sq. Ft. Mini-storage 0.01 per Sq. Ft. Slide 22 FCS GROUP Funding Plan Funding Plan Resources: Beginning fund balance -$ Impact Fee revenue 12,155,779 Other Needed Revenue 31,284,221 Total resources 43,440,000$ Requirements: Project list (total cost)43,440,000$ Ending fund balance - Total requirements 43,440,000$ 28% of CIP eligible to be funded by PIFs Slide 23 FCS GROUP Regional Comparison Parks Impact Fee Comparison Single Family Residence Multi-Family Office Bldg. (per sq. ft.) Issaquah 9,107$ 5,591$ 0.97$ Sammamish 6,739 4,362 - Kirkland 5,533 3,154 - Redmond 4,738 3,289 1.28 Shoreline 4,090 2,683 - Puyallup 4,017 2,314 0.87 Renton 3,946 2,801 - Covington 3,922 2,761 - Auburn 3,500 3,500 - Kent (calculated)3,282 2,451 0.74 Tukwila 2,859 2,490 1.18 Vancouver 2,379 1,739 - Next Steps Work with ECD to Review how a Park Impact Fee can be worked into current Development Code. •Assess current Fee-In-Lieu system/Onsite Recreation Requirements and how they need to change to fit in with a Park Impact Fee. Work with FCS Group to refine specifics of Park Impact Fee based on feedback from City Council, City Staff, and Stakeholders Adopt Parks Project List as a City Comp Plan Amendment •Currently Scheduled for February •City can only amend Comp Plan once a year •Adopting project list does not commit City to a Park Impact Fee Come back to City Council for an update at a future Workshop and make a decision on implementation. Questions? Brian Levenhagen – Deputy Parks Director bjlevenhagen@kentwa.gov 253-856-5116 Panther Lake (Huse) Mill Creek Canyon West Hill Park Upper Green RiverMiddle Green River Lower Green River Kent Duwamish River Puget Sound Howard Hanson Dam USGS River Gage -Auburn Black River Pump Station Upper Green River Middle Green River Lower Green River Kent Green River Watershed GREEN RIVER:FLOOD PROTECTIONRECREATIONHABITAT GREEN RIVER:FLOOD PROTECTIONRECREATIONHABITAT GREEN RIVER: FLOOD PROTECTIONRECREATIONHABITAT FEMA ACCREDITATION COMPLETED LEVEES LOWER RUSSELL LEVEE CONSTRUCTION SIGNATURE POINTE LEVEE DESIGN AND PROPERTY APPRAISAL MILWAUKEE II LEVEE PROPERTY ACQUISITION DOWNEY FARMSTEAD HABITAT RESTORATION DOWNEY FARMSTEAD HABITAT RESTORATION FUTURE LEVEE PROJECTS •Left Bank Levees •Levee reaches not yet raised to 500-year flood level •Responding to future flood damage FUTURE HABITAT PROJECTS February 2020 Storm Event Recap LEVEE DAMAGE DESIMONE LEVEE LEVEE DAMAGE MCCOY AND OTHER LEVEES RIVER FLOW CHANGES AUBURN GAGE FLOW RATING CURVE WINTER WEATHER MONITORING •National Weather Service •US Army Corps of Engineers •US Geological Survey •King County CITY PREP •Flood Patrol Annual Training and Prep •Sandbags/Hescos