HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.02.13 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. February 13,2012
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau Presentation. (NO WRFFTEN MATERIAL ON
AGENDA) Presented by Kris Watkins, President and CEO, Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention
Bureau.
(b) Estate Fence Issue:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebei, Deputy City Manager dated February 8,2012.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Draft Letter and Notice of Public Meeting.
(c) Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Urban Growth Area, Base Maps and Adoption of
Subarea Plans by Reference (MF#CPA2011-001):
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald,City Planner dated February 7,2012.
2. Proposed Urban Growth Area Map.
3, Base Maps.
4. Comprehensive Plan Sections.
5. Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated 1/19/12.
6. Planning Commission Minutes.
(References in Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning
office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at ht�[ //www.pgsco-
wa_sov/citoundlre x? Ltgl.
(d) Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Pasco School District Capital Facilities (MF
#CPA2011-001):
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated February 7,2012.
2. School District Letter dated 1/I1/11.
3. School District Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2017.
4. Memo to the City Manager.
5. Staff Memos to the Planning Commission.
6_ Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
7. Planning Commission Minutes.
8. Public Correspondence.
(References in Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning
office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http://www.nasco-
wa.Tov/c't�% auncilre }.
(e) Speed Limit on Industrial Way:
L Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak,City Engineer dated February 1, 2012.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Ordinance.
(f) Interlocal Agreement with Port of Walla Walla for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Services:
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated January 30, 2012.
2. Proposed Agreement_
3. Resolution No. 3334.
(g) Orthophotography Intergovernmental Agreement:
L Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
February 6, 2012.
2. Proposed Agreement.
(h) 2011 Community Survey:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated February 6, 2012.
2. 2011 National Citizen Survey for Pasco(Council packets only).
Workshop Meeting 2 February 13,2012
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMTNDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, February 13, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership
Luncheon. (Bob Metzger, Pasco Police Chief,Presenter)
2. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, February 14, Senior Center — Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN,Aa.)
3. 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 15, Clover Island—Benton, Franklin & Walla Walla Counties Good
Roads & Transportation Association Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANI`, Rep.;
REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
4. 11:30 a.m., Friday, February 17, West Richland Golf Course — Benton-Franklin Council of
Governments Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK,
Alt.)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Coun February 8, 2012
TO: Gary Crutch ie anager Workshop Mtg.: 2113/12
Regular Mtg.: 2 121/12
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manage
SUBJECT: Estate Fence Issue
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft letter and Notice of Public Meeting
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2113: Discussion
2/21; MOTION: I move to schedule a public meeting on the Estate Fence issue for
March 12, at 7:00 p.m. and to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter
to property owners.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Council reviewed the recommendations of the Estate Fence Conunittee on
January 17 and directed that a letter be sent to property owners adjacent to the
defective fence (Road 100, Chapel Hill Blvd and Road 84) inviting their
participation in a public meeting to discuss the problem and possible solutions.
B) A meeting was held nn Fehniary 1 at Chiawana High School. Approximately 16
(of 118) property owners attended with members of the Committee and staff.
Problems associated with the fence (damage and graffiti) as well as possible
solutions were discussed.
C) Following an extensive question and answer session, those attending were asked
to indicate their approval or disapproval of the following concept.
a) That all of the existing "Surewood" fence slats be replaced with (23/32" x
6" x 6') cedar, pre-stained fence.
b) The City will order the materials, arrange for removal of the old fence
material and installation of the new slats.
c) Property owners will be responsible for material costs (current estimate for
the cedar slats is $5.15, plus tax, per lineal foot — average lot line is 70 If x
$5.57 = $390).
d) City will bill 1/12 of the material cost to each property owner on the
monthly utility bill for 12 months.
e) This replacement project is a "one-time" project due to the inadequate
material initially installed. Following replacement, individual property
owners are responsible for routine fence maintenance and repair.
D) All but two of the property owners indicated support of the concept. Those two
indicated a preference for the more expensive ($15 If) vinyl product that was
discussed as an alternative.
E) At the conclusion of the meeting, Mayor Watkins suggested that the City Council
would hold a public meeting on the outlined proposal. Property owners would
again be notified of the meeting and the details of the proposal. Following the
meeting, the City Council would make a decision on the proposal.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The attached draft letter is proposed to inform the property owners of the proposal
and the proposed public meeting (March 12) and Council decision (March 19).
4(b)
117
r
CHAPEL PULL BLVD
77-
1..171 , 7
MUSTANG DR L
OLIVER DR
�I-T 7-f-r-
-7-
t J P4
U L
PALOMD*01%
--T
J
LL-1
01 -T I
% I -.jLgli PlPtCHEROH D-R
77— O"L
T- .1 J,
t Hrj, -L--
LAND OR
TT
L lo
!'I r-
JERM OR
-f-l-FTT
SHIM OR
it
MR
-fix.
/*
Ell LIAN!5i -L
I I
-4
1-n [
J-LLL;
I OR t-
!4IX
A
4-i
N, LAQ I
.8 IL
IL
Ptlu
I Nx
I I
__3V"$_ET TRAq!-
_qHEU----
-r
MAPLE MAPLE OR MAPM OR
"T-
Legend
Subdivision Fence Inventory
SurWood Fence
RLI
February 2012 F7 SRA
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (509) 545-3404 / Fax (509) 545-3403
IP. O. Box 293, 525 N. rd Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
AQ1 qqW=p Dear Property Owner:
This is to follow up on the meeting regarding the problems with the perimeter or"estate" fence
adjacent to your property which was held on February I at Chiawana High.
At the meeting, City staff presented information on the problems associated,�Vith the defective
materials used for the fence and its maintenance and upkeep. A n'tiinber of s'*ples of possible
replacement slats and estimated costs for purchase were revi6Wd grid discussed-''After a number of
questions were asked,those in attendance were asked if t q supported the followitig proposition:
lid, l'
1. That all of the existing "Surewood" fence slats be't,,O,piaced with (23/32"x 6"x 6') cedar pre-
stained fence.
2. The City will order the materials, arrange for removal of the old fence material and installation
of the nexv slats.
3. Property owners will be responsible f6rm6terial�costs (current estimate for the cedar slats is
$5.15, plus tax, per lineal foot—average`lot line is°701f x $5.57 $390).
4. City will bill 1/12 of the.,material cost to each prbperty'ot?Vner on the monthly utility bill for 12
months.
5, This replacement;project is a'`:one-time" project due to the inadequate material initially
installed, Follows Q,replacem6t, individual property owners are responsible for routine fence
maintenance and repair.;
As most of those in att*ance weie'!1h:support of the proposal, the City Council will consider this at
its workshop meeting of lvia Ich 12. Y6� are.invited and encouraged to attend the meeting and provide
your�inpiib,' Following the md0 ing of March 12 it is expected that the Council will decide whether to
proceed widilaireplacement pr618.,ct at its regular meeting of March 19.
Thank you for youf,I�hention t6 this issue.
Sincerely,
DRAFT
Matt Watkins
Mayor
MW/SS/tlz
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Counci February 7,2012
TO: Gary Crutchfie , 'Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/13/12
Rick White,
Community& conomic Development Director'
FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Urban Growth Area.-Bast Mates
and Adoption of Subarea Plans by Reference (MF#CPA 2011-001)
1. REFERENCES
1. Proposed Urban Growth Area Map*
2. Base Maps*
3. Comprehensive Plan Sections*
4. Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated 1/19/12
S. Planning Commission Minutes
*(Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning Office, the
Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at http://www.Basco-wa.,gov/cit�councilrepc)rts.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2/13: Discussion and direction for staff
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The Planning Commission concluded a series of public hearings in January dealing
with various amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Three of the proposed
amendments involve minor modifications to the Urban Growth Area boundary,
updating the base maps and incorporating the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and
the Broadmoor Concept Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference. The City
Council adopted the Broadmoor Concept Plan as a development guide in 2009 and
adopted the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan for the same purpose in 2010.
B. Following the hearing in January the Planning Commission recommended the Pasco
Urban Growth Area be modified as shown in Reference 1; the base maps be modified
as shown in Reference 2 and the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and Broadmoor
Concept Plan be included in the Comprehensive Plan as identified in Reference 3.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The Growth Management Act requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas
(UGA) around all urban centers within Franklin County. The law does not permit
cities to establish UGA's. The City can suggest or identify the preferred UGA but
only the County can officially establish the boundary lines.
B. The proposed modifications to the UGA involve three minor additions on the eastern
edges of the community. A slight adjustment in the boundary is needed for the
Tidewater Terminal on the Snake River. A small portion of the Tidewater facility is
outside the current UGA boundary. Future annexations and the provision of
municipal services will be problematic if the Tidewater property continues to be
4(c)
divided by the UGA boundary. The other two areas proposed for UGA boundary
modifications include the old Devries Dairy site which was previously within the
initial UGA boundary but later excluded by the County Commissioners because the
dairy operations were at odds with the nature of the UGA and a 120 acre parcel south
of Foster Wells Road along the east side of Capitol Ave. The City has spent several
million dollars in the past few years improving streets and utilities near these areas to
serve future industrial needs and to enhance system reliability. Some of the properties
that could now benefit from this public investment cannot be served by the utility
improvements because they are outside the UGA. Modifying the UGA will make it
possible for these properties to connect to the City's utility system.
C. The Growth Management Act requires consistency between the various planning
documents prepared by the City. The proposal to include the Marine Terminal/Boat
Basin Plan and the Broadmoor Concept Plan within the Comprehensive Plan
addresses the consistency requirement.
D. Staff will be available at the workshop to provide further explanation of the
modifications discussed above. Following any additional direction from the City
Council staff will prepare the necessary adoption ordinance for Council
consideration. A resolution will be need to be approved for the UGA boundary
modifications by end of March to be available for the County's annual cycle for UGA
boundary amendments.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 7, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager Workshop 2/13/12
Rick White, Dir .to munity and Economic Development
�II�
FROM: Dave McDonald City Planner
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Pasco School District Capital Facilities
t MF#CPA 2011-0011
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. School District Letter dated 1/11/2011
2. School District Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2017
3. Memo to the City Manager
4. Staff Memos to the Planning Commission
5. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
6. Planning Commission Minutes
7. Public Correspondence
(References in Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning
Office, the Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at http;//www.12ascowa.Aov 1
citycouncilreuorts.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2/13: Discussion and direction for staff.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In January of 2011 the Pasco School District informed the City Council that the
District no longer had the capacity to accommodate increased student enrollment
due do residential growth in the community. During the 10 year period between
2000 and 2010 the District's enrollment increased by 71%, an average of 620
students per year, enough to fill a new elementary school every year.
B. At the time the School District informed the City there was no space in its schools
to serve additional students the District asked both the City and County to consider
including the District's Capital Facilities Plan within their Comprehensive Plan and
adopt a school impact fee.
C. Without adoption of the District's Capital Facilities Plan and implementation of a
school impact fee the School District asked the City and County to deny approval of
new residential developments unless developers provided mitigation for the impacts
imposed on the School District.
D. In response to the School District's request the Planning Commission held a series
of public hearings beginning in October of 2011 culminating in January 2012 with a
recommendation that the City Council include the District's Capital Facilities Plan
in the City's Comprehensive Plan and that a school impact fee ordinance be
adopted.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Under State law (RCW 58.17.110) the City is prohibited from approving
preliminary plats or most multi-family projects unless written findings indicate
adequate provisions have been made for public facilities including schools.
Without the necessary written findings indicating provisions have been made for
schools the City cannot approve a preliminary plat or development project. The
4(d)
School District has indicated that adequate provisions for schools could come in the
form of mitigation through the dedication of property for school sites, construction
of school facilities (portables) or payment for costs incurred by the District to
accommodate new growth.
B. The School District is at its physical and funding capacity limits for new classroom
space and while mitigation through the SEPA process as discussed above will
address the requirements of RCW 58.17.110, the District would prefer developers
mitigate impacts to the schools through payment of a school impact fee as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
C. The current system for reviewing new development through the SEPA process
creates a great deal of uncertainty and inequity in the development process.
Essentially RCW 58.17.110 is creating a moratorium on new development since the
law does not permit the City to approve new subdivisions when the School District
does not have the capacity to accommodate new students. This results in an inequity
between existing lots and lots created through new plats. New subdivisions
therefore would be paying a higher share of the costs of providing school facilities
while development on existing lots make no contribution to the provision for
schools. Hence the preference for an impact fee that would apply equally to all
development that impacts the school system.
D. The referenced attachments provide further discussion and explanation of the
difficult position both the School District and the community face in providing for
the educational needs of the ever increasing numbers of school aged children in the
community.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 3
FOR: City Council �t �} DATE: February 1, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfie alter
Ahmad Qayo, , Public Works Director
FROM: Michael A. Pawfak, P.E., City Engineer Workshop: February 13, 2012
Regular: February 21, 2012
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE: Speed Limit on Industrial Way
I. REFERENCE(S):
I. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
02/13: Discussion
02/21: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. increasing the
speed limit on Industrial Way, and further, authorize
publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL INIPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Currently the segment of N. Industrial Way from Karchner Street north to Foster
Wells Road is posted at 25 mph,
B) The area is zoned and partially developed as industrial with several food
processing plants and other industrial uses.
C) A speed study was conducted by the Engineering Division along Industrial Way
durin%the week of December 19, 2011. The results of that speed study indicated
an 85` percentile speed of 40-45 mph.
V. DISCUSSION
A) The existing speed limit (25 mph) was established when Industrial Way was a
cul-de-sac; with the connection to Kartchner Street it is now inconsistent with the
area's character, land use and operational speed.
B) A revised speed limit of 35 mph is appropriate and consistent with the results of
the speed study between Karchner Street north of Foster Wells Road.
C) Even though the $5`" percentile speed is 40-45 mph, the recommendation of 35
mph accounts for safety aspects associated with heavy truck traffic, turning
movements, slow acceleration and braking distances and pedestrian activity. It is
also consistent with the mean average speed of 35 mph,from the study.
D) This proposed ordinance amends Section 10.24.040 (Increasing Speed Limits in
Certain Zones) of the Pasco Municipal Code by amending speed limits on various
streets in the City.
35 MPH
Add: Industrial Way (Kartchner Street to Foster Wells Road)
E) The Engineering Division has discussed the proposed change with the Pasco
Police Department and they have indicated support of the proposal. Staff
recommends the speed limit change.
4(e)
�1dgv�l yi `
s _ 4�14�
OW
h
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE concerning speed limits on various streets, and amending Section
10.24.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, with the completion of a recent speed study, it is determined that the
maximum speed for the below named street(s) should be increased to provide a reasonable and
safe conditions, now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 10.24.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows (deletions shown by interlineations and additions shown by underlining):
10.24,040 INCREASING SPEED LIMITS IN CERTAIN ZONES. It is determined upon
the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed permitted by state law upon
the following streets is less than is necessary for safe operation of vehicles thereon, by reason of
the designation and sign posting of the streets as arterial highways and/or by reason of widely
spaced intersections, and it is declared that the speed limit shall be as hereinafter set forth on
those streets or parts of streets designated in this section at the times specified when signs are
erected giving notice thereof:
NAME OF STREET
45 MPH
E. "A" Street (S. Cedar Avenue to SR-12);
Harris Road (W. Court Street to Broadmoor Boulevard);
W. Lewis Street (N. 20th Avenue to N. 28th Avenue);
N. 4th (north line Section 19 to city limits - Glade North);
N. Oregon Street(Hillsboro to north city limits);
Road 68 (Sandifur Pkwy north to north city limits);
Broadmoor Boulevard (Franklin County Irrigation Canal to Bedford Street);
N. Oregon Avenue (E. Ainsworth Street to SR-12);
Road 100 (Chelan Drive to FCID Canal);
Capital Avenue (Hillsboro Street to Foster Wells Road).
(Ord. 3928, 2009; Ord. 3730 Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3630 Sec. 1, 2003; Ord. 3395 Sec. 1,
1999; Ord. 3293 Sec. 1, 1998; Ord. 3217 Sec. 1, 1997; Ord. 2818 Sec_ 4, 1991; Ord. 2795
Sec. 1-2, 1990)
40 MPH
S. 10th Avenue (Ainsworth Avenue to southerly city limits on the intercity bridge)
W. Ainsworth Avenue (10th Avenue to Oregon Avenue);
Argent Road (N. 20th Avenue west to Road 36);
Argent Road (Road 44 west to Road 52);
Burden Boulevard (Road 36 to Road 60);
W. Court Street (Road 48 to road 100);
Heritage Boulevard (SR-12 to "A" Street);
E. Lewis Street (N. Cedar Avenue to SR-12);
Road 36 (Argent Road to Burden Boulevard).
(Ord. 4024, 2011; Ord. 3928, 2009; Ord. 3868, 2008; Ord. 3730 Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3716
Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3630 Sec. 1, 2003; Ord. 3395 Sec. 1, 1999; Ord. 3292 Sec. 1, 1998;
Ord. 3217 Sec. 1, 1997; Ord. 2818 Sec. 3,1991; Ord. 2795 Sec. 3 (part), 1990.)
35 MPH
W. "A" Street (N. 20th Avenue to S. Wehe Avenue);
E. "A" Street (S. Wehe Avenue to S. Cedar Avenue);
E. Ainsworth Street(Oregon Avenue to Sacajawea Park Road);
Argent Road (Road 68 West to Road 84);
Broadmoor Boulevard (Bedford Street to N. City Limits);
W. Court Street (Road 36 to Road 48);
W. Lewis Street(N.12th Avenue to N. 20th Avenue);
N. 4th Avenue (E. Court Street to SR-12);
N. 4th Avenue (SR-12 to north line Section 19);
S. 4th Avenue (W. "A" Street to W. Ainsworth Street);
W. Sylvester Street(N. 20th Avenue to Road 60);
Sandifur (Road 60 to Broadmoor Boulevard);
Commercial Avenue (Kartchner to Kahlotus Highway);
Industrial Way (Kartchner to Foster Wells Road);
Foster Wells Road (SR-395 to N. Oregon Avenue);
Sacajawea Park Road (SR-12 to E. Ainsworth Street);
Burden Boulevard (Road 60 to Road 76);
Road 100 (W. Court Street to Chelan Drive);
Road 60 (W. Sylvester Street to W. Court Street);
Road 68 (200 foot north of Valley View P] to Sandifur Pkwy),
Road 52 (Burden Blvd. to Sandifur Parkway);
Road 60 (Burden Blvd. to Sandifur Parkway);
Argent Road (From 20th Avenue to the east);
Madison Avenue (Road 44 to Burden Blvd.);
Road 44 (Argent to Madison Avenue);
Chapel Hill Blvd. (Road 68 to Churchill Downs Lane);
Chapel Hill Blvd. (FCID Canal right-of-way to Road 84).
(Ord. 4025, 2011; Ord. 3928, 2009; Ord. 3868, 2008; Ord. 3730 Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3716
Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3630 Sec. 1, 2003; Ord. 3395 Sec. 1, 1999; Ord. 3293 Sec. 1, 1998;
Ord. 3217 Sec. 1, 1997; Ord. 2818 Sec. 2 (part), 1991; Ord. 2795 Sec. 4, 1990.)
30 MPH
S. 10th Avenue(W. Ainsworth Avenue to W. Sylvester Street);
N. 20th (W. "A" Street to airport terminal);
W. "A" Street (N. 20th Avenue to Road 28);
W. Clark Street(W. 5th Avenue to N. 18th Avenue);
W. Court Street(N. Ist Avenue west to Road 36);
W. Court Street(Road 100 to Harris Road);
E.Lewis Street (N. Beech Avenue to N. Cedar Avenue);
28th Avenue (W. "A" Street to W. Lewis Street);
W. Sylvester Street (N. 20th Avenue to N. 7th Avenue);
Road 34 (W. Sylvester Street to W. Court Street);
Road 84 (Chapel Hill Blvd. to Argent Road);
CIemente Lane (Burden Blvd. to Wrigley Drive);
Wrigley Drive (Road 76 to Clemente Drive).
(Ord. 3928, 2009; Ord. 3868, 2008; Ord. 3716 Sec. 1, 2005; Ord. 3630 Sec. 1, 2003; Ord.
3395 Sec. 1, 1999; Ord. 3293 Sec. 1, 1998; Ord. 3217 Sec. 1, 1997; Ord. 2891 Sec. 1,
1992; 2818 Secs. 1-4, 1991; Ord. 2795 Sec. 5,1990; Ord. 2644, Sec. 1, 1987; Ord. 2536
Sec. 1, 1985; Ord. 2493 Sec. 1, 1984; Ord. 2486 Sec. 1, 1984; Ord. 2165 Sec. 1, 1980;
Ord. 1979 Sec. 1, 1978; Ord. 1793 Sec. 1, 1976; Ord. 1578 Sec. 1, 1973; Ord. 1475 Sec.
1, 1971; prior code Sec. 8-14.12.)
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco,this day of February, 2012.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council ;� January 30, 2012
i
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/13/12
Regular Mtg,: 2/21/12
FROM. Stan Strebel, D 1puty City Managuyz '
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with Port of Walla Walla for Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Services
I, REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Agreement
2. Resolution No. 3334
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2/13: Discussion
2/21: MOTION: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Walla
Walla for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Services and,
further, authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement when the
conditions precedent to effective date in Section 9A,iii, have been
satisfied.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
(See Resolution for summary)
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In August, Council approved Resolution No. 3334 authorizing staff to develop an
interlocal agreement with the Port of Walla Walla providing for wastewater
treatment and disposal services for the Port's Burbank service area.
B) City staff and Port officials have prepared the attached agreement, which the Port
has authorized its Commission President to sign.
C) As noted in Section 9 of the Agreement, the approval of the agreement by
agencies with jurisdiction (i.e., health department, Ecology and Corps of
Engineers) must occur prior to the effective date. The Port will be responsible for
gaining the necessary approvals. Staff therefore suggests approval of the
agreement, with authorization for the Mayor to sign when the required approvals
have been received,
D) Council will note that all of the core elements outlined in the authorizing
resolution have been incorporated into the agreement. Staff recommends
approval of the agreement.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The agreement provides a true win-win for both the City and the Port, with the
City's ability to "sell" excess capacity in its wastewater treatment plant and the
Port being able to provide sewer service in its Burbank service area without the
expense associated with construction and operation of a new wastewater plant,
B) In the event the Port terminates the agreement before purchasing the initial block
of capacity (30 day notice required), it must pay the City a termination fee
($10,000) to cover the City's legal and administrative expenses.
4(f)
When recorded, please return to:
City of Pasco
Attn: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
P. O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
City of Pasco
and
Port of Walla Walla
Interlocal Agreement for Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into by and between
the City of Pasco, Washington a municipal corporation, herein called the "City," and the Port of
Walla Walla, Washington, a municipal corporation, herein called the "Port," for the purpose of
providing waste water treatment and disposal services in the unincorporated Burbank area of
Walla Walla County, Washington. The City and the Port are each a "Party" and are collectively
the"Parties"to this Agreement.
WHEREAS, Walla Walla County in its Comprehensive Plan has designated the Burbank
Urban Growth Area ("UGA") and adopted policies and goals to encourage new growth to occur
in the UGA; and
WHEREAS, the Burbank UGA contains a mixture of single-family residential, industrial,
commercial, and public reserve uses, including the Burbank Industrial Park and Burbank Business
Park which are owned and operated by the Port; and
WHEREAS, the Port owns and operates a public water system that serves the Burbank
Industrial Park and Burbank Business Park and that is authorized, by the Western Walla Walla
County Coordinated Water System PIan, to provide water service on a wholesale basis to the
greater Burbank area(the Port's"Wholesale Service Area"); and
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal services Agreement
Page 1
WHEREAS, the Walla Walla County Comprehensive Plan states that the use of on-site
septic systems is the sole means of sewage disposal in the Burbank area, which presents a risk of
groundwater contamination, and the Comprehensive Plan identifies a long-term goal of sewer
service provided by a single entity, with a policy of encouraging the Port to "establish core
utilities where possible"; and
WHEREAS, the Port desires to establish waste water services in the Burbank area, and the
Port has authority under RCW 53.08.043 establish and operate systems of sewerage; and
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant which has unused
capacity, a portion of which is to be allocated by this Agreement to treat waste water delivered
by the Port to the City's system; and
WHEREAS, the Port and the City have reached agreement of the pricing, terms and
conditions necessary for the City to accept waste water delivered by the Port, and the Parties
agree to the joint exercise their powers to collect, convey, treat, and dispose of waste water; and
WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized under the Interlocal Cooperation Act to enter into an
agreement for the provision of waste water treatment and disposal service;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals which are incorporated
herein, the City and the Port do hereby mutually consent and agree to the following:
Section 1: Treatment,CaRacity Purchase
A. The City agrees to make available, and the Port agrees to purchase, two blocks of
100,000 gallon per day (gpd) (annual average flow) waste water treatment capacity in
City's waste water treatment plant.
B. Port shall also have the option to purchase one additional block of 100,000 gpd (annual
average flow) capacity.
C. The purchase price for each block of capacity (100,000 gpd, annual average flow) shall
be nine hundred thousand ($900,000) dollars, provided, however, that the purchase price
for the second and third blocks of capacity shall be automatically adjusted, effective on
January 1, 2013 and thereafter, each year effective January 1, to reflect any increase in
the Consumer Price Index (U.S. City Average, all items); and provided further, that the
maximum increase for any year shall be five (5%) percent, As provided in Section 3(A),
Port shall be allowed to make three yearly installment payments for each block of
capacity. The price adjustments in this section shall not apply to yearly installments, once
the first installment payment has been remitted.
Section 2:Capacity Purchase Timing
A. The Port agrees to purchase the first block of treatment capacity within one year of the
effective date of this Agreement, but not later than June 30, 2013. Failure by the Port to
make the initial purchase as specified shall act to terminate this Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement—City oFPasco and Port of Walla Walla
Pagc 2
B. The Port agrees to purchase the second block of treatment capacity within 15 years of the
first payment for the first block of treatment capacity. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to terminate this Agreement if the Port does not initiate purchase of the
second block within the 15-year period. The City must exercise such termination right
within six months of the end of said 15-year period.
C. The Port may purchase a third block of treatment capacity at any time after the purchase
of the second block of capacity. If the Port fails to purchase the third block of capacity
within 50 years of the effective date of this Agreement, then the Port's option to purchase
same shall expire. The Parties may extend the option through mutual written agreement.
D. As of the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall allocate and reserve for the Port
three (3) blocks of waste water treatment capacity (100,000 gpd annual average flow).
Until such time as the Port's right to purchase a capacity block expires, the City shall
maintain said reservation of capacity for the Port and shall not otherwise use or allocate
said reserved capacity. The City shall keep records and accounts of the waste water
treatment system capacity that include and reflect the Port's reserved capacity.
Section 3: Capacity Purchase Payments
A. As compensation for treatment capacity purchased, the Port agrees to pay to the City,
installment payments for each block of capacity as follows: One-third of the total
purchase price of each block of capacity shall be included with the Port's notice to the
City to purchase a capacity block. Thereafter, Port shall pay one-third of the purchase
price within one year of the initial installment payment and shall pay the final one-third
of the purchase price within one year of the second installment payment. Any unpaid
installments of the block of capacity total purchase price shall be considered late upon the
first day after it is due.
B. Late payments shall accrue interest at 12% per annum.
Section 4: Sewer Use Billing. PILT Surcharge
A. Wastewater delivered by the Port shall be metered and billed by the City to the Port on a
monthly basis using 100% of the published rate (Pasco Municipal Code, Chapter 3.07,
and as hereafter amended) applicable to Pasco commercial/industrial sewer users;
provided, however, there shall be a minimum monthly bill of$300 for the first two years
of this agreement or until the first user is connected to the Port system for delivery to the
City; provided fiirther, that after two years there shall be a minimum monthly bill of
$500. The Port shall install, own, and operate a flow meter located on Port-owned
property in Burbank. The Parties may change the location of the flow meter and to
allocate costs thereof by mutual agreement.
B. Each monthly bill shall include a "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" (PILT) surcharge equal to
100% of the monthly sewer use bill described in subsection A above; provided, however,
the PILT surcharge shall not be less than $2,000 monthly. The PILT surcharge is
intended to compensate the City for potential losses in revenue due to business located at
Waste Water TrPatrnenr and Disposal Scroces Agreement
Page I
Port's sites made more attractive by the extension of waste water services. The PILT
surcharge minimum ($2,000/month) shall be adjusted, effective on the sixth anniversary
of the effective date of this Agreement to reflect any annual increase in the CPI (U.S,
City Average, all items) and every year thereafter; and provided further, that the
maximum increase for any year shall be five (5%) percent.
Section 5: Port Collection and Conveyance System
A. The Port shall install, operate and maintain all collection lines, pump stations, force
mains and other appurtenances necessary to collect and transport wastewater from its
Burbank service area, across the Snake River, to the point of connection to the City's
gravity sewer interceptor, located in Road 40 East. Specifically, the Port shall construct
the following improvements:
i) The "Pressure Sewer" line that originates on Port-owned property in
Burbank, crosses the Snake River, and terminates at the access vault to be
located in City right of way.
ii) The "Gravity Sewer" line that extends from the end of the Pressure Sewer
to the point of connection,
The Pressure Sewer, Gravity Sewer, access vault, point of connection, and facilities to be
constructed or installed are shown on the map attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated
herein.
B. At the point of connection, which shall be determined by the City, the Port shall install a
manhole for connection of the force main and such installations and appurtenances as
may be required to provide a gravity line connection to the interceptor.
C. At the end of the Pressure Sewer, the Port shall install an access vault to include a flow
meter and sampling station. The access vault on the City side will include an open
channel flow meter primary device (Parshall flume or equivalent) for accuracy checks
against the Port's flow meter. At the access vault, the Port will deliver and the City will
accept sewage flows such that control of and responsibility for the sewage flows passes
from the Port to the City for conveyance, treatment, and disposal.
D. The Port shall design its conveyance system, from the conveyance pump station,
including the Pressure Sewer, Gravity Sewer, access vault, and manhole(s) at the point of
connection, in accordance with City standards, which design shall be subject to review
and approval by the City.
E. The Port shall be responsible for all costs associated with design, construction, for
obtaining any necessary rights-of-way, easements, State and Federal licensing, and
permits or approvals to complete construction of the systems and improvements as
outlined in this section and to allow the operation thereof. The Port shall be responsible
to act as the lead agency for SEPA review of its construction plans.
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page 4
F. Following completion of construction and testing, the Port shall convey ownership of the
Gravity Sewer to the City by bill of sale and the Gravity Sewer shall then be part of the
City's sewerage system; provided, however, that the capacity rights of the Gravity Sewer
shall be reserved by and for the Port. The capacity of the Gravity Sewer shall be first
allocated to the Port for conveyance of the waste water from the Burbank service area;
the excess capacity of the Gravity Sewer may become available to the City for general
system usage after reimbursement to the Port for a pro rata share of the Gravity Sewer
costs on such terms as the Parties may agree. The City shall not make or allow any other
connections or contributions to the Gravity Sewer before such cost reimbursement to the
Port occurs.
G. The Port shall retain ownership and operation of the Pressure Sewer.
Section b: ON System
A. The Port shall deliver wastewater to the access vault at the end of the Pressure Sewer ,
and the City shall install, operate and maintain all lines and appurtenances necessary to
transport wastewater delivered to its system to the wastewater treatment facility.
B. The City shall be responsible for all costs associated with the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and ownership of its sewage and waste water collection and
conveyance system and treatment facility.
Section 7• OVerational Considerations
A. Port agrees that City shall have unrestricted access, for inspection and monitoring
purposes, to the Ports' pumping and conveyance systems, up to the point of connection
with the City's system, which are installed and operated by the Port for the purpose of
delivering wastewater to the City's system. Notwithstanding this right of access, the City
shall have no duty to so inspect and monitor beyond that required by applicable law.
B. City shall have the right to sample, at its discretion, wastewater delivered by the Port in
order to determine if such wastewater is within City standards; is of unusual strength or if
constituents incompatible with the treatment process are being delivered by Port to City's
system. Notwithstanding the right to sample, the City shall have no new duty to do so
beyond that required by applicable law.
C. Port agrees that City wastewater standards as specified in Pasco Municipal Code, Chapter
13A.52, as such standards currently exist, or may be hereafter amended, shall apply to the
Port's sewer customers and to its entire wastewater collection and conveyance system.
The City shall not adopt or amend its wastewater standards that discriminate against the
Port's sewer customers or that otherwise treat Burbank sewer customers differently than
Pasco sewer customers of like characteristics.
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page S
D. City shall have the right to require Port to take corrective actions to assure compliance
with its standards, Failure to comply with established standards within ninety (90) days
of notice of noncompliance from the City may result in the City taking corrective action
reasonably necessary to maintain the safety, integrity, and proper functioning of the
wastewater system. The cost of corrective action shall be the sole responsibility and
liability of the Port. In the event of an emergency situation, the City may take corrective
action immediately to maintain the health and safety of its residents and avoid
environmental damage. Corrective action shall be the sole responsibility and Iiability of
the Port.
E. Port shall provide at least 60 days advance written notice to City of all new sewer
customer applicants in its service area so that City may review for compliance with
wastewater standards. The City does not have the right to block or reject any new sewer
user or to condition the acceptance of any new sewer user except on grounds directly
relating to compliance with City wastewater standards adopted in its municipal code or
any applicable state or federal regulations.
F. Port agrees to comply with all State and Federal laws pertaining to the use and
maintenance of its wastewater system including, but not limited to, environmental
standards and regulations.
Section 8: Service Area
A. It is the agreement of the Port and the City that the area for which the Port may collect
wastewater for delivery to the City's system, pursuant to this Agreement, be limited to
the area identified in the attached Exhibit "2" incorporated herein, and identified as the
Port's "Wholesale Service Area." Provided, however, that the Parties intend to comply
with the state Growth Management Act, as it may be amended. Accordingly, the Port
will only collect and deliver waste water from the UGA until such time as other areas in
the Port's Wholesale Service Area may be served consistent with law.
B. Port shall not, without the express written consent of the City, accept wastewater into its
system which originates from any property outside of the identified Wholesale Service
Area,
C. Except for actions relating to compliance with City wastewater standards provided in
Section 7 above, the City shall have no authority regarding the Port's sewer customers.
The Port has full authority to control and regulate rates and charges, terms and conditions
of connection and use of the Port's sewer system.
D. The City agrees that it is not able to provide sewer service in the Burbank area and that
construction of additional facilities are necessary for such service. Accordingly, the City
consents to the Port's provision of sewer service in the Port's Wholesale Service Area.
Except through this Agreement with the Port, the City further agrees not to provide sewer
service directly or indirectly within the Port's Wholesale Service Area during the time
that this Agreement is in effect.
Wastc water Treatment and Disposal Serviccs Agrccmenrt
Page 6
Section 9: Effective Date and Terms,Termination
A. This Agreement shall become effective on the first date that all of the following events
have occurred, but in no case later than June 30, 2013: i) the Agreement has been duly
authorized and executed by the City and the Port; ii) the Agreement has been filed with
the Walla Walla and Franklin County Auditors and/or posted on the internet consistent
with RCW 39.34.040; and iii) approved by the state agency or agencies with jurisdiction
under RCW 39.34.050. Not later than 30 days after the foregoing events have occurred,
the City and Port shall confirm the effective date of the Agreement by letter or
memorandum signed by both Parties, which shall became an appendix hereto.
B. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for a period of seventy-five (75)
years from its effective date, unless terminated for cause or convenience as provided
herein.
C. Before the Port makes the initial payment for purchase of the first capacity block, the Port
may terminate this Agreement for convenience after providing 30 days written notice to
the City, and in such event the Port shall pay a termination fee of ten thousand ($10,000)
dollars to the City for its administrative and legal expenses and thereafter, neither Party
shall have any remaining obligations to the other Party. After making said initial
payment, however, the Port may terminate this Agreement for convenience after
providing written notice to the City of not less than five years. In such event, the Port
shall not be entitled to refund of any payments made or forbearance on any payments due
for capacity under this Agreement in the event of its termination pursuant to this
subsection. During the five-year termination notice period, all provisions of this
Agreement shall be in full force and effect, and the usage fee and PILT surcharge fee
provided in Section 4 shall continue to accrue and be due and payable.
D. The City may terminate this Agreement after failure by the Port to pay any purchase
price, usage fee, or PILT surcharge upon ninety (90) days notice of intent to terminate
and opportunity to cure. Provided additionally, that upon termination of this agreement
for failure to pay, Port and its sewer customers shall have an additional one (1) year
period for the purpose of making alternative plans and preparation for wastewater
treatment. Any late payment required herein shall accrue interest at 12% per annum.
The City may also terminate this Agreement for any continuing uncorrected violation of
wastewater standards, applicable State and Federal environmental standards, or other
such conditions reasonably deemed within the discretion of the City to cause a substantial
risk to the health and welfare of its citizens upon ninety (90) days of notice of intent to
terminate and opportunity to cure and one (1) year for making alternative plans as stated
hereinabove.
E. This Agreement may be renewed only upon written agreement between the parties.
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page 7
Section 10: Indemnification /Hold Harmless
Each Party shall defend, indemnify and hold the other Party, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits, including
attorney fees, resulting from or arising out of negligent acts or omissions relating to or in
connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Section 11: Insurance
Port shall for the duration of the Agreement, procure and maintain insurance, or similar
coverage, subject to the approval of City, against claims for injuries to persons or damage to
property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work or the
activities contemplated hereunder by the Port, its agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
No Limitation
Port's maintenance of insurance, its scope of coverage and limits as required herein shall not
be construed to limit the liability of the Port to the coverage provided by such insurance, or
otherwise limit the City's recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Port shall obtain insurance of the types described below.
Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00
01, or other such form as may be utilized in the future acceptable to the City and
providing for substantially equivalent coverage, and shall cover liability arising from
premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, stop gap
liability, personal injury and advertising injury, and liability assumed under an insured
contract. The Commercial General Liability insurance shall be endorsed to provide the
Aggregate Per Project Endorsement ISO form CG 25 03 lI 85 or an equivalent
endorsement. There shall be no endorsement or modification of the Commercial General
Liability Insurance for liability arising from explosion, collapse or underground property
damage. The City shall be named as an insured under the Port's Commercial General
Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the City using ISO
Additional Insured endorsement CG 20 10 10 01 and Additional Insured-Completed
Operations endorsement CG 20 37 10 01 or substitute endorsements providing equivalent
coverage.
B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance
Port shall maintain the following insurance limits:
Commercial _General Liabili nsurance shall be written with limits no less than
$1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products-
completed operations aggregate limit and contractual liability.
Wastc Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Pagc 8
C. Other Insurance Provisions
The Port's Commercial General Liability insurance policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain that they shall be primary insurance as respect the City. Any
insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be
excess of the Port's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
D. Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:
VII.
E. Verification of Coverage
Port shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory
endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured
endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Port before commencement of
any work pursuant to this Agreement.
F. Subcontractors
The Port shall have sole responsibility for determining the insurance coverage and limits
required, if any, to be obtained by subcontractors, which determination shall be made in
accordance with reasonable and prudent business practices.
G. Notice of Cancellation
The Port shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within ten
business days of their receipt of such notice.
H. Failure to Maintain Insurance
Failure on the part of the Port to maintain the insurance as required shall constitute a
material breach of this Agreement, upon which the City may, after giving ten business
days notice to the Port to correct the breach, immediately terminate the Agreement.
Section 12: Notice
All notices and payments hereunder may be delivered or mailed. If mailed, they shall be sent
to the following respective addresses:
To the City: City of Pasco
City Manager
P. O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
To the Port: Port of Walla Walla
Executive Director
310 A Street
Walla Walla, WA 99366-2269
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page 9
or to such other respective addresses as the Parties hereafter from time to time designate in
writing. All notices and payments mailed by regular post (including first class) shall be
deemed to have been given on the third business day following the date of mailing, if
properly mailed and addressed. Notices and payments sent by certified or registered mail
shall be deemed to have been given on the day next following the date of mailing, if properly
mailed and addressed. For all types of mail, the postmark affixed by the United States Postal
Service shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing.
Section_13_:_Interlocal Cooperation Act Provision.
Each Party shall be solely responsible for all costs, materials, supplies and services necessary
for its performance under the terms of this Agreement. All property and materials secured by
each Party in the performance of this Agreement shall remain the sole property of that Party,
except that upon termination of this Agreement all pipes and material located within the
corporate limits of the City shall become City property. All funding incident to the
fulfillment of this Agreement, shall be borne by each Party necessary for the fulfillment of
their responsibilities under the terms of this agreement, No special budgets of funds are
anticipated, nor shall be created incident to this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. It is not
the intention that a separate legal entity be established to conduct the cooperative
undertakings, nor is the acquisition, holding, or disposing of any real or personal property
anticipated under the terms of this Agreement. The City Manager of the City of Pasco,
Washington, shall be designated as the Administrator of this Interlocal Cooperative
Agreement.
This agreement shall be filed with the Franklin County Auditor and the Walla Walla County
Auditor, or alternatively, posted on the Parties' respective websites as required by RCW
39.34,
Section 14: Miscellaneous
A. All of the terms in this Agreement shall extend to and bind the legal successors and
assigns of the Parties. This Agreement may not be assigned by either Party without the
consent of the other Party; provided, however, that the Port may assign this Agreement
without City consent to a local government entity that i) is formed in the Burbank area, ii)
has the legal authority and capability to own and operate the sewer collection and
conveyance system, and iii) and agrees to perform this Agreement and to assume all
rights and obligations herein.
B. This Agreement is made and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of Washington. Jurisdiction and venue for any action arising out of this Agreement shall
be in Franklin County Washington,
C. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to
permit anyone, other than the Parties and their successors and assigns, to rely upon the
terms herein contained, nor to give any such third party a cause of action on account of
any nonperformance hereunder.
Waste Watcr Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page 10
D. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable by a final
decision of any court having jurisdiction on the matter, the remainder of this Agreement
or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby and shall
continue in full force and effect, unless either Party determines that such invalidity or
unenforccability materially interferes with or defeats the purposes hereof, at which time
the Parties shall substitute a provision that most closely approximates that which was
invalidated without being invalid itself.
E. This Agreement constitutes the final and completely integrated agreement between the
Parties on its subject matter.
F. Each Party has had the opportunity to consult with counsel in connection with this
Agreement. Each of the provisions of this Agreement represents the combined work
product of all Parties. Therefore, no presumption or other rules of construction which
would interpret the provisions of this Agreement in favor of or against the party preparing
the same will apply in connection with the construction or interpretation of any of the
provisions of this Agreement.
G. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute the same
instrument.
Section 15: Dispute Resolution
Should any dispute arise between the Parties concerning the breach, interpretation, or
enforcement of this Agreement, the Parties shall first meet in a good faith attempt to resolve
such dispute. Any unresolved dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The dispute
shall be submitted to a single arbitrator mutually agreed by the Parties. If the Parties are
unable to agree, the arbitrator shall be determined by the Franklin County Superior Court,
and arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to RCW 7,04A, and the Rules of Mandatory
Arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, and the
costs of the arbitration shall be equally borne by the Parties, and the arbitrator shall award, as
additional judgment against the other, attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year
stated below.
CITY OF PASCO PORT OF WALLA WALLA
Matt Watkins, Mayor Michael Fredrickson,
Port Commission President
Dated: Dated:
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page I 1
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss
County of Franklin )
On This day personally appeared before me MATT WATKINS, Mayor of the City of
Pasco, Washington, to be known to be the individual described in and who executed the within
and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary
act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss
County of Walla Walla )
On This day personally appeared before me MICHAEL FREDRICKSON, Port
Commission President of the Port of Walla Walla, Washington, to be known to be the individual
described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he
signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 2012.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington
Residing at
My Commission Expires:
waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Pabe 12
Exhibit 1
Map of City of Pasco-Port of Walla Walla Sewer Connection
Wastr Wator Trratmrnt and ^isposak grrvirc•A Agrrrmrm
Page 13
•t r"7 i
/ti ' •.ice, i ` ,` at .-or o S
•I.�laC T �G° � ,
r I i
golf
• .`�!► ., f it
ryN i
M rf/.
'
♦r r l •f' � J'+ _ _�t. �swatiti=ate•-- ,_-...k
Exhibit 2
Port of Walla Walla Burbank Sewer Service Area Map
Waste Water Treatment and Disposal Services Agreement
Page 14
�.� �� � �A �� mac �•,, Q
pup
ev
t
F
CA ✓
p 1 . ��•1{i aw- » f..4a;
SL
RESOLUTION NO. -53 -5'
A RESOLUTION authorizing development of an Interlocal Agreement with
the Port of Walla Walla for Wastewater Treatment Services.
WHEREAS, the Port of Walla Walla desires to establish wastewater services in the Burbank
area; and,
WHEREAS, Pasco owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant which has substanJal
unused capacity, a portion of which could be allocated to treat wastewater delivered by the Port of
Walla Walla to the Pasco plant; and,
WHEREAS, a committee of City Councilmembers and appropriate staff worked with Port of
Walla Walla representatives over the course of the past year to determine whether or not a mutually
beneficial agreement could be developed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO:
Section 1. That the Pasco City Council hereby concurs in the following core elements of an
agreement for provision of wastewater services for the Pon of Walla Walla;
ELEMENT PROVISION
' Capacity Blocks/Price $400,000/ea; +CPI/5% max/yr i
(100k 81?d x 3)
Capacity Purchase/Timing 1" Block within I year
2nd Block within 15 years
3'd Block may be cancelled by cit if noE urp chased within 5_U eY, ars
Payment Terms 3 years each block
_ __ (one-third/year from l" year of purchase)
Sewer Use Rate 100% applicable city rate _
PILT 100%of monthly sewer charge, not less than $2,000/month; + CPI
after year 5; maximum annual adjustment 5%
Land Use No restriction, provided wastewater limitations are met
[Term 75 years; Port may terminate with.5 years notice
Service Area I Coincide with Port's "wholesale"service area see map attached)
Section 2, That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to develop a fon-nal
interloeal agreement with the Port of Walla Walla, consistent with the Foregoing core elements, to
include all appropriate provisions in such a long-term agreement for provision of wastewater
treatment services for the Burbank area.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day ofls,C , 2011
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST; APPRO 'ED AS TO FORM:
Debbie L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Keir, City Attor ey
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council '`` DATE: 2/6112
TO: Gary Crutch i t �w�ager Workshop Mtg.: 2/13/12
Regular Mtg.: 2/21/12
FROM: Rick Terway, Director,
Administrative & Commum ervices
SUBJECT: Orthophotography Intergovernmental Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
02/13: Discussion
02/21: MOTION: I move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Franklin
County for aerial photography and orthophoto mapping of areas
within the City of Pasco and further, authorize the Mayor to sign
the agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$18,000 General Fund Budget
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City and Franklin County have partnered for the last several years in the
aerial flyovers required for updating our ability to provide current aerial photo
maps.
B) Flights are normally done every two years to stay as current as economically
feasible. The last flyover was done in the spring of 2009. We are invited to
participate in the 2012 regional flight, which will provide a higher resolution
photo improving the print quality, at a substantial cost savings over previous
years.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The 2009 flyover cost the city $26,350, compared to this year's cost of$18,000.
B) Staff recommends approval of the agreement with Franklin County for the 2012
Flyover.
4(g)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is between Franklin County, a political subdivision of the State of
Washington, with its principal offices at 1016 North 0' Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301
(hereinafter also referred to as "COUNTY'), and the City of Pasco, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, with its principal offices at 525 North 3`d
Avenue, Pasco, WA 99301 (hereinafter referred to together as "PARTIES").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, as amended, and codified in Chapter 39.34
of the Revised Code of Washington provides for interlocal cooperation between
governmental agencies; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this agreement is to cooperatively undertake and complete
an aerial photography and orthophoto mapping project of FRANKLIN COUNTY,
including the areas lying within the CITY OF PASCO; and
WHEREAS, this project will benefit both PARTIES, The COUNTY has a need to update
its ortho-imagery of the county in 2012. The CITY OF PASCO has a need to update its
ortho-imagery of those areas lying within the limits of the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary in 2012; and
WHEREAS, both PARTIES have the capability to independently acquire and/or produce
2012 ortho-Imagery. If each PARTY acted independently, the results would involve
significant redundancies and increased costs. A major goal of this Agreement is to
reduce and/or eliminate duplication and save governmental costs; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY requires ortho-imagery to be delivered at a photo scale of
1:42,333 (12" pixels); and
WHEREAS, the CITY OF PASCO has requested that the COUNTY provide and deliver
to them the ortho-imagery of the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary at a photo scale of
1:12,500 (4" pixels); and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has entered in a Contract between Mapcon Mapping, Inc.
and FRANKLIN COUNTY for the purpose of undertaking and completing an aerial
photography and orthophoto mapping project of Franklin County, Contract No. FC-
ORTHO-12-001, executed on January 18, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY included, as part of its Contract between Mapcon Mapping,
Inc., Contract No. FC-ORTHO-11-001, all provisions necessary to deliver the ortho-
imagery of the areas lying within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary to the CITY OF
PASCO at the scale requested (1:12,500); and
Page I of 4
WHEREAS, the CITY OF PASCO has agreed to pay the COUNTY the cost for the
delivery of ortho-imagery at 1 :12,500 (4" pixels); and
NOW, THERFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The COUNTY shall provide all data and resources necessary for Mapcon
Mapping, Inc. to complete the work as outlined in the Personal Services Contract
between the Mapcon Mapping, Inc. and FRANKLIN COUNTY for the purpose of
undertaking and completing an aerial photography and orthophoto mapping
project of Franklin County, Contract No. FC-ORTHO-12-001, executed on
January 18, 2012.
2. The COUNTY shall provide all preliminary data received from the Mapcon
Mapping, Inc. for the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary to the CITY OF PASCO for
their review and comment.
3. The COUNTY shall deliver the ortho-imagery of the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary to the CITY OF PASCO at a scale of 1:12,500 (4" pixels) in
accordance with the Contract between the Mapcon Mapping, Inc. and FRANKLIN
COUNTY, Contract No. FC-ORTHO-12-001 .
4. The COUNTY shall submit an invoice to the CITY OF PASCO for reimbursement
to the COUNTY upon the successful delivery of the ortho-imagery of the Pasco
Urban Growth Boundary.
5. The CITY OF PASCO shall reimburse the COUNTY all expenditures for the cost
of the delivery of ortho-imagery at 1:12,500 (4" pixels). Cost that shall not
exceed a sum of eighteen thousand dollars ($18,000.00).
6. The duration of this agreement shall begin upon the date both PARTIES have
executed this agreement, and shall expire December 31 , 2012, unless
terminated sooner as provided for herein this agreement.
7. This agreement shall not create a separate legal or administrative entity.
8. This agreement may be terminated by either PARTY for convenience upon ten
(10) days written notice to the other PARTY'S authorized representative(s). The
terminating party shall be responsible for payment of all costs, if any, incurred by
the non-terminating party in the performance of this agreement up to the date of
termination. The non-terminating party shall invoice said costs to the terminating
party whereupon such costs shall be due and payable within thirty (30) calendar
days.
9. Each PARTY'S authorized representative(s) shall be responsible for
administration of this agreement.
Page 2of4
10.This agreement does not provide for the acquisition, holding, or disposing of real
or personal property other than as set forth herein.
Page 3 of 4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CITY OF PASCO
FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON PASCO, WASHINGTON
Chairman City Representative
Chair Pro Tem Title
Date:
Member
Date:
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
Page 4 of 4
AGENDA REPORT
TG: City Counc(, February 6, 2012
FROM: Gary Crutchfiti anager Workshop Mtg.: 2/13112
i
SUBJECT: 2011 Community Survey
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. 2011 National Citizen Survey for Pasco (Council packets only)
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2/13: Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The city contracted with the National Research Center in Colorado in 2005, 2007
and 2009 to conduct the "National Citizen Survey" (a trademarked, uniform
survey methodology) in Pasco. The survey information has subsequently been
used in developing Council goals for the ensuing biennia.
B) The National Research Center was again contracted in 2011 to conduct the survey
for the city. The attached documents report the results of that survey.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The survey reflects a lower response rate (only 23 1) than the 2005 survey (304
respondents) and about the same as for 2007 and 2009; still, the results are
statistically valid with an error factor of 6%. Surveys returned reflect about 20%
of the sample of 1200 households.
B) Given the number of times that the survey has been used in the City, data
becomes more meaningful in terms of viewing and understanding trends over
time. While the nature of surveying (using a similar size, but a different sample
for each year of the survey) will naturally yield some variance in results, some
significant trends may begin to be recognized, while survey results may establish
that"things are pretty stable" in other areas.
C) Notable positive results of the survey include:
• Ease of car or bus travel in Pasco (72% and 70% respectively, rating as
"excellent" or good" —compared to other jurisdictions —"Much Above" in
satisfaction).
• Victims of crime in household (12% in 2011; down from 17% in 2009 and
2007 and 26% in 2005 — while "Similar" to other jurisdictions, a positive
trend for Pasco).
• Watched a public meeting on cable TV or internet (47% - "more"
compared to other jurisdictions).
D) A few negative trends are also of note:
• Code Enforcement (27% "Excellent" or "Good") has trended downward
since 2005 (38%) and 2007 (39%).
• Animal Control (37% "Excellent" or "Good") shows a similar trend since
2005 (53%)— "Much Below" compared to other jurisdictions.
• Public Library Services (61% "Excellent" or "Good" but "Much Below"
compared to other jurisdictions.
4(h)
E) Additional items of note:
■ 2011 is the first year that the survey included questions regarding citizen
contact with Police and Fire Departments. Results compare favorably or
"Similar" to other jurisdictions.
■ While 2011 survey result numbers suggest a declining trend of ratings in
public tnist for the City, a footnote, explaining that a change in wording
for certain questions may be more responsible for the perceived decline in
positive ratings (page 38), should be read.
F) The respondents' perception of local government compared to state and federal
government remains positive at 61% while the state scored 43% and federal 42%
positive.
G) In addition to the standard survey questions, the city included three policy
questions designed to gauge the opinion of the community regarding three
particular, current issues. The results are as follows:
• Impact Fees: Impact fees are assessed on all new housing construction to
help pay for related public infrastructure (like roads and parks). To what
extent do you support or oppose an impact fee to pay a portion of new school
construction costs in Pasco?
o 79% somewhat or strongly support this notion (42% strongly
support it); 9% strongly oppose it.
• Arbitration: The City of Pasco is considering asking the state to change the
process arbitrators use in organized-labor negotiations to ensure that an
individual City's budget or "ability to pay" is factored into the arbitration
decision. To what extent do you support or oppose a change to reflect the
City's "ability to pay?"
o 66% of the respondents somewhat or strongly support this idea
(27% strongly support it); and 12% strongly oppose it.
Council Districting: There are seven members of the City Council; five
positions require a candidate to reside within a geographical district within
the City and two positions are elected "at large" without regard to district
residency. The purpose of having some districts is to assure reasonable
geographic representation of Council members throughout the City. Please
indicate which of the following best reflects your view:
• Favor the current system as described above 63%
• Prefer fewer at large representatives 27%
• Prefer more at large representatives 9%
H) The survey document will be used by staff in preparing proposals for Council
consideration at its Council retreat. The entire survey document will be posted on
the city's website after February 15, so that anyone can view the comparative
results.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 7, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop 2113112
Rick White, Director Community and Economic Development
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Pasco School District Capital Facilities
(MF# CPA 2011-00 1
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. School District Letter dated 1/11/2011
2. School District Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2017
3. Memo to the City Manager
4. Staff Memos to the Planning Commission
5. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
6. Planning Commission Minutes
7. Public Correspondence
(References in Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning
Office, the Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at http://www.Pascowa.L.ov /
citycouncilreports.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2113: Discussion and direction for staff.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. In January of 2011 the Pasco School District informed the City Council that the
District no longer had the capacity to accommodate increased student enrollment
due do residential growth in the community. During the 10 year period between
2000 and 2010 the District's enrollment increased by 71%, an average of 620
students per year, enough to fill a new elementary school every year.
B. At the time the School District informed the City there was no space in its schools
to serve additional students the District asked both the City and County to consider
including the District's Capital Facilities Plan within their Comprehensive Plan and
adopt a school impact fee.
C. Without adoption of the District's Capital Facilities Plan and implementation of a
school impact fee the School District asked the City and County to deny approval of
new residential developments unless developers provided mitigation for the impacts
imposed on the School District.
D. In response to the School District's request the Planning Commission held a series
of public hearings beginning in October of 2011 culminating in January 2012 with a
recommendation that the City Council include the District's Capital Facilities Plan
in the City's Comprehensive Plan and that a school impact fee ordinance be
adopted.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Under State law (RCW 58.17.110) the City is prohibited from approving
preliminary plats or most multi-family projects unless written findings indicate
adequate provisions have been made for public facilities including schools.
Without the necessary written findings indicating provisions have been made for
schools the City cannot approve a preliminary plat or development project. The
School District has indicated that adequate provisions for schools could come in the
form of mitigation through the dedication of property for school sites, construction
of school facilities (portables) or payment for costs incurred by the District to
accommodate new growth.
B. The School District is at its physical and funding capacity limits for new classroom
space and while mitigation through the SEPA process as discussed above will
address the requirements of RCW 58.17.110, the District would prefer developers
mitigate impacts to the schools through payment of a school impact fee as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
C. The current system for reviewing new development through the SEPA process
creates a great deal of uncertainty and inequity in the development process.
Essentially RCW 58.17.110 is creating a moratorium on new development since the
law does not permit the City to approve new subdivisions when the School District
does not have the capacity to accommodate new students. This results in an inequity
between existing lots and lots created through new plats. New subdivisions
therefore would be paying a higher share of the costs of providing school facilities
while development on existing lots make no contribution to the provision for
schools. Hence the preference for an impact fee that would apply equally to all
development that impacts the school system.
D. The referenced attachments provide further discussion and explanation of the
difficult position both the School District and the community face in providing for
the educational needs of the ever increasing numbers of school aged children in the
community.
� /Pasco School District #1
A: :1." L 171 HAL L
C. L.Booth Education Service Center
1215 W.Lewis Street•Pasco,Washington 99301
YASCt� a
H00L 1STRICf#1 Board of Diteclors, (509)546.2801 4 FAX(509)5436781
Fr IC E
January 11, 201 l
Franklin County Board of Commissioners Mayor and Pasco City Council Members
1 016 North 4'h Ave 525 North 3'd Ave
Pasco, WA 99301-3706 Pasco, WA 99301
Honorable Commissioners, Mayor and Council Members:
As Directors of the Pasco School District, we are writing to inform you of the difficult
situation our District has been facing and to request your support in addressing it. Our
community has experienced significant growth for the past several years. The Pasco
School District has grown 4% to 7% every year for the past ten years. Student
enrollment has increased by over 6,200 students (71%) during that time, or an average of
620 students a year for ten years, which is enough to fill a new school every year. While
we support a vibrant community, we are at a point where the District does not have space
in its schools to serve families from new development. The District needs new
development that places demands on the school facilities to contribute to a portion of the
cost for schools.
The Washington Growth Management Act requires Franklin County and the City of
Pasco to plan for growth. Your Comprehensive Land Use Plans tnust ensure public
facilities and services will be in place to serve new development. Public facilities and
services include schools and public education. To ensure schools and public education
are available to serve students from new development, we encourage Franklin County
and the City of Pasco to adopt the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan and
adopt a school impact fee ordinance.
We understand these are tough economic times and the imposition of school impact fees
may be unpopular with some of the people or organizations we are all elected to
represent. At the same time, we have outgrown our ability to continue providing schools
without requiring the development that will be served by the schools to contribute to the
costs.
Requiring developers to pay a portion of the costs for schools ensures everyone that
benefits by quality schools contributes to the costs. When developers do not pay school
impact fees, the entire cost for new schools is paid by taxpayers. These are the same
taxpayers that have already paid taxes for new schools. We have heard from taxpayers
that they are no longer willing to bear the entire financial burden of paying for schools
Equal Opportunity Employer
when the schools are needed to serve new development, They want new development to
contribute to the cost; or they want growth to pay its fair share.l
In light of situation the Pasco School District is in, and given requirements in state law to
ensure school facilities are available to serve new development, we adopted the enclosed
resolution. As reflected in the resolution, we adopted the 2010-2016 Pasco School
District Capital Facilities Plan, which includes impact fees as a source of funding that is
needed to pay a portion of the costs for schools that are needed to serve growth. The
Capital Facilities Plan and a sample school impact fee ordinance also are enclosed. We
would like our staff to work with your staff to bring these matters before your Planning
Commissions and before the Board of County Commissioners and City Council for
formal action.
If Franklin County and/or the City of Pasco are unwilling to adopt the District's Capital
Facilities Plan and a school impact fee ordinance, the Pasco School District will be
requesting that the County and City refuse to approve new residential developments
unless the developers have mitigated the impacts their development have on schools.
Depending on the size of the proposed development, developers may be asked to dedicate
property for a school site, construct school facilities(including but not limited to
portables),or pay the costs the District will incur for the property and facilities that are
needed to serve the proposed development, While we would prefer to have developers
mitigate their impacts through the payment of school impact fees, if that is not an action
the County and/or City is willing to take, we will be forced to request other mitigation
measures; we simply don't have capacity in our schools and must receive assistance from
developers.
Recently the District requested notice of every proposed residential development in the
County and City. By this letter, and through comments we will submit in response to
notice of proposed residential developments, the District is notifying the County and City
that new residential development will have a significant adverse impact or) schools
(which are capital facilities that must be addressed under the State Environmental
Protection Act (SEPA)), To satisfy legal requirements under SEPA, residential
developers will need to mitigate the impacts their proposed development have on schools.
Under the State Subdivision Act, the County and City cannot approve residential
subdivisions unless you find there are "adequate provisions for schools." The District is
notifying the County and City that without impact fees or mitigation under SEPA, there
are not adequate provisions for schools.
1 Some in our community have suggested new development pays its way because new development
generates sales tax and increases the average assessed value(AAV)of property. School districts do not
receive sales tax revenue to pay for school facilities, School districts also do not receive additional funds
when the AAV of property in the district increases. Instead, the amount of money a school district
receives for school facilities is the fixed amount of the bond measure,wnich must be approved by 60%of
the voters, When new development occurs, the amount approved in the bond measure is paid for by
more taxpayers,which means existing taxpayers pay less but the District receives the same fixed amount
and no more
Celehr'afiiig acudeirrrc.s, diversity' and innovarion.
We appreciate your consideration of the District's request and would be happy to
participate in a work session to discuss the issues the District is facing, the enclosed
Capital Facilities Plan and solutions that will address our mutual needs. if you would
like to schedule a work session, or if you have questions, please contact Superintendent
Saundra Hill at 509.546,2800.
We took forward to notice of the date and time when our request will be formally
considered,
Since rel y,
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sherry Lanco , President William V, Ce`ggett,4116e President
Jeffrey Dong, Member Pete Felsted, Member
ohn Hergert, Memb r
l
Encl. Capital Facilities Plan
Draft impact fee ordinance
Pasco School Board Resolution 809: Impact Fees
c: Saundra L. Hill, Superintendent
Fred Bowers, County Administrator
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
C'eleh,•uring urudemics, diver, h),and irnnovotion.
5
1 4 .
.
V
yeNy,{r ^ �
i rillCll
SCHOOL WRIC1 1
Pasco School District No. 1
Resolution No. 809
ADOPTION OF THE 2010-2016 PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, counties and cities in the State of Washington adopt comprehensive land use plans
in accordance with the Growth Management Act (GMA); and
WHEREAS, comprehensive plans that are adopted under the GMA must address the provision
of public services for future growth and development; and
WHEREAS, public schools are one of the public services that, with assistance from school
districts, the counties and cities must plan for;
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District desires to work with Franklin County and the City of
Pasco in planning for growth and implementing the GMA through the adoption of the Pasco
School District Capital Facilities Plan;
WHEREAS, the GMA authorizes Franklin County and the City of Pasco to collect school impact
fees from residential development in order to ensure that school facilities are available to serve
new growth and development;
WHEREAS, the District's student enrollment is projected to increase over the next six years due
to growth in unincorporated Franklin County and the City;
WHEREAS, the District will need to build new facilities to add capacity to serve the increased
enrollment;
WH EREAS, existing funding sources are not sufficient to fund the new facilities that are needed
to serve the increased enrollment;
WHEREAS, the District requests that Franklin County and the City of Pasco supplement their
Comprehensive Land Use Plans to address the school facility needs reflected in the 2010 —
2016 Pasco School District Capital Facility Plan; and
WHEREAS, the District requests that Franklin County and the City of Pasco adopt a school
impact fee ordinance and collect school impact fees in an amount set forth in the 2010 — 2016
Capital Facility Plans;
Page 1 of 2
T
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2010-2016 Pasco School District Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) is hereby adopted. The District shall submit this CFP to Franklin County
and the City of Pasco for adoption as a supplement to the County's and City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plans and take any actions that are necessary to support the County's and City's
adoption of school impact fees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District respectfully requests Franklin County and the
City of Pasco impose and collect school impact fees on behalf of the District in the amount of
$6,012 per single family home and $5,272 per multi-family unit,
ADOPTED THIS day of December, 2010.
Sherry Lan n, r enter
William Leggett, a President
Jeffe Membe
Pefe Felsted, M m er
J Hergert, Member
ATTEST:
� 4
aundra L. Hill, Superint ndent & Secretary to the Board
Page 2 of 2
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
2011 - 2017
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sherry Lancon, President
William Leggett, Vice President
Jeffery Dong, Member
Ruben Peralta, Member
Ryan Brault, Member
SUPERINTENDENT
Saundl-a L. Hill
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF OPERATIONS
John Mol-gan
Adopted by the Pasco School Board
December 13, 2011
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 1 of 21
November 2011
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Capital Facilities Plan
Washington land use and environmental laws include schools in the category of
public facilities and services for which cities and counties must plan. When new
development places demands on schools, cities, counties and developers must
ensure school facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional demands.
School districts adopt capital facilities plans to assist counties and cities to address
legal requirements to ensure adequate school facilities will exist to serve new
development. The capital facility plans identify school facilities that are necessary
to meet the educational needs of the growing student populations.
The Pasco School District has prepared this Capital Facilities Plan (the "CFP") to
provide the community, Franklin County, the City of Pasco and the developers
information regarding the District's facilities and forecast needs for the next six
years (2011-2017).
In accordance with capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act,
this CFP contains the following elements:
• The District's standard of service or educational program standards which
is based on program year, class size by grade span, number of
classrooms, types of facilities and other factors identified by the District.
• An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District, showing
the locations and capacities of the facilities, based on the District's
standard of service.
• Future enrollment forecasts for elementary, middle, and high schools.
• A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites based
on the District's enrollment projections.
• The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the
next six years based on the inventory of existing facilities and the
standard of service.
• The cost for needed facilities and the plan for financing capital facilities
within projected funding capacities.
• A school impact fee calculation identifying the amount single-family and
multi-family developers should pay to mitigate the impacts new
construction of single-family and multi-family homes has on the District.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 2 of 21
November 2011
B. Overview of the Pasco School District
The Pasco School District serves students in the City of Pasco and in
unincorporated Franklin County. The Pasco community is experiencing accelerated
growth and has experienced significant growth for the past fifteen years. Pasco is
near six other school districts: North Franklin, Star, Columbia, Finley, Kennewick,
and Richland.
The District serves over 15,600 students. The District currently has one (1) early
learning center, seven (7) elementary schools serving K-5, four (4) elementary
schools serving grades 1-5, three (3) middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2)
high schools serving grades 9-12 and one alternative middle/high school serving
grades 6-12. The District also has 171 portable classrooms that provide capacity
for 4,275 students.
The most significant issues facing the District in terms of providing classroom
capacity to accommodate existing and projected demands follow.
• K-12 facility needs have been projected for the short and long term.
Presently, the elementary and middle schools are housing students in
excess of capacity.
• Providing the educational programs that are either required by the state
and federal government, or that are desired by the public for quality
education, requires additional facility space. For example, to provide for
the visual and performing arts programs the District must find additional
facility space that can accommodate music instruction without
interrupting general education classrooms.
• The District is expected to experience significant growth in Franklin
County. Over 2000 residential lots have been previously approved by
the City of Pasco without school capacity mitigation remain vacant and
the market continues to consume them at the rate of over 400 per year.
Developers continue to approach the City for additional new residential
development, which is subject to SEPA mitigation. This continued
growth is of concern in light of the overcrowding and inadequate
capacity at the existing schools.
• The District must obtain a super majority vote (60% yes votes) to secure
the funds that are necessary to build new schools. The most recent
bond to address current needs failed with just a 48% yes vote.
• Assessed property values in Franklin County are relatively low, which
limits the district's bonding capacity and increases the tax burden on
district patrons. Pasco's per pupil AV in 2009-10 was $311 ,000 placing
Pasco 271 sc out of the 295 districts, the largest district in the bottom 25.
The majority of this assessed value is in residential property with a
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 3 of 21
November 2011
serious lack of commercial and industrial value. This makes it more
difficult to obtain the voters' approval on bond measures.
• There is a shortage of large parcels that are suitable as school sites and
as growth continues to occur there will be fewer suitable sites to acquire
at prices the District's taxpayers will support in the locations where the
largest growth is occurring.
• The prolonged and significant growth in the District has resulted in
enrollment that significantly exceeds capacity in the school facilities.
The District, out of necessity, must look at less desirable methods of
providing education such as Multi Track Year Round Education, double
shifting and other solutions that create a subpar learning environment.
The District also has to increase the number of students that are served
in portables beyond generally acceptable levels that strain and exhaust
the school's infrastructure or lease and renovate facilities never intended
for serving children as schools. These approaches to providing more
capacity to serve students may be implemented on a short term and
temporary basis until measures can be taken to permanently increase
capacity in the schools.
SECTION 2
DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM STANDARDS
School facility and student capacity needs are dictated by the types and amounts of
space required to accommodate the District's adopted educational program. The
role that quality education plays in growing a strong local economy is vital. In order
to accomplish the community value of having a strong local economy, schools must
have quality facilities. These facilities serve as the supporting space for developing
the whole child within a community to prepare them for a competitive global
economy.
The educational program standards which typically drive needs for educational
space for students include grade configuration, optimum facility size, class size,
educational program offerings, supplemental program offerings, specialty spaces,
classroom utilization and scheduling requirements. On October 11 , 2011 , the Pasco
School Board voted to adjust the elementary schools' configuration from a K-5
model to a K-6 model in order to serve the enrollment growth at a reduced per pupil
cost to Pasco taxpayers. This shift delays the need for a middle school but
increases the need for additional elementary schools. The per pupil cost for
elementary schools is significantly less than the cost for a middle school.
While the District is exploring and may implement Multi Track Year Round
Education, double shifting, changes to service area boundaries, increased use of
portables and/or use of leased facilities, these measures are temporary. They are
not the preferred or permanent standard of service.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 4 of 21
November 2011
In addition to student population, other factors such as collective bargaining
agreements, government mandates, and community expectations affect classroom
space requirements. Space is necessary for regular classrooms, the fine and
performing arts, physical education, special education, Highly Capable, English as
a Second Language (ESL), technological applications, computer labs, preschool
and daycare programs, and other specialized programs. Space must be provided
for common areas such as media centers, gyms, cafeterias, kitchens, and
auditoriums. Space is needed for groups of students and employees to work
together. These programs can have a significant impact on the available student
capacity within school facilities. Further, the community expects all spaces to be
well utilized during the school day and available after the school day for public use.
A. District Educational Program Standards:
Core program includes the following:
• Core classroom space for all curriculum areas which includes space for group
learning, direct instruction, and individual student work to meet the rigors set
forth in state standards.
• Science classroom space that supports advanced coursework (including water,
sinks, gas, fume hoods, and safety equipment). Students must achieve rigorous
state-mandated science standards. This requires specialty space that is not met
by adding portables. High school and middle school science lab space is a high
priority.
• Physical education space is needed for students to meet rigorous health and
fitness standards. This includes covered areas, fields, gymnasiums, and other
multi-use spaces.
• Technological competency is expected for all students. Space must be
allocated for technological equipment and applications in classrooms and
specialty spaces. Space must also be provided for state assessments required
to be administered to every student on a computer. Square footage for this
equipment and its infrastructure is not calculated in current state allowances, yet
must be provided.
• Art, music, and theatre arts spaces are critical to the core program for students.
Spaces are necessary to adequately meet the rigorous standards of these state
required programs and programs that are local priorities. The visual and
performing arts programs for students are a high priority for the Pasco
community and adequate space needs to be provided.
• Library/media services (research, technology, collaboration) and space must be
provided for students to achieve the rigors in the core program. In an
information-driven environment, student access to information through
appropriately sized library/media spaces is essential.
• Extra-curricular activities need adequate space in order to safely support
program activities.
Special programs are essential to meet the needs of special populations.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 5 of 21
November 2011
• Special Education services are delivered at each of the schools within the
District. Program standards and services vary based on the disabling conditions
of the students and their Individual Education Plans (IEP). Implementing each
student's IEP requires large and small specialty spaces, which the District must
provide. Program standards change as a result of various external or internal
influences. External influences include changing federal mandates, funding
changes, and the introduction of new technological applications which meet the
needs of students. Internal influences include modifications to the program
year, class size, grade configurations, and facility changes. For example, some
students require significant equipment from wheel chairs to specialized
equipment for toileting. Others need room specially designed and equipped for
security.
• Special populations receive special support. Specialty space is essential to
delivery of this support. Federal and state programs, including Title 1/LAP
Reading and Math and Highly Capable, provide limited funding and do not
legally allow for the expense of adding facilities to support them.
• Early childhood programs for special needs students are legally mandated,
essential educational programs to develop early childhood literacy skills and are
vital to the community. These programs require specialty space which is not
funded by the state.
• Supplementary services in core academic areas (tutoring, on-line learning) and
providing multiple pathways to prepare students for a broader range of post-
secondary learning opportunities require additional spaces that have not been
calculated in current state square footage allowance formulas.
Support services are often overlooked services and are essential to a quality
educational program.
• Food delivery, storage, preparation, and service require spaces that are
specially designed and equipped also need specific attention. As student
populations increase, adequately calculating space needs for this core service is
crucial to the overall planning of the facility. Adequacy in planning for this space
has significant impacts on the overall learning environment for students if not
done appropriately.
• Transportation support centers are required to handle growing transportation
needs.
• Maintenance and administrative support facilities must also be considered and
are often overlooked as core support services.
• Space for legally-mandated records retention must also be provided.
• State-approved secured space must be provided for high stakes state
assessment materials.
B. Elementary Educational Program Standards
The District educational program standards, which directly affect school capacity,
include:
• Class sizes for grades K-1 are targeted not to exceed 25 students per class.
• Class sizes for grades 2-6 are targeted not to exceed 29 students per class.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 6 of 21
November 2011
• Music, which includes both strings and band instruction along with general
music, will be provided in separate classrooms.
• Physical education instruction must be provided in a full size area.
• Some special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for
some children, while others need highly specialized services. This means that
some special education classes have much smaller class sizes than general
education classes, based on the individual needs of the students.
• Title I and LAP programs may require specialized areas.
• All elementary schools will have a library/media resource center, which includes
space for a technology lab.
• A sufficient number of computer labs will be available and must be provided for
state-mandated testing for all students.
• A specialized science lab for grades 4-6 will be available.
C. Middle and High School Program Standards
The District education program's standards, which directly affect middle school and
high school capacity include:
• Class sizes for 6t" grade are not to exceed 29 students per class.
• Class sizes for grades 7-8 are not to exceed 32 students per class or 155
students per day.
• Class sizes for high school grades 9-12 are not to exceed 32 students or 155
students per day.
• The middle and high school classroom utilization standard is set at a factor of
85% (based on a regular school day) due to the need to provide planning and
teaming periods.
• Special education services are provided in a self-contained classroom for some
children, while others need highly specialized spaces.
• Students will also be provided other programs in classrooms or specialty
classrooms, such as computer labs, individual and large group study rooms,
practice labs and production rooms.
• Each school will have an adequate Library/Media Center.
• Career and Technical Education requires specialized spaces suited to the
curriculum.
SECTION 3
CAPITAL FACILITIES INVENTORY
The facilities inventory serves to establish a baseline for determining the facilities
necessary to accommodate future demand (student enrollment) at acceptable
levels of service. This section provides an inventory of capital facilities owned and
operated by the District including schools, portables, undeveloped land and support
facilities. School facility capacity was inventoried based on the space required to
accommodate the District's educational program standards. The capacity does not
include temporary capacity that may be provided through alternative delivery
methods, like Multi Track Year Round Education, double shifting, excessive use of
portables or use of leased facilities.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 7 of 21
November 2011
Q. Schools
The District currently maintains one (1) early learning center, seven (7) elementary
schools serving K-5, four (4) elementary schools serving grades 1-5, three (3)
middle schools serving grades 6-8, two (2) high schools serving grades 9-12. The
District also operates an alternative program for middle and high school students in
portable facilities. Based on the October 11 , 2011 action of the Pasco School
Board, the elementary configuration will be changed to include sixth grade, if
necessary, for the purposes of reducing the cost of new school construction for
Pasco taxpayers.
School capacity is based on the number of teaching stations within each building
and the space requirements of the District's current educational programs. This
capacity calculation is used to establish the District's baseline capacity, and to
determine future capacity needs based on projected student enrollment. The
District believes educational programs are best delivered in brick and mortar
facilities. However, the prolonged and significant rate of growth, and the state
funding policy of not providing state match until there are unhoused students,
requires use of portables.
In light of this, the District plans to house some elementary, middle and high school
population permanently in portables. The number of portables counted as
permanent capacity varies by building and is calculated based upon the reasonable
maximum each building's infrastructure can accommodate to provide all the
components of an adequate educational program, which include the ability to meet
health and fitness requirements, to feed students, to provide for adequate music,
band and orchestra instruction, to host the minimal amount of parent and family
programs, to provide for safety in the pickup and drop off of students as well as
provide classroom space. The portable classrooms housing more students than the
amount determined maximally reasonable for each school are deemed to provide
temporary capacity and are not included in the district's permanent capacity
calculations. The school capacity inventory is summarized in Tables 1 , 2, and 3.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 8 of 21
November 2011
Table 1 — Elementary School Brick and Mortar Inventory
Early Learning Location Yr Bulltf Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick &
Center Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar
Capacity
Captain Gray (K)** 1102 N. 10"' Ave 1986 8.6 47,478 22 484
Elementary Schools
K-5
Edwin Markham 4031 Elm Rd 1962/1984 12 34,898 13 312
James McGee 4601 N Horizon Dr 1981 14 44,774 20 480
Mark Twain 1801 Road 40 1953/1999 15 52,725 18 432
Maya An elou 6001 Road B4 2004 13 59,630 27 648
Ruth Livingston 2515 Road B4 1977 14 44,717 20 480
Whittier 616 N Wehe Ave 1996 16 46,645 19 456
Virg ie Robinson 125 S Wehe Ave 2005 13 59,630 24 576
Elementary Schools
1-5
Emerson 1616 W Octave St 1997 66 46,845 22 528
Longfellow 301 N 10"' Ave 1989 6 44,325 20 480
Robert Frost 1915 N 22" Ave 1997 10.6 46.845 20 480
Rowena Chess 715 N 24" Ave 2000 11 49,360 23 552
TOTAL 578,072 248 5,908
Table 2 — Middle School Brick and Mortar Inventory
Middle Schools Location Yr Built/ Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick &
(6-8) Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar
Capacit ***
Ellen Ochoa 1801 E Sheppard St 2002 36 115,029 30 637
McLoughlin 2803 Road BB 19B2 30 133,161 1 37 1 787
Stevens 1 120 N 22" Ave 1960/1984/ 12.7 91,934 2B 595
2005
TOTAL 340,124 95 2,019
Table 3 — High School Brick and Mortar Inventory
High Schools Location Yr Built! Acres Bldg Area Teaching Brick &
(9-12) Remodel sq ft Stations* Mortar
Capaci ***
Pasco High School 1 108 N 107' 7 Avenue 1953/1972/ 34 255,992 86 1 ,827
1993/2005
Chiawana HS 8125 W. Argent 2009 80 337,703 102 2,167
New Horizons 3110 Argent Road 7 All inventory in portables
TOTAL 593,695 188 3,994
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 9 of 21
November 2011
The elementary capacity was calculated on 24 students to each teaching station using the state's
calculation of number of teaching stations per school, realizing some teaching stations serve
substantially fewer and others substantially more than 24. Rooms such as music rooms, special
education rooms, LAP rooms, library, computer labs and science rooms, advanced placement rooms,
and similar rooms that are used for special programs have been included in the number of teaching
stations reported above. However, there are 35 teaching stations that are used to deliver special
programs in the elementary schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 25 to 29
students. There are 29 teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the middle
schools, which cannot be used to serve the standard class size of 29 to 32 students. There are 9
teaching stations that are used to deliver special programs in the high schools, which cannot be used to
serve the standard class size of 32 students. The number of teaching stations in this chart excludes
portables.
"Captain Gray Early Learning Center was calculated using 22 students per teaching station.
"°° Permanent capacity for secondary schools is calculated by multiplying the number of teaching
stations times the students per classroom defined in the educational standards, times the 85%
efficiency factor. The efficiency factor recognizes the time teaching stations are not used due to
circumstances such as teacher planning periods.
B. Portables
Portables are used to house students until growth slows to a more manageable
level and until funding can be secured to construct permanent facilities. Because of
the prolonged and significant rate of growth in the District, students I-nay be
permanently served in portables. To the extent the District is unable to
accommodate enrollment in brick and mortar facilities and the limited number of
permanent portables, additional portables may be used to provide temporary
capacity. The inventory of portables identifies the facilities that are used as regular
teaching stations, special programs and other educational purposes. Also noted is
the number of portables that are providing permanent capacity.
Table 4— Portables Inventory
School Portable School Porble
Classrooms Classrooms
Elementary Elementary
Edwin Markham Robert Frost 5
Emerson Virgie Robinson 5
James McGee' 14 Rowena Chess 5
Longfellow •1 Ruth Livingston 13
Mark Twain 8 Whittier 9
Maya Angelou G Captain Gray 5
Total Elem 80'
To serve approximately 1517 of the enrolled elementary students in
portables, 63 of the 80 portable classrooms provide permanent capacity.
Portable classrooms that are needed to serve more than the 1517 students
are considered temporary housing.
°" McGee has one double portable (2 classrooms) that are not full size
classrooms and are not suitable for general education classes, thus limiting
their use.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 10 of 21
November 2011
School Portable Schaal Portab1e
classrooms Classrooms
Middle High
Ellen Ochoa 8 Pasco High 25
-McLoughlin 26 New Horizons 16
Stevens 14 Total High 41""
Total Middle W£
"" To serve approximately 575 of the enrolled middle school students in
portables, 20 of the 48 portable classrooms provide permanent capacity.
Portables that are needed to serve the remaining enrolled middle school
students are temporary capacity.
`** All the portable classrooms currently at the high schools are deemed to
provide permanent capacity.
C. Support Facilities
In addition to schools, the District owns and operates facilities that provide
operational support functions to the schools. An inventory of these facilities is
provided in Table 5.
Table 5 - Support Facility Inventory
Facility Location Building Area — sq ft
Booth Bldg 1 District Office 1215 W Lewis Street 55,000
Building 210 f M & 0 3412 W Stearman Avenue 26,000
D. Land Inventory
Table 6 - Unimproved Parcels awned by the District
Parcel Location Area— Acres Notes
Roads 48152 21.93 Acres Potential elem or ELC site
Fre 's Addition/Block 16 1.88 acres
N California St. .32 acres
Rd 60/Sandifur 6 acres Elementary site
Rd KfPowerline 41 acres Middle School site
N California/Spokane St 6.25 acres Adjacent to Whittier
Henry St. between 22'24 1.9 acres Adjacent to Stevens
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 11 of 21
November 2011
SECTION 4
STUDENT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS
A. Projected Student Enrollment
The District's enrollment projections are based on an estimate by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (OS PI). OSPI estimates future enrollment for
all Washington State school districts. OSPI uses a modified cohort survival
methodology to forecast future enrollment. This methodology estimates how many
students in one year will attend the next grade the following year by looking at
historical data. The methodology also forecast how many new kindergarten
students will enroll based on the number of live births in the county and historical
averages for the number of children that enter kindergarten relative to the number
of live births. The enrollment forecast is more accurate in the earlier years and less
accurate in later years. The adjusted forecast is released annually in November.
TABLE 7 - ENROLLMENT FORECAST WITH K-5 CONFIGURATION
Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
K 1,408 1,471 1,534 1,597 1,660 1,723 1,788
1 1,428 1,485 1,552 1,618 1,685 1,751 1,817
2 1,371 1,470 1,528 1,597 1,665 1,734 1,802
3 1,385 1,407 1,508 1,568 1,638 1,708 1,779
4 1,235 1,423 1,445 1,549 1,611 1,683 1,755
5 1,298 1,252 1,442 1,465 1,570 1,633 1,706
Total Elem 8,125 8,508 9,009 9,394 9,829 10,232 10,647
7,971
6 1,186 1,317 1,270 1,463 1,486 1,593 1,657
7 1,189 1,212 1,346 1,298 1,495 1,518 1,627
8 1,189 1,210 1,233 1,370 1,321 1,521 1,544
Total Mid 3,564 3,739 3,849 4,131 4,302 4,632 4,829
3,498*
9 1,520 1,697 1,727 1,760 1,965 1,886 2,172
10 1,013 1,063 1,187 1,208 1,231 1,368 1,313
11 865 838 879 982 999 1,108 1,131
12 757 787 762 800 894 909 926
Total High 4,155 4,385 4,555 4,750 5,089 5,181 5,542
4,164*
TOTAL 15,844 16,632 17,413 18,275 19,220 20,045 21,017
15,633*
Reflects the actual student enrollment for October 1, 2011. The updated OSPI forecast will
not be available until the end of November 2011.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 12 of 21
November 2011
The Multi Track Year Round Task Force recommended that sixth grade become a part of the
elementary schools, thereby decreasing a need for middle school space and increasing the
need for elementary schools which saves the taxpayers the higher cost of building a new
middle school. The board approved the configuration change on October 1 1 , 201 1 . The
projections using the new configuration follow in Table 8.
TABLE 8 - ENROLLMENT FORECAST WITH K-6 CONFIGURATION
Grade 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
K 1 ,408 1 ,471 1 ,534 1 ,597 1 ,660 1 ,723 1 ,788
1 1 ,428 1 ,485 1 ,552 1 ,618 1 ,685 1 ,751 1 ,817
2 1 ,371 1 ,470 1 ,528 1 ,597 1 .665 1 .734 1 ,802
3 1 ,385 1 ,407 1 ,508 1 ,568 1 ,638 1 ,708 1 ,779
4 1 ,235 1 ,423 1 ,445 1 ,549 1 ,611 1 ,683 1 ,755
5 1 ,298 1 ,252 1 ,442 1 ,465 1 ,570 1 ,633 1 ,706
6 1 ,186 1 ,317 1 ,270 1 ,463 1 ,486 1 ,593 1 ,657
Total 9,311 9,825 10,279 10,857 11,315 11,825 12,304
Elem 9,147*
7 1 ,189 1 ,212 1 ,346 1 ,298 1 ,495 1 ,518 1 ,627
8 1 ,189 1 ,210 1 ,233 1 ,370 1 ,321 1 ,521 1 ,544
Total 2,378 2,422 2,579 2,668 2,816 3,039 3,171
Mid 2,322*
9 1 ,520 1 ,697 1 ,727 1 ,760 1 ,965 1 .886 2,172
10 1 ,013 1 ,063 1 ,187 1 ,208 1 ,231 1 ,368 1 ,313
11 865 838 879 982 999 1 ,108 1 ,131
12 757 787 762 800 894 909 926
Total 4,155 4,385 4,555 4,750 5,089 5,271 5,542
High 4,164'
TOTAL 15,844 16,632 17,413 18,275 19,220 20,045 21,017
15,633'
' Reflects the actual student enrollment for October 1 , 201 1. The updated OSPI forecast
will not be available Until the end of November 2011.
SECTION 5
CAPITAL FACILITIES NEEDS
A. Facility Needs
Facility needs are derived by subtracting existing capacity from the existing and
forecast enrollment. The District's current capacity, its educational programs,
standard of service and enrollment forecast are Used to determine its facility needs.
Existing needs are derived by subtracting the current capacity from the students
that are currently enrolled. The six year needs equal the forecast enrollment in
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 13 of 21
November 2011
2017 minus the existing capacity, or the current needs plus the needs to serve
increased student enrollment attributed to growth.
As shown in Table 9 below, by 2017 in a K-6 elementary configuration, the district
needs to add capacity to serve 4879 elementary school students, 221 middle
school students and 749 high school students.
Table 9 — Enrollment, Capacity and Needs
Needs
Current Current 2017 Remaining Needs
Facilities Brick& Permanent Current Facility Total 2017 Projected after Remaining
Mortar Portable t Projected y Phase 2 after
Capacity Capacity Capacity Enrollment Needs Brick & Phase 2
Mortar Portables
Additions
Elementary 5,908 1,517 7,425 12,304 4,879 1,279 559
(K-6)
Middle (7-8) 2,019 575 2,594 3,171 577 577 577
High (9-12) 3,994 799 4,793 5,542 749 0 0
Totals 11,921 2,891 145811 215017 65205 1856 15136"
* Current capacity equals capacity in the brick and mortar facilities reflected in the inventory of
facilities, plus permanent portable capacity, to the maximum extent possible yet able to maintain an
optimal educational environment within each school's infrastructure limitations.
"Capacity to house the projected remaining 1,136 unhoused students is not included in either Phase
one or two to account for what may be an overestimate by OSPI of Pasco's growth by 2017. Because
this document must be updated every two years, the enrollment projections will be updated based on
real enrollment numbers.
To serve the projected 21 ,017 students in 2017, the District needs to restructure its
grade configuration to become K-6 elementary schools and 7-8 middle schools. This
postpones the need to construct another middle school for about six years but
creates the need to construct five schools serving elementary students, which could
be four 750-student elementary schools and one 600 student early learning center
serving half day kindergarteners. It must also add portables at the elementary
schools and add capacity at the high school level.
The District's current permanent facility needs are for 1722 K-6 elementary students
(Current K-6 enrollment at 9147 minus permanent capacity of 7425). Reconfiguring
the grade levels provides for adequate middle school capacity by using both brick
and mortar and permanent portable capacity at reasonable maximum levels until at
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 14 of 21
November 2011
least 2016. This was calculated using the October 2011 state count of students who
are actually enrolled and attending Pasco Schools then subtracting the total
capacity.
B. Planned Improvements
To serve the forecast growth, the District will construct needed facilities in
phases. In the first phase, the District will construct two 750-student elementary
schools, one early learning center and add portables. An early learning center is
recommended for two reasons. First, since it would be designed for kindergarten
needs, the cost per square foot is less. Second, an early learning center allows
for the whole school to focus solely on the needs of the young learner and
provides an enriched educational experience. The District will also make facility
improvements needed to maintain current facilities adequately to serve existing
students.
While the Phase 1 improvements are being constructed, the District will start
working on financing and plans to construct two additional 750-student
elementary schools, add capacity at the high schools and add additional portable
classrooms at the new elementary schools as needed. The additional capacity
and costs for the planned improvements is shown in Table 10.
Table 10 — Added Facility Capacity and Costs
Needed Facility Improvements Additional Capacity Total Cost
PHASE 1
New Elementary School #13 750* $23,827,071
New Elementary School #14 750 $27,044,006
New Early Learning Center 600`* $20,717,573
Facility Site Needs 0 $5,100,000
Structural Needs 0 $525,000
HVAC Needs 0 $1,500,000
Energy Efficiencies 0 $700,000
144 Elem***
Portables 150 HS $1,350,000
300
Total Costs $80,763,650
PHASE 2
New Elementary School #15 750 $27,044,006"
New Elementary School #16 750 $27,044,006
CHS Expansion 600**** $5,600,0001**
Portables 576 Elem— $2,700,000
Total $62,388,012
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 15 of 21
November 2011
* This amount is less than the other elementary schools because the district
already owns the land and has already completed much of the architectural and
engineering work in preparation for construction. The cost for schools in future
phases is a conservative estimate using the cost to construct the Phase 1
schools and reflects the estimates based on the prevailing wage and green
building laws. The cost for inflation has not been included. It will be captured
when this UP is updated.
**The Early Learning Center would serve 600 full time students, meaning that it
could serve up to 1200 half day kindergarteners.
***To serve the remaining forecast K-6 growth, the District would need to add 54
more portable classrooms. However, it is estimated that space will exist on the
elementary campuses to only add 30 portable classrooms, totaling 110 portable
classrooms. The 30 new classrooms can serve another 720 students for a total
of 2,237 K-6 students served in portables all of which are permanent. Of the 110
portable classrooms, 93 classrooms would be considered permanent capacity
after Phases one and two. The remaining portable classrooms, or 17 of the 110
portable classrooms, will provide temporary interim capacity and are not counted
as permanent capacity. After adding portables to the maximum amount
possible, 559 K-6 students will remain Unhoused after Phase two. (See Table 11
for details.) About six portables will need to be added at the high school level to
serve about 150 more students as permanent capacity. School impact fees may
be used to pay for the cost of portables.
""The cost to add capacity for 600 high school students is conservative and is
based on an estimate of $232 per sq ft (10% more than the original construction
of $211) for about 1,000 square feet per classroom for 24 classrooms (includes
allowance for halls and stairwells). (The cost of per square foot in western
Washington ranges from $269-$312.) Chiawana was originally designed to add
the additional classrooms to the wings of the school to absorb future growth.
The 24 classrooms will house about 600 additional students. Therefore, about
six portable classrooms will need to be added to house the remaining 149
students in the projection and are scheduled in Phase 1.
Shown in Table 11 is the analysis of the amount of current permanent K-6 portable
capacity and an estimate for the future. No set percentage is possible due to the
individual characteristics and limitations of each school and site. The district has
analyzed each site to determine the maximum enrollment possible yet maintain a
quality educational program and all of its components.
Table 11 — Analysis of K-6 Permanent and Temporary Portable Capacity
Maximum Unhoused
Reasonable B/M Max - ##Portable Temporary Total Remaining
Enroll Enroll for capacity R/M=#st in Classrooms Port Portable Unhoused
Optimal perm as perm Classrooms Classrooms Students
Quality_ portables
2011 7,971 7,425 5,908 1,517 63 17 80
2017 After Phase 1 12,304 9,669 8,008 "144 69 17 86
2017 After Ph ase2 12,304 11,745 9,508 *576 93 17 110 559
*Portable capacity at unbuilt schools sites are estimates of 6classrooms per new school.
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 16 of 21
November 2011
*The permanent capacity attributed to portable classrooms at those schools that are not yet built is
only an estimate and subject to change once sites are secured and designs are finalized.
In 2017, the OSPI enrollment forecast projects that the District will be serving 21 ,017
students. Table 12 shows the current capacity, the added capacity for the planned
improvements, the total capacity when the planned improvements are complete, and the
forecast enrollment. As shown in Table 12, when all the planned improvements are
constructed the District will have permanent capacity to serve 11 ,745 out of the 21 ,017
projected students. Capacity to house the projected remaining 780 unhoused students is not
included in either Phase one or two to account for what may be an overestimate by OSPI of
Pasco's growth by 2017. Because this document must be updated every two years, the
enrollment projections will be updated based on real enrollment numbers.
Table 12- Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment In a K-6 Configuration
2017
2017 Increased 2017 Increased Total Facility
2017 Total Facility Capacity
Facilities Current Projected Capacity Needs Capacity after Needs
Projected Facility from
Enrollment capacity after from Phases 1 after
Needs Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 and 2 Phases 1
and 2
Elementary (K-6) 12,304 7425 4,879 2,244' 2,635 2076' 11,745 559
Middle (7-8) 3171 2,594 577 0 577 0 2,594 577
High (9-12) 5,542 4,793 749 150 599 600 5,543 (1)
Totals 21,017 14,811 5,849 2,394 3,811 2,676 19,882 1,136
*Includes brick and mortar schools and portables.
Table 13 - Planned Capacity and Forecast Enrollment
Added Total Planned Remaining
Facility Current Capacity Capacity Forecast Projected
Capacity* Enrollment Unhoused
Students
Elementary K-6 7.425 4,320 11,745 12,304 559
Middle (7-8) 2,594 0 2,594 3,171 577
High (9-12) 4,793 750 5,543 5,542 (1)
TOTAL 14,811 5,070 19,882 21,017 1,136
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 17 of 21
November 2011
'Total planned capacity in Phase 1 includes six portable classrooms at the elementary level, all of
which are considered permanent capacity. After Phase 2 construction, 24 more portable classrooms
will be considered permanent capacity. The 6 portable classrooms for the high school are also
considered permanent capacity.
The District's ability to fund the planned improvements that will add capacity is dependent
upon the passage of bond elections at a 60% supermajority and capital construction funds
from the state.
Numbers for permanent portable classroom capacity for schools not yet constructed are only
estimates and may change based on site selection and layout.
SECTION 6
CAPITAL FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
A. Planned Improvements
Planned improvements in Phase 1 include the construction of two elementary schools
and one early learning center, the addition of six portable classrooms at the high
school level and another six portable classrooms at the elementary level. The District
also needs to acquire school sites and must make a variety of improvements that are
needed at existing facilities. When the planned Phase 1 improvements are constructed
there will be permanent capacity for 9,669 students.
B. Financing for Planned Improvements
1. General Obligation Bonds
Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other capital
improvement projects. Bonds are then retired through collection of property taxes.
The District must pass a bond election with a 60% majority since it is the primary
source of funding for the capital improvements listed in this plan.
2. State Capital Construction Funds
State Capital Construction funds come from the Common School Construction Fund
("the fund"). Bonds are sold on behalf of the Fund, and then retired from revenues
accruing predominantly from the sale of timber from the common school lands. If these
sources are insufficient, the Legislature can appropriate funds or the State Board of
Education can change the standards. School districts may qualify for state match
funds for specific capital projects based on a prioritization system. Based on the
District's assessed valuation per student, the formula in the state regulations and the
significant number of unhoused students (calculated by the State's definition), the
District is currently eligible for state match funds for new schools at a factor of
approximately 86% within the state's calculation formula only if local voters approve the
funds for the local portion of the projects.
3. Impact or Mitigation Fees
Impact or mitigation fees are a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for
construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. School
impact fees or S E P A mitigation fees are generally collected by the permitting agency at
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 18 of 21
November 2011
the time plats are approved or building permits are issued. Improvements that do not
add capacity and that are constructed to existing schools to serve existing enrollment,
are not included in impact fee or mitigation fee calculations. The existing needs and
deficiencies are excluded from the cost that is attributed to growth because impact and
mitigation fees cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies.
C. Six-Year Financing Plan
Table 14 demonstrates how the District intends to fund new construction and
improvements to school facilities in the first phase of the Capital Facility Plan. A similar
financing plan will be prepared for improvements that are planned for Phase 2 once the
improvements in Phase 1 are under construction. The financing components include a
bond issue, state match funds, and impact fees. Projects or portions of projects which
remedy existing deficiencies are not appropriate for impact fees. Thus, fees collected
from new developers will not be used to finance projects or portions of projects which
remedy existing deficiencies.
Table 14- Capital Facilities Financing Plan Phase 1
Added Unsecured Funds
Project Capacity Cost Bonds State Match' Impact Fees"
New Elementary School#13 750 $23,827,071""" $9,757,686 $13,169,385 $900,000
New Elementary School#14 750 $27,044,006 $11,647.044 $14,496,962 $900,000
New Early Learning Center 600 $20,717,573 $9,612,446 $10,655,127 $450,000
Facility Sites 0 $5,100,000 $5,100,000 $0 $0
Existing Facility Improvements 0 $2,725,000 $2,725,000 $0 $0
Portables 300 $1,350.000 $0 $0 $1.350.000
TOTAL 2400 $80.763.650 $38,842,176 $38,321.474 $3.600.000
This number is an estimate of state match and is subject to verification by OSPI.
** This number is an estimate that assumes housing development will occur at a rate similar to what
has been experienced the past six years and impact fees in the amount of at least $4,683.34 will be
collected from builders for every new housing unit.
***This amount is less than other similar elementary schools because the district already owns the
land and has already completed much of the architectural and engineering work in preparation for
construction.
SECTION 7
SCHOOL IMPACT OR MITIGATION FEES
The Growth Management Act (GMA) authorizes jurisdictions to collect impact fees to
supplement funding of additional public facilities needed to accommodate new
development. The State Environmental Policy Act requires mitigation of impacts that new
development has on schools and the State Subdivision Act requires there be adequate
provision for schools prior to approving subdivisions. Impact fees or mitigation fees
address these legal requirements. They cannot be used for the operation, maintenance,
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 19 of 21
November 2011
repair, alteration, or replacement of existing capital facilities used to meet existing service
demands.
A. Fee Calculations
Franklin County and the City of Pasco have not adopted a school impact fee
ordinance. However, the District's Capital Facility Plan addresses the forecast growth
for which the City and County must plan, and it identifies the need to collect fees to
address a portion of the cost the District will incur to build facilities to serve growth.
The fees have been calculated using a standard school impact fee formula that is
authorized by the Growth Management Act and adopted in Washington counties and
cities. The fees, calculated as shown in attached Appendix A, are based on the
District's cost per dwelling unit to construct new elementary and middle schools to add
capacity to serve new development. Construction costs do not include that portion of
the total cost to build new schools that is being incurred to serve unhoused students (to
remedy existing deficiencies). Credits have been applied in calculating the fees to
account for future state match funds the District could receive and projected future
property taxes that will be paid by the owner of the dwelling unit. The fees have been
discounted by 25% to minimize the impacts the fees may have on new development
and ensure new development is not paying more than its fair share.
B. District's Proposed Fees
The District requests collection of school impact fees in the amounts of:
Single Family: $4,683.34
Multi-Family: $4,525.86
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 20 of 21
November 2011
PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT 25%reduction
2811 Impact Fee Calculation APPENDIX A
[CS(SF) ll SIF = (SAJ) (t+`) -I x AA Y x TLRJ x A -FC
Single Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$72,253,650.00 $0.00 $675,000.00 Facility Cost
2,244 300 150 Additional Capacity
532,203.05 $0.00 54,500.00 Cost per Student(CS)
0.450 0.180 0.190 Student Factor(SF)
$14,491.37 $0.00 $865.00 CS x SF
$180.17 5180.17 $180.17 Boeck Index
90.00 117.00 130.00 OSPI Sq Ft
86.10% 86.10% 86.10% State Match Eligibility%
$6,282.62 $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit(SM)
$8,208.76 $0.00 $855.00 CS x SF-SM
sspm.n Cost per Single Family Residence
0.0434 Average Interest Rate
0.529355058 Tax Credit Numerator
0.06637401 Tax Credit Denominator
7.975336462 Tax Credit Multiplier(TCM)
$147,600.00 Average Assessed Value(AAV)
1177159.66 TCM x AAV
0.00240 Tax Levy Rate(TLR)
$2,819.30 TCM x AAV x TLR■(TC)
8,244.48 Cost per Single Family Residence-Tax Credit
$1,561.11 25%reduction(.A)
$4,883.34 Calculated Single Family Fee Amount
io Recommended Fee Amount
Multi-Family Residence:
Elementary Middle School High School Formula
$72,263,650.00 $0.00 $675,000.00 Facility Cost
2244 300 150 Additional Capacity
532,203.05 $0.00 54,500.00 Cost per Student(CS)
0.350 0.120 0.120 Student Factor(SF)
$11,271.07 $M00 $540.00 CS x SF
$180.17 $180.17 $180.17 Boeck Index
90.00 117.00 130.00 OSPI Sq Ft
86.10% 86.10% 86.10% State Match Eligibility%
$4,886.48 $0.00 $0.00 State Match Credit(SM)
56, 1,59 $0.00 $540.00 CS x SF-SM
8,924.59 Cost per Multi-Family Residence
0.0434 Average Interest Rate
0.529355058 Tax Credit Numerator
0.06637401 Tax Credit Denominator
7.975336462 Tax Credit Multiplier(TCM)
$46,600.00 Average Assessed Value(AAV)
371650.68 TCM x AAV
0.00240 Tax Levy Rate(TLR)
5890.10 TCM x AAV x TLR=(TC)
5,034.48 Cost per Multi-Family Residence-Tax Credit
$1,508.62 25%reduction(A)
$4,525.86 Calculated Multl-Family Fee Amount
io Recommended fee Amount
Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
Page 21 of 21
November 2011
r
SCHOOL
PArS,C00;
Cxool,DISTIUCr#t
Pasco School District No. 1
Resolution No. 834
ADOPTION OF THE 2011-2017 REVISED PASCO SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLAN AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, counties and cities in the State of Washington adopt comprehensive land use plans
in accordance with the Growth Management Act(GMA); and
WHEREAS, comprehensive plans that are adopted under the GMA must address the provision
of public services for future growth and development; and
WHEREAS, public schools are one of the public services that, with assistance from school
districts, the counties and cities must plan for,
WHEREAS, the Pasco School District desires to work with Franklin County and the City of
Pasco in planning for growth and implementing the GMA through the adoption of the Pasco
School District Capital Facilities Plan;
WHEREAS, the GMA authorizes Franklin County and the City of Pasco to collect school impact
fees from residential development in order to ensure that school facilities are available to serve
new growth and development;
WHEREAS, the District's student enrollment is projected to increase over the next six years due
to growth in unincorporated Franklin County and the City;
WHEREAS, the District will need to build new facilities to add capacity to serve the increased
enrollment;
WHEREAS, existing funding sources are not sufficient to fund the new facilities that are needed
to serve the increased enrollment-,
WHEREAS, the District requests that Franklin County and the City of Pasco supplement their
Comprehensive Land Use Plans to address the school facility needs reflected in the 2011 —
2017 Pasco School District Capital Facility Plan; and
WHEREAS,the District requests that Franklin County and the City of Pasco adopt a school
impact fee ordinance and collect school impact fees in an amount set forth in the 2011 —2017
Capital Facility Plans;
Page i of 2
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2011-2017 Pasco School District Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP) is hereby adopted. The District shall submit this CFP to Franklin County
and the City of Pasco for adoption as a supplement to the County's and City's Comprehensive
Land Use Plans and take any actions that are necessary to support the County's and City's
adoption of school impact fees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the District respectfully requests Franklin County and the
City of Pasco impose and collect school impact fees on behalf of the District in the amount of
$4,683 per single family home and $4,526 per multi-family unit.
ADOPTED THIS w day of January, 2012.
a�2� �,C ;L,
Sherry Lancon, P e idont
William V. Legge ice President
Jeffery Dong, mber
uben Per Ita, Member
Ryan Br It, Member
:undra'L.TES
per intendent&Secretary to the Board
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 7, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager
FROM: Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
The Pasco School District has submitted their approved Capital Facilities Plan for 2011-2017
for inclusion in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The District's Capital Plan identifies school
facilities that are necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student
population of the Pasco School District. The District has prepared this plan to provide
information to the school community, the City of Pasco, Franklin County and developers
regarding the District's facilities and forecasted needs for the next six years.
The Capital Plan identifies existing and future enrollment numbers and then matches those
numbers to existing and needed facilities. The Plan outlines the issues facing the District
and identifies measures the District has enacted to deal with the burgeoning school
population. The District's Capital Plan contains several significant differences from the
Capital Plan first presented to City Council in January of 2011. These include the removal of
6t' graders from the middle school structure which results in postponing the need for a new
middle school and the inclusion of portables as permanent capacity.
Based on enrollment numbers, standards of service for educational needs and existing
facilities, the Capital Plan outlines needed capital facilities over the next six years (two
elementary schools and an early learning center). The Capital Plan then outlines funding of
those necessary capital investments.
A portion of the funding mix includes the assumption of an impact fee, since the Pasco
School District is at its physical and funding capacity for new facilities. The Capital Plan
Identifies how the impact fee is calculated for single-family and multi-family dwellings. The
calculation provides for the actual cost per student for needed facilities and then provides a
number of adjustments against that actual cost. These adjustments include:
• Calculating the cost for "brick and mortar" facilities only for new students (an
impact fee cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies),
• Reducing the cost per student to account for the amount of State funding per
square foot that is provided for new public educational facilities,
1
• A factor for the payment of future property taxes (and capital bond costs) that will
be paid by the owner of a new dwelling,
• A reduction in the fee to insure that the fee does not pay for more than the impacts
of new students.
Although the Capital Plan includes the impact fee calculation based on a State recognized
formula for such Fees, the actual impact fee itself (assuming one is adopted) will be the
result of an impact fee ordinance. The Capital Plan lays the groundwork for the
development of such an ordinance. The calculation formula contained in the Capital Plan
follows a recognized and tested formula in the State of Washington. It is identical to the fee
calculations used by most public entities.
With the current lack of an impact fee, the School District, the City and developers of new
residential lots and projects are in a losing position. There is the continuing development of
single family homes on existing lots that is contributing to the over-capacity of School
District facilities. This ongoing development is not mitigating its impacts. For example, the
City has about 1500 existing lots in some form of approval. If those lots develop at 500
homes per year — that alone will result in 675 new elementary students (enough for a new
school), 270 middle school students and 280 high school students in the next three year
period, all without any payment to mitigate those impacts. In addition, we essentially have
a "moratorium" on new development since state law cannot allow the approval of new
subdivisions without new capacity to handle new students. This results in an inequity
between existing lots and newly created lots, It allows continuing unmitigated development
of the City's inventory of existing lots but requires developers of newly created lots or
multifamily projects to enter into individual agreements with the School District for
mitigation measures. This provides a great deal of uncertainty and will result in new
subdivisions/projects paying a much higher share of the costs of providing school facilities
since the cost adjustments and credits in the District's proposed impact fee calculation do
not apply to individual mitigation agreements.
There has also been discussion about moving the point of collection of the school impact fee
from the building permit stage (as with park and/or traffic fees) to the closing stage of the
sale of the lot or occupancy of the home. Staff does not recommend that this occur for
several reasons.
The argument is made that there is no impact to the schools from new development until
occupancy (or sale) occurs. This is true, but it is also true that once occupancy or sale does
occur, the District must immediately provide space for new students. If the point of
collection is delayed until occupancy or sale, the District has no reasonable lead time to
provide school facilities for the new students.
If collection of the impact fee occurs at the point of sale, lenders are also unlikely to place
themselves in a second position if the fees are deferred until closing. Deferral of the fees
will require the developer to assign a lien against the property that would be filed and then
removed upon closing — presumably through escrow. This places the City in second position
to collect the lien if the developer defaults on the underlying loan. It is probable that the
2
lender will require the developer to assume a larger project loan in order to pay the fee up
front and avoid encumbering the property. In addition, deferring the collection until sale or
occupancy requires administrative costs — including recording and release fees that are
properly required from the developer. It is probable that the administrative costs incurred
and charged to the developer will equal any amount of savings that may accrue if the point
of collection were delayed. With little speculative building taking place, the "point of sale"
and issuance of a building permit essentially occur at the same time.
As described in the District's Capital Plan, within the next six year timeframe, impact fees
are expected to pay about S% of the cost of new facilities to serve new student growth. The
remainder will need to be provided from State matching funds and the local community
through construction bonds Staff believes that a school impact fee is not only a necessity,
but an equitable method of providing a portion of the needed funding for new facilities. It
should be noted that the District's Capital Plan and impact fee calculation require a
reassessment every two years. This helps insure that the fee is justified and the
assumptions used in its calculation remain valid.
3
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 19, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update IMF# CPA2011-0011
The City is required by the Growth Management Act to develop and adopt a
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan must be reviewed and if necessary updated every
seven years. The Plan can also be updated on a more frequent basis as conditions
change within the community. However, Plan updates cannot be more frequent than
once a year. The last major Comprehensive Plan update began in 2007 and was
completed in 2008.
As a result of community growth over the past four years, industrial infrastructure
improvements, adoption of the Pasco Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, the Broadmoor
Concept Plan, the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan, and a request for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment from the Pasco School District there is a need to
consider revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
revisions are explained under the following headings:
Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary Update
The following points represent changing conditions which warrant modification to
the Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary:
• hi 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The
Broadmoor Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the
Road 100/Broadmoor Interchange area by expanding both the
Mixed Residential and Commercial areas to the west.
• The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall
of 2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a sub area
plan that provides a more detailed view of future land uses
between the Cable Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth
Street.
• During the last couple of years the City has invested two million
dollars in improvements to the north end of Capital Avenue.
Capital Avenue was extended one mile north to provide a
connection with East Foster Wells Road. The road was
constructed to industrial standards (additional base and asphalt)
with curb and gutter to provide access to the industrial lands on
1
the east side of SR-395 south of East Foster Wells Road. A mile of
sewer line was also installed along with 1.25 miles of water line.
Every 600 feet, 8 inch lateral sewer lines were stubbed out east
and west of Capital Avenue to provide sewer service to future
industrial users. The water line was also stubbed out to both
sides of Capital Avenue. Finally, the water line was extended west
in Foster Wells and connected under SR-395 to a main line on the
west side of SR-395. A spare 12 inch lime was placed under SR-
395 for future needs.
• hi 2010 the City bored under SR-12 and placed a large casing
with four pipes of varying sizes under the freeway. This $600,000
plus project was the first phase of a multi-phase infrastructure
project to provide utilities to current and future industrial users in
and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Two
million dollars of sewer improvements will be connected to the SR-
12 casing in the next few years and an additional $800,000 will be
devoted to water system improvements. The water system will aid
in the future expansion of industrial processing and will provide
fire protection that is currently lacking in the County east of SR-
12.
• Section lines or portions thereof are often used to delineate the
Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundaries. The east line of Section 35,
Township 9 North Range 20 East along the Snake River northerly
of the SR-12 Bridge dissects part of the Tidewater Barge Terminal.
A small portion of the Tidewater Terminal is located outside of the
current UGA boundaries. Future annexation and provisions of
municipal services will be problematic if the Tidewater property
continues to be divided by the UGA boundary.
Under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, urban growth is to be confined
within Urban Growth Areas (UGA). The UGA should include areas that will provide
for a broad range of land uses including nonresidential uses (RCW 36.70A.110). The
broad range of land uses should include a reasonable "land market supply factor" to
provide for a range of commercial and industrial land (RCW 36.70A.110). County-
wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include lands already characterized by
urban growth and as having existing public facilities and services (water and sewer)
to serve existing and future growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The City has recently
completed $2.6 million of utility improvements to serve the lands suggested for
inclusion in the UGA (see UGA Map attached). Another 2.8 million dollars is
planned to be spent installing utilities to serve properties near the Kahlotus/Lewis
Street Interchange.
Although not a changing condition the fact that the State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) owns 640 acres of land east of SR-395 has a significant impact on
the availability of industrial land for development purposes. The DNR property is
essentially unavailable for future industrial development because the DNR will not
sell property. The DNR's mandate for generating funding for schools requires the
agency to perpetually lease their land rather than sell it for development. The DNR
2
property is basically unavailable for future development as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan until the property is sold.
Map Updates
Over one thousand seven hundred (1,700) residential lots have been developed with
homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update was initiated in 2007. As a
result, the base maps within the Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer
reflect the street layout of the City.
Capital Facilities Update
Capital Facilities planning is a mandatory requirement of the Growth Management
Act [RCW 36.70A.070(3)]. Capital facilities include city streets, parks, public
buildings, water and sewer infrastructure and facilities of other public subdivisions
of government such as the School District the Irrigation District and the PUD.
Information related to these special services districts are contained in either the
Capital Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan or the Non-City Utilities
Chapter of the Plan.
hi January of 2011 the Pasco School District submitted a letter to the City (attached)
explaining the District had outgrown its ability to provide schools for new
development without new development contributing to the cost of providing the
schools. The District further explained in their letter that the City could not approve
residential subdivisions unless the city finds adequate provisions are made for
schools (RCW 17. 110).
The School District placed the City on notice that without impact fees or SEPA
mitigation for new residential development there will not be adequate provisions
made for schools. The imposition of impact fees requires the City to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities
Plan into the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. By
Resolution (attached) the School District has requested the City amend the
Comprehensive Plan and adopt an impact fee ordinance.
The Goals and Policies section of the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive
Plan contains a policy (CF-S-A) that states the City is to work with the School
District to coordinate District facility plans with the Comprehensive Plan and
encourage the appropriate location of schools throughout the community. While the
current Plan (Volume II page 45) makes reference to the School District Facilities
Plan but the District Plan it is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does however call for the City to work with the School District
during the development review process to insure impacts of development on the
School District are minimized. In the past this was accomplished by forwarding
copies of proposed plats to the School District for review and comment. During this
process the city had developers set aside land the School District could purchase
adjacent to sites dedicated for parks, thereby reducing the overall cost for school site
acquisition. Due to the pace of growth this is no longer adequate to meet school
needs; hence the January 2011 letter from the District requesting the imposition of
school impact fees on new development.
3
Incorporating the School District Capital Facilities Plait within the City's
Comprehensive Plan will require amendments to both Volumes I and 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Pasco School District adopted their Capital Facilities Plan for 2011-2017 on
December 13, 2011. The Capital Facilities Plan along with a brief memorandum to
the Planning Commission dated January 4, 2012 providing an explanation of the
plan is attached. A representative of the School District will be present at the
hearing to provide an in-depth explanation of the plan and will be available to
answer Planning Commission questions.
Findings of Fact
The following are findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff
report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the public hearing.
1. The Growth Management Act requires the development of local
Comprehensive Plans.
2. The Comprehensive Plan can be updated no more than once a year.
3. The Growth Management Act mandates specific elements to be included
within comprehensive plans including an element for capital facilities.
4. Over One thousand seven hundred residential lots have been developed
with homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update was
initiated in 2007. As a result, the base maps used for the various maps
within the Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer reflect the
street layout of the City.
5. hi 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The Broadmoor
Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the Road
100/Broadmoor hiterchange area by expanding both the Mixed
Residential and Commercial areas to the west.
6. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall of
2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a sub-area plan that
provides a more detailed overview of future land uses between the Cable
Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth Street.
7. The City has invested $800,000 in the past two years to improve the
Capital Avenue connection with East Foster Wells Road. Capital Avenue
was improved to industrial standards with curb, gutter, storm drainage
and a thickened road base and asphalt.
8. The City has invested $1,200,000 in water and sewer line improvements
during the past two years to extend water and sewer lines in Capital
Avenue and connect the water line to the west side of SR-395.
9. The water and sewer utilities have been stubbed with lateral lines to
serve properties on both the east and west side of Capital Avenue.
10. In 2010 the bored a casing under SR-12 and placed four pipe lines in the
casing for a cost of $600,000. This is the first phase of a multi-phase
infrastructure project to provide utilities to current and future industrial
users in and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus Highway Innterchange.
Two million dollars of sewer improvements will be connected to the SR-
4
12 casing in the next few years and all additional $800,000 will be
devoted to water system improvements. The water system will aid in the
future expansion of industrial processing and will provide fire protection
that is currently lacking in the County east of SR-12.
11. Section lines are often used to identify the extent of the Urban Growth
Area around the City of Pasco. hi one case the use of section lines cause
the Urban Growth Boundary to inadvertently dissect the Tide Water
Marine Terminal facilities causing a portion of the Tide Water Marine
Terminal be inside the UGA and a portion of the Terminal to be outside
the UGA.
12. RCW 36.70A. 110 encourages Urban Growth Areas to include a broad
range of land uses including a reasonable "land market factor" to ensure
there is a wide range of land available for all uses including commercial
and industrial uses.
13. County-wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include land
already characterized by urban growth and having existing public
facilities and services (water and sewer) to serve existing and future
growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The city has spent $2.6 million on water sewer
for industrial development needs east of SR 395 and SR-12. Another
$2.8 million of utility improvements will occur over the next few years.
14. A portion of the land proposed to be included in the UGA was previously
located within the UGA but was removed from the UGA because the land
was developed with a large commercial dairy. The dairy has been
relocated.
15. Comprehensive Plan Policy CF-S-A explains the City should work with
the School District to coordinate facility plans with the Comprehensive
Plan and encourage appropriate location and design of schools
throughout the community.
16. The "Schools" section of the Capital Facilities Element (page 45 Vol. II)
states the City will continue to work with the School District during the
development review process to ensure that the impacts of development
on the school district are minimized.
17. In the past the School District and the City have worked together to
ensure park sites were located adjacent to elementary schools to reduce
the cost of land acquisition for the School District. McGee Elementary,
Robinson Elementary, Maya Angelou and the future Rd 60 Elementary
schools are examples of where schools and parks have been co-located to
reduce costs.
18. On January 11, 2011 the Pasco School District informed the City by
letter that the School District had outgrown its ability to continue
providing schools without requiring development served by the schools to
contribute to the cost of providing the schools.
19. By letter dated January 11, 2011 the Pasco School District notified the
City and County that without impact fees or mitigation under SEPA there
are not adequate provisions for schools.
20. RCW 58. 17. 110 (1) requires the City to determine if adequate provisions
have been made for parks playgrounds schools and school grounds and
other public facilities during the plat (subdivision) review process.
5
2 1. RCW 58.17.110 (2) prohibits the City from approving a preliminary plat
unless written findings indicate that adequate provisions have been
made for public facilities including schools and school grounds.
22. The Pasco School District No. 1 Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2017 was
adopted by the Pasco School Board on December 13, 2011.
23. The School District Capital Facilities Plan identifies school facilities that
are necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student
population within the Pasco School District.
24. The Pasco School District enrollment is projected by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to increase by 5,384 students in the
next six years.
25. Based on enrollment projections, space needs and measures, the School
District Capital Facilities Plan outlines the needs for new capital facilities
for the next G years.
26. The District Plan outlines the issues facing the District and identifies
measures the District has taken to deal with burgeoning school
enrollments.
27. RCW 58.17.110 (2) is currently creating a moratorium on new residential
development in Pasco unless developers/builders reach an agreement
with the School District to make provisions for additional classroom
capacity.
28. All new residential dwelling units have an impact on classroom space not
just those dwellings built in subdivisions approved after April, 2011.
29. Without a school impact fee in place market inequities are created
between builders of dwellings in subdivisions approved after April 2011
and builders in subdivisions approved prior to April 2011.
30. Incorporating the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan within the
Comprehensive Plan would allow the city to implement a school impact
fee ordinance for new development impacting the School District.
31. Implementation of a school impact fee ordinance would enable the
community to address the statutory requirements of RCW 58. 17. 110
prohibiting the approval of new preliminary plats unless provisions are
made for schools and school grounds.
Recommendations
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo dealing with
Comprehensive Plan Updates.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
amend the Comprehensive Plan by updating the base maps,
modifying the Urban Growth Area, adopting by reference the
Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin
Plan and including the Pasco School District Capital Facilities
Plan in the City's Capital Facilities Element.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt a school impact fee.
6
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: David McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan
The Pasco School District has submitted their Capital Facilities Plan for the years
2011-2017. The Capital Plan identifies school facilities that are necessary to meet
the educational needs of the growing student population of the Pasco School
District. The District has prepared this plan to provide information to the
community, Franklin County, the City of Pasco and developers regarding the
District's facilities and forecasted needs for the next six years.
The Capital Plan identifies existing and future enrollment numbers and then
matches those numbers to facility and space needs. The Plan outlines the issues
facing the District and also identifies the measures that the District has enacted to
deal with the burgeoning school population. These measures include consideration
of multi-track scheduling, reorganization of the elementary and middle school
structures to include sixth-graders in the elementary school facilities and
acknowledging that portables will now make up a permanent portion of the
District's capacity for facilities.
Based on those enrollment numbers, space needs and measures, the Capital Plan
outlines the capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the next six years,
using the inventory of existing facilities, the standard or service for educational
needs and the rate of student growth as a base. The Capital Plan then outlines
financing of those capital investments.
A portion of the funding capacity includes the assumption of an impact fee. The
Capital Plan identifies how the impact fee is calculated for a single-family and
multi-family dwelling. The impact fee calculation provides the actual cost per
student for needed facilities and then provides a number of "credits" against that
actual cost. These credits include factors for State funding that is provided for new
public educational facilities, a factor for the percentage of portables now used as
permanent capacity, a factor for the portion of student growth that is attributable
only to "new housing", a factor for the property taxes that will be paid by the owner
of the new dwelling and an adjustment to the calculation that removes middle
school construction as a result of the restructuring of the grades included in
elementary school facilities.
1
Although the Capital Plait includes the impact fee calculation based on a State
recognized formula for such fees, the actual impact fee itself (assuming one is
adopted) will be the result of an impact fee ordinance. The Capital Plan lays the
ground work for the development of such an ordinance.
The Pasco School District is at its physical and funding capacity for new facilities.
Staff believes that an impact fee ordinance is the most equitable method of
providing for a portion of the needed funding for School District facilities.
With the current lack of an impact fee, the City, the School District and developers
of new residential lots and projects are in a losing position. There is the continuing
development of single family homes on existing lots that is contributing to the over-
capacity of School District facilities, and this development is not mitigating its
impacts. In addition, we have a "moratorium" on new development since state law
cannot allow the approval of new subdivisions because the School District does not
have capacity to handle new students. This results in an inequity between existing
lots and newly created lots. It requires the developers of newly created lots to enter
into individual agreements with the School District for mitigation measures. This
provides a great deal of uncertainty and is likely to result in new subdivisions
paying a higher share of the costs of providing school facilities since the cost
adjustments in the District's proposed impact fee calculation do not apply to
individual mitigation agreements.
Staff believes that the Planning Commission should provide a recommendation to
City Council on the adoption of a school impact fee. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission forwards a recommendation to City Council that include
inclusion of the School District's Capital Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan
and that the City adopt a school impact fee ordinance.
11`IEMORANDUII'I
DATE: December 15, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CP2011-001)
At the regular meeting on October 20, 2011 the Planning Commission held a
Public Hearing to consider various amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
These amendments included updates to the Land Use Map, the Urban
Growth Area boundaries, the general maps and the Capital Facilities Element
of the Plan (see further explanation in the attached memo of 10/20/2011).
The most significant portion of the Comprehensive Plan Update centers on
the Capital Facilities Element dealing with the inclusion of the School
District's Capital Facilities Plan within the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
School District has been in the process of updating their 2011-2017 Capital
Facilities Plan for several months. The Plan is nearing completion but is not
completely finished. There is a possibility that the School District will have
their plan available by December 14th which will not provide the Planning
Commission with the necessary time to review the Plan before the hearing on
December 15th. As a result, the hearing will need to be continued to the
January 19, 2012 meeting. Assuming the Capital Plan is available, staff will
distribute it to the Commission, and provide a general summary of the issue
and important factors.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan Updates until January 19, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting.
11`IEMORANDUNI
DATE: November 17, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CP2011-001)
At the regular meeting of October 20, 2011 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing to consider various amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
These amendments included updates to the land use map, the Urban Growth
Area boundaries, the general maps and the Capital Facilities Element of the
Plan (see further explanation in the attached memo form 10/20/2011).
The update to the Capital Facilities was initiated by a request from the Pasco
School District related to the need for new development to contribute to the
cost of providing schools in the community. More specifically the School
District has asked the City to adopt an impact fee ordinance for school impact
fees.
The imposition of school impact fees requires the City to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Pasco School District's Capital
Facilities Plan into the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Plan. The
Pasco School District is in the process of updating their Capital Facilities Plan
for 2011-2017. A copy of the Plan was not available for review at the public
hearing on October 201h and as a result the Public Hearing on this matter was
continued until November 17th. During the October 20th meeting staff
informed the Commission that the School District may not complete their
Capital Facilities Plan in time for the November Planning Commission
meeting and a further continuation of the hearing may be necessary. The
School District has now indicated their Capital Facilities Plan will be available
by the end of November. Staff recommends the hearing be continued to the
December 15, 2 011 meeting.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move to continue the hearing on the Comprehensive
Plan updates until December 15, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting.
11`IEMORANDUII'I
DATE: October 20, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CP2011-001)
The City is required by the Growth Management Act to develop and adopt a
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan must be reviewed and if necessary updated
every seven ,years. The Plan can also be updated on a more frequent basis as
conditions change within the community. However, Plan updates cannot be
more frequent than once a ,year. The last major Comprehensive Plan update
began in 2007 and was completed in 2008.
As a result of a request from the Pasco School District, industrial
infrastructure improvements, adoption of the Broadmoor Concept Plan and
adoption of the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan, there is a need to consider
revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary Update
The following points represent changing conditions which warrant
modification to the Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary:
• In 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The
Broadmoor Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations
in the Road 100/Broadmoor Interchange area by expanding
both the Mixed Residential and Commercial areas to the
west.
• The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in
the fall of 2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan
is a master plan that provides a more detailed view of future
land uses between the Cable Bridge and Osprey Pointe south
of Ainsworth Street.
• During the last couple of ,years the City has invested two
million dollars in improvements to the north end of Capital
Avenue. Capital Avenue was extended one mile north to
provide a connection with East Foster Wells Road. The road
i
was constructed to industrial standards (additional base and
asphalt) with curb and gutter to provide access to the
industrial lands on the east side of SR 395 south of East
Foster Wells Road. A mile of sewer line was also installed
along with 1.25 miles of water line. Every 600 feet, 8 inch
lateral sewer lines were stubbed out east and west of Capital
Avenue to provide sewer service to future industrial users.
The water line was also stubbed out to both sides of Capital
Avenue. Finally the water line was extended west in Foster
Wells and connected under SR 395 to a main line on the
west side of SR 395. A spare 12 inch line was placed under
SR 395 for future needs.
• In 2010 the City bored under SR 12 and placed a large
casing with four pipes of varying sizes under the freeway.
This $600,000 plus project was the first phase of a multi-
phase infrastructure project to provide utilities to current
and future industrial users in and around the Lewis
Street/Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Two million dollars of
sewer improvements will be connected to the SR 12 casing in
the next few ,years and an additional $800,000 will be
devoted to water system improvements. The water system
will aid in the future expansion of industrial processing and
will provide fire protection that is currently lacking in the
County east of SR 12.
• Section lines or portions thereof are often used to delineate
the Pasco Urban Growth Area boundaries. The east
boundary of Section 35, Township 9 North Range 20 East
along the Snake River northerly of the SR 12 Bridge dissects
part of the Tidewater Barge Terminal.
Under the provisions of the Growth Management Act urban growth is to be
confined within Urban Growth Areas (UGA). The UGA should include areas
that will provide for a broad range of land uses including nonresidential uses
(RCW 3 6.70A.110). The broad range of land uses should include a reasonable
"land market supply factor" to provide for a range of commercial and
industrial land (RCW 36.70A.110). County-wide Planning Policies suggest
UGA's should include lands already characterized by urban growth and as
having existing public facilities and services (water and sewer) to serve
existing and future growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The City has recently completed
$2.6 million of utility improvements to serve the lands suggested for inclusion
in the UGA (see UGA Map attached). Another 2.8 million dollars is planned to
be spent installing utilities to serve properties near the Kahlotus/Lewis Street
Interchange.
2
Map Updates
One thousand seven hundred and ninety-five (1,795) residential lots have
been developed with homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update
was initiated in 2007. As a result, all of the base maps within the
Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer reflect the street layout of
the City.
Capital Facilities Update
Capital Facilities planning is a mandatory requirement of the Growth
Management Act [RCW 36.70A.070(3)]. Capital facilities include city streets,
parks, public buildings, water and sewer infrastructure and facilities of other
public subdivisions of government such as the School District, the Irrigation
District and the PUD. Information related to these special services districts
are contained in either the Capital Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan or the Non-City Utilities Chapter of the Plan.
In January of this year the Pasco School District submitted a letter to the City
(attached) explaining the District had outgrown its ability to provide schools
for new development without new development contributing to the cost of
providing the schools. The District further explained that in their letter that
the City could not approve residential subdivisions unless the city finds
adequate provisions are made for schools (RCW 17.110).
The School District placed the City on notice that without impact fees or
SEPA mitigation for new residential development there will not be adequate
provisions made for schools. The imposition of impact fees requires the City
to amend the Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Pasco School
District's Capital Facilities Plan into the City's Capital Facilities Element of
the Comprehensive Plan. By Resolution (attached) the School District has
requested the City amend the Comprehensive Plan and adopt an impact fee
ordinance.
The Goals and Polices section of the Capital Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan contains a policy (CF-S-A) that states the City is to work
with the School District to coordinate District facility plans with the
Comprehensive Plan and encourage the appropriate location of schools
throughout the community. While the current Plan (Volume II page 45) makes
reference to the School District Facilities Plan is not incorporated in the
Comprehensive Plan. The plan does however call for the City to work with the
School District during the development review process to insure impacts of
development on the School District are minimized. In the past this was
accomplished by forwarding copies of proposed plats to the School District for
3
review and comment. During this process the city had developers set aside
land the School District could purchase adjacent to sites dedicated for parks,
thereby reducing the overall cost for school site acquisition. Due to the pace
of growth this is no longer adequate to meet school needs; hence the January
letter from the District requesting the imposition of school impact fees on new
development.
Incorporating the School District Capital Facilities Plan within the City's
Comprehensive Plan will require amendments to both Volumes I and II of the
Comprehensive Plan. The attachments contain the sections of the City's Plan
that need to be amended along with proposed language to accomplish the
amendments.
The Pasco School District is in the process of updating their Capital Facilities
Plan for 2011-2017. A copy of the Plan will not be available until October
26th. As a result the Findings listed below do not include information about
the School District's Capital Facilities. The Public Hearing on this matter will
need to be continued until the November 17, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting.
Findings of Fact
The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis
section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional
findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence
submitted during the public hearing.
1. The Growth Management Act requires the development of local
Comprehensive Plans.
2. The Comprehensive Plan can be updated no more than once a
year.
3. The Growth Management Act mandates specific elements to be
included within comprehensive plans including an element for
capital facilities.
4. One thousand seven hundred and ninety-five residential lots have
been developed with homes since the last major Comprehensive
Plan update was initiated in 2007. As a result, all of the base maps
used for the various maps within the Comprehensive Plan are out
of date and no longer reflect the street layout of the City.
5. In 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The
Broadmoor Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the
Road 100/Broadmoor Interchange area by expanding both the
Mixed Residential and Commercial areas to the west.
6. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall
of 2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a master
plan that provides a more detailed overview of future land uses
4
between the Cable Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth
Street.
7. The City has invested $800,000 in the past two years to improve
the Capital Avenue connection with East Foster Wells Road.
Capital Avenue was improved to industrial standards with curb,
gutter, storm drainage and a thickened road base and asphalt.
8. The City has invested $1,200,000 in water and sewer line
improvements during the past two ,years to extend water and sewer
lines in Capital Avenue and connect the water to the west side of
SR 395.
9. The water and sewer utilities have been stubbed with lateral lines
to serve properties on both the east and west side of Capital
Avenue.
10. In 2010 the City
11. bored a casing under SR 12 and placed four pipe lines in the
casing for a cost of $600,000. This is the first phase of a multi-
phase infrastructure project to provide utilities to current and
future industrial users in and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus
Highway Interchange. Two million dollars of sewer improvements
will be connected to the SR 12 casing in the next few ,years and an
additional $800,000 will be devoted to water system improvements.
The water system will aid in the future expansion of industrial
processing and will provide fire protection that is currently lacking
in the County east of SR 12.
12. Section lines are often used to identify the extent of the Urban
Growth Area around the City of Pasco. In one case the use of
section lines cause the Urban Growth Boundary to inadvertently
dissect the Tide Water Marine Terminal facilities causing a portion
of the Tide Water Marine Terminal be inside the UGA and a portion
of the Terminal to be outside the UGA.
13. RCW 36.70A.110 encourages Urban Growth Areas to include a
broad range of land uses including a reasonable "land market
factor" to ensure there is a wide range of land available for all uses
including commercial and industrial uses.
14. County-wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include
lands already characterized by urban growth and having existing
public facilities and services (water and sewer) to serve existing
and future growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The city has spent $2.6
million on water sewer for industrial development needs east of SR
395 and SR 12. Another $2.8 million of utility improvements will
occur over the next few ,years.
15. A portion of the land proposed to be included in the UGA was
previously located within the UGA but was removed from the UGA
because the land was developed with a large commercial dairy.
The dairy has been relocated.
5
Recommendations
MOTION: I move to continue the Bearing on the Comprehensive
Plan updates until November 17, 2011.
6
Volume I
Goals & Policies P A
4�omgrehensive Plan
City of Pasco, Washington
2007 to 2027
This comprehensive plan and thepreparatory work which created it were
paid for in part by a grant from the State of Washington, administered by the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.
OWN ^T
I =
A concurrency management system is a regulatory process that establishes
procedures to determine if public facilities have adequate capacity to
accommodate a proposed development. The process uses criteria adopted and
implemented in the municipal code. Under the GMA, concurrency must be
established for transportation facilities; however jurisdictions may establish
concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted
Ordinance # 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation
facilities in conjunction with new development.
Six Year Capital Improyement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan (GIP) sets out the capital projects the city
plans to undertake within the next six years to support implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan. The six year schedule is up-dated annually, with
the first year of the schedule acting as the capital budget for the current fiscal
year. During the annual updating of the six-year schedule, cost estimates, and
funding sources are updated and revised to reflect changed conditions or new
information available to the city. The CIP and the twenty-year Capital Facility
Plan should be revised to include additional projects that may be needed to
maintain adopted levels of service.
Pasco School District 41 Capital Facilities Plan
The School District Coital Facilities Plan sets forth the Districts educational
program standards (Level of Service) classroom sizes, core programs and
services necessary for the education of children within the District. The olan
also identifies the Caoital Facilities needs to accommodate project student
enrollment over the next six years. The financing plan within the Capital
Facilities Plan includes bonds, State matching funds and school impact fees
as methods of raising capital for construction of school facilities. The District
Capital Facilities Plan is included as a part of this Comprehensive Plan in the
Capital Facilities Element in Volume II.
Administrative Actions
The Comprehensive Plan includes policies that should be carried out through
administrative actions. These actions include development review,development
permitting, preparation of reports, making information available to the public,
and review for concurrency. Development review practices must be continually
monitored to ensure administrative function are consistent with and support the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Introduction 5
The source documents primarily used as functional comprehensive plans for
infrastructure and the six-year capital improvement plans are prepared routinely
and updated annually as required for obtaining funding from the State. The
individual capital improvement plans define projects and proposed funding for
those projects required, first to rehabilitate existing facilities and secondly to
provide level of service (LOS) capacity to accommodate new growth.
Generally, the proposed new capacity,replacement and rehabilitation of capital
facilities, and financing for the next six years reflects the general planning
goals and policies, as well as land use infrastructure requirements, identified in
Pasco's longer-range planning documents. These documents include:
• The Transportation Element, and related regional and county
transportation plans;
• The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and Trails Plan;
• Water, Sewer, and Storrriwater Comprehensive Plans; and
• Specific facility= plans for infrastructure improvements and city-
owned buildings.
• Pasco School District No. 1 Cavital Facilities Plan
Other source documents include, plans for �chooit, the irrigation district, the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan, the
Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area Plan, and other service
providers.
Supplemental Plans
The Broadmoor Concept Plan s 20091
The Broadmoor Concept Plan covers approximately 1,100 acres oflandnorth and
west of the Broadmoor/I-182 Interchange. The goal of the Broadmoor Concetat
Plan is to provide a more detailed level of P_aidance for future development
in the Broadmoor area than is provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Broadmoor Concept Plan (2000 and any subsequent amendments thereto is
made wart of this Comprehensive Plan by reference.
Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan (2010)
Thg Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan covers that portion of the City located
Capital facilities Element 22
south of Ainsworth Avenue between the Cable Bridge and Osorev Pointe in
the Big Port of Pasco. The goal of the Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan is to
provide a m ore detailed level of guidance for future redevelopment of the Marine
Terminal and Boat Basin area than is provided for in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan (?010) and anv subsequent amendments
thereto is made part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference.
Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan
The Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan applies city-wide. The kev goal
of the Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan is to provide a prioritized action
plan for improving identified travel routes with bicycle lanes and pathways. The
Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan replaces the Bikewav Plan previously
included in the Comorehensive Plan.The Pasco Bicvcle&Pedestrian Master Plan
(2011 ) and susequent amendments thereto is made part of this Comprehensive
Plan by reference.
Capital fa,-ilities Element 23
Volume II ---��
Supporting Elements ' ' i
Comprehensive Plan
City of Pasco, Washington
2007 to 2027
This comprehensive plan and the preparatory work which created it were paid for
in part by a grant from the State of Washington, administered by the Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development.
won
n-
�a
y
�► s� Y
M
t'
Capital Facilities
eduction
Land use decisions such as
annexation or commercial versus
residential zoning,etc.,have direct
impacts upon the City financial
capabilities and liabilities in both
the immediate and distant futures.
Because of this relationship the
Growth Management Act (RCW -
36.70A.070[3]) requires that WATIN TAIAIMM Pi hie
local governments include capital
_-JIM I " M,
budgeting as an active plannin
function. The GMA requires that
capital budgeting support the land use decisions. If there is insufficient funding
to meet the infrastructure demands of growth then the land use element should
be adjusted to protect the integrity of the financial capabilities of the respective
local government.
The specific Statutory [RCW 36.70A.070(3)] requirements for capital
facilities planning are provided as follows:
1. "(3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) an
inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities,
showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities. (b)
a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the
proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital
facilities. (d)at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital
facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identify
sources of pub lic m oney for such purposes;and(e)a.requirement
to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of
meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element,
capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the
capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent."
Capital facilities planning is a tool that deliberately brings to the surface for
public examination, the financial decisions necessary to maintain and improve
the physical attributes of the City. Capital improvement projects are to be based
upon the needs of the community and are to be consistent with, and promote
the City's Comprehensive Plan. Under the GMA and countywide planning
policy framework, urban growth begins in the unincorporated areas adjacent
to a city. Counties use rural rather than urban standards for housing and other
development. This practice has always left the expensive questions associated
Capital Facilities 28
with urbanization to the time of annexation before they are answered. The City
is the sole supplier of water and sewer utilities, emergency medical service,
and recreation services within the Urban Growth Area. It is anticipated this
will continue and no joint financing of urban services will occur in the near
future. No joint financing of urban level utilities and facilities is proposed
by the City. The planning coordination required by the GMA is viewed as a
continuing process and close coordination of land development standards for
the Urban Growth Area is an objective of that continuing process. When land
development standards are either common or consistent between the City and
C ounty for the Urban Growth Area,relative future financial relief will be felt by
the City's capital facilities budget.
Wpital Improvement Project Dev
Capital improvement projects are those major, non-reoccurring expenditures
that have a useful life of five years or more and a minimum cost of$25,000.
Specific types of capital improvement projects include one or more of the
following:
• Any acquisition of land for a public purpose;
• Any construction of a new facility such as a public building,
water lines, or play field, or an addition to, or expansion of
such a facility;
• Any non-recurring rehabilitation (i.e., something which
is infrequent and would not be considered annual or other
recurrent maintenance) or major repair of a.11 or a part of a
building, its grounds, or a facility, or of equipment;
• Purchase of major equipment;
• Any planning, feasibility, engineering, or design study related
to an individual capital improvement project or to a program
that is implemented through individual capital improvement
projects.
Manitni Facilities apes
The City of Pasco has a.wide range of facilities which it fiends to varying
degrees based upon budget capabilities and priorities. These are:
• storm drainage (collection system)
• major and minor arterial streets ( between major intersections)
• pedestrian and bicycle linkages and routes
Capital Facilities 29
• potable water system (treatment, storage, distribution)
• sanitary sewer system (collection system, treatment system)
• park and open space system (including land support for
existing or future educational facilities)
• emergency response facilities (fire, paramedic, police)
• community beautification (directed toward land acquisition and
landscaping (with irrigation system) for any and all parts of the
C ity
• public building constriction and rein odeling (libraries, city
offices, community centers,maintenance buildings, etc.)
Special service districts and utility companies represent an additional range of
capital facilities. These are:
• schools
• public utility districts
• irrigation districts
Capital Budgeting Project Consideration Factor ,
1 , The following criteria are the basis for decision-making concerning new
and proposed continuing capital budget items for the City of Pasco:
Public Safety: The project must identify a. clear and immediate safety risk.
Requests from departments, which deal principally with public safety, such as
Fire and Police, do not automatically meet this standard. Another department,
such as Parks and Recreation, could have a project that addresses a clear and
immediate safety issue.
Public Health: Benefit to the environment and public health is a primary
consideration. This consideration is only used when public health is a. critical
factor; a matter of necessity, rather than a. matter of choice. For example al]
water or sewer projects concern public health; however, this consideration
would be used only when urgent. Continual health hazards, however, would
make a.water or sewer project virtually mandatory.
Legal Requirement: Many federal and state grants are contingent upon local
participation,and such intergovernmental agreements require legal compliance.
Court orders and judgments (e.g., annexation, property owner rights,
environmental protection); also represent legal requirements which may affect
a CIP proiect. Consideration must be given to both existing legal requirements
Capital Facilities 30
(e.g., federal/state stipulation that earmarked funds must be spent by a certain
date), and anticipated legal requirements (e.g., pending annexation which is
expected to be approved by the end of the year).
Related Projects: CIP projects in one category are essential to the success of
projects in other categories. In some instances, a street should not be developed
until a storm drain has been completed. Obviously, park development cannot
proceed until parkland has been acquired, but the development may also depend
upon the completion of a street project to provide access to the park. In addition,
significant federal or state grants might be involved, and the City would be
required to provide its matching share or forfeit the grant. Related projects by
other agencies may affect a. saving which should be pursued.
Consistency with Current Comprehensive Plan:A master plan for a specific
category of public facilities has long-term objectives set during the planning
process. City departments have an obligation to request CIP projects that support
and implement the stated goals and objectives of the master plan. Consideration
should not be given here to any project that does nothing to actively implement
the plan, or adversely affects the plan.
Net Impact on Future Operating Budgets: The substantial cost impact of a
proposed CIP project on future operating budgets of the City is an important
factor in the City's decision to construct the project. In some cases,however, a.
project may generate enough revenue to offset,or even exceed, future operating
costs (e.g., water or sewer treatment plant, stadium, airport, etc.).
Other: There are additional priority factors that departments may include for
evaluation. Some of these additional factors for consideration could include
public support,level of service,cost savings to the City, and impact on economic
development.
OftWhy Plan For Capital J���b
AW There are at least three reasons to p lan for capital facilities:(1)good m anagem ent,
(2) growth management, and (3) eligibility for grants and loans.
Good Management
Planning for maior capital facilities and their costs enables City of Pasco
to:
a. Demonstrate the need for facilities and the need for revenues to pay for
them;
b. Estimate future operation/maintenance costs of new facilities that will
impact the annual budget;
Capital Faci lities 31
c. Tape advantage of sources of revenue (i.e., grants, impact fees, real
estate excise takes)that require a CIP in order to qualify for the revenue;
and
d. Get better ratings on bond issues when the City borrows money for
capital facilities (thus reducing interest rates and the cost of borrowing
m oney).
Growth Management
Capital improvements plans are necessary in the comprehensive plan in
order to:
a. Provide capital facilities for land development that is envisioned or
authorized by the land use element of the comprehensive plan;
b. Maintain the quality of life for existing and future development by
establishing and maintaining standards for the level of service of
capital facilities;
C. Coordinate and provide consistency among the many plans for
capital improvements, including:
• Other elements of the comprehensive plan (i.e.,transportation and
utilities elements),
• Master plans and other studies of the local government,
• Plans for capital facilities of state and/or regional significance,
• Plans of other adjacent local governments, and
• Plans of special districts.
d. Ensure the timely provision of adequate facilities to support existing
populations and future development;
e. Document all capital projects and their financing(including projects
to be financed by impact fees and/or real estate excise taxes that
are authorized by the State ofWashington Growth M an agem ent A ct
(GMA)}.
The CIP is the element that mattes the rest of the comprehensive plan "real".
In reality, the CIP determines the quality of life in the community.
Eligibility for Grants and Loans
The State of-Washington Department of Commerce's Public -Works Tnist
Capital Fa.-ilities _2
Fund requires that local governments have some type of CIP in order to
be eligible for grants and loans. Some other grants and loans have similar
requirements (i.e., Interagency for Outdoor Recreation), or give preference
to governments that have a CIP.
Revenue sources are of several types and are designed either for one specific
application or m ay be used for a.variety of projects.As an example, sources of
grant money for transportation facility constriction are dedicated to that single
general purpose.
State statues set out the powers local governments have for funding capital
and other projects. There are four generic types of local government project
funding: Taxes; Fees; Grants; and Dedicated Funds from State revenues. The
following is a description of funding sources.
Property Tax
Property tax levies are the most frequently used means of supporting operational
and maintenance expenses due to the reoccurring nature of both. It is also used
to meet general obligation bond debt service costs.
Linder State law local governments are prohibited from increasing the property
tax levy more than the lesser of 1% or the implicit price deflator as of July of
the previous year.
General Obligation Bonds
There are two types of general obligation bonds. Those approved by the voters
and those limited in amount that may be approved by the elected body of the
county, city or special district, called councilmanic bonds.
Voter-approved bonds increase the property tax rate so that for a given
assessed value on a property, the owner will pay a higher percentage in taxes.
This increase in taxes collected across the properties of the affected districts
is exclusively dedicated to paying off the debt and interest of the money
borrowed under the authority of the approved banding measure. As assessed
property values increase, the bonds may be paid off in a shorter timeframe than
originally projected.Approval for general obligation bonds requires 60 percent
of the number of voters provided the voter turnout is at least 40 percent of the
turnout at the last previous general election.
Councilmanic bonds are different than voter-approved bonds because they do
not have associated with them the authority to raise taxes. Councilmanic bonds
mlLst be paid off from the operating budget created with general tax revenues.
Lease-Purchase arrangements also fall in this general type of financing public
facilities.
Capital Faci litie s f3
The amount of local government debt allowable in the form of general
obligation bonds is limited to 7.5 percent of the taxable value of property in the
jurisdiction. This is divided so that a jurisdiction cannot use all of its bonding
capacity for one type of improvement. The total general obligation bonding
capability is divided as follows:2.5 percent general purpose use;2.5 percent for
utility bonds, and; 2.5 percent open space and parr facilities. If the jurisdiction
has an approved general purpose bond with unused capacity, as much as 1.5
percent of the 2.5 percent may be used as councilmanic bonds.
Real Estate Excise Tax
RCW 82.46 authorizes the collection of a real estate excise tax levy of .25
percent of the purchase price of real estate within the City, at the time of sale.
The legislature approved in the Growth Management Act an additional .25
percent excise tax that is dedicated to the support of the capital facilities of the
community. Presumably this added money is to help a community deal with
the "concurrency" requirements of the GMA. Concurrency is the requirement
that land development cannot occur unless an urban level of facilities and
services are provided at the time(concurrently)a land development is ready for
occupancy. The first .25 percent excise tax also was dedicated to the planning
and construction of urban services and facilities, but the two provisions differ a
little as illustrated in the following.
The first .2 5 percent of the real estate excise tax is for the following and includes
the items listed for the second .25 percent excise tax: The acquisition of parks
and recreation facilities, planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction,
repair,replacement,rehabilitation or improvement of law enforcement facilities,
fire, protection facilities, trails, libraries, administrative and judicial facilities,
and water front flood control projects, and housing projects subject to certain
lim itations.
The second .25 percent of the real estate excise tax and may be applied to:
The planning, acquisition, construction, repair, replacement, rehabilitation or
improvement of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street and road lighting
systems, traffic signals, bridges, domestic water systems; storm and sanitary
sewer systems,parks and recreation facilities.
Business and Occupation Tax
RCW 35.1 1 authorizes cities to collect this tax on the gross or net income of
businesses,not to exceed a rate of.2 percent.Revenue thus received may be used
for capital facilities acquisition,construction,maintenance and operations.Voter
approval is required to initiate the tax or increase the tax rate to be applied
Local Option Sales Tax
Local government may collect a tax on retail sales of up to 1.1 percent, of
which .1 percent can be used only for criminal justice purposes. Imposition of
this tax requires voter approval.
Capital Fa_ilities 34
Utility Tax
RCW 35.21 authorizes cities to place a tax on the gross receipts of electricity,
gas, garbage, telephone, cable TV, water, sanitary sewer and storm water
management providers. The current rate is 8.5 percent.
Community Development Block Grant
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development makes financial
assistance available through this program to local general purpose governments.
This money must be applied for by the local government and must be used for
eligible activities meeting the national objects of the program.
Community Economic Revitalization Board
The State Department of Trade and Economic Development provides low
interest loans and occasional grants to finance public sewer,water,access roads,
bridges, and other facilities in support of a specific private sector development
project which will trade goods and services outside of the State. One of the
objectives is to create one job per each $3000 of loan or grant money made
available.
Public Works Trust Fund Grant
The State D ep artm ent of Trade an d Econom ic D ev e lopm ent provides low interest
loans for capital facilities, planning, emergency planning and construction of
bridges, roads, domestic water, sanitary sewer, and storm water. Applicant
jurisdictions must have a capital facilities plan in place and must be levying
the original .25 percent real estate excise tax. Construction and emergency
planning projects must be for construction or reconstruction of existing capital
facilities only. Capital Improvement Planning projects are limited to streets and
utilities.
Special Purpose Districts
RCW 67.38.130 authorizes cultural arts, stadium lconvention special purpose
districts with independent taxing authority to finance capital facilities. The
special district requires a majority voter approval for formation and has an
annual funding limit of$25 per$1000 of assessed valuation;these districts may
be formed across the borders of other governmental units.
Emergency Medical Services
The State authorizes $.50 per$1,000 assessed valuation property tax levy which
may be enacted by fire and hospital districts, cities, towns, and counties.
Fire Districts
The State authorizes a levy limit of$1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for
fire and emergency medical response service.
Fire Impact Fees
RCW 82.02;0-090 authorizes a charge {impact fee} to be paid by new
Capital Facilities ;�
development for its fair share of the cost of the protection and emergency
medical service facilities required to serve the development. Impact fees must
be used for capital facilities necessitated by growth, and not to correct existing
deficiencies in levels of service. Impact fees cannot be used for operating
expenses.
Park and Recreation Services Area
RCW 36.68.400 authorizes park and recreation service areas as junior taxing
districts for the purpose of fin ancing the acquisition,construction,improvement,
maintenance or operation of any park,senior citizen activity center,zoo,aquarium
and recreational facility. The maximum levy limit is $.15 per $1000 assessed
valuation. The Park and Recreation Service District can generate revenue from
either the regular or excess property tax levies and through general obligation
bonds, subject to voter approval.
User Fees and Program Fees
Fees or charges for using City owned property, facilities or programs, such as
swimming lessons.
Park Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050.090 authorizes local governments to enact impact fees to fund
parks and recreational facilities necessary to serve new development. These
impact fees must be used for capital facilities necessitated by growth,and not to
correct existing deficiencies in levels of service or operating expenses.
School Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050-090 authorizes local governments to enact impact fees as a
condition of development approval for a proportionate share of the cost to fund
school facilities that reasonably benefit new development.
State Parks and Recreation Commission Grants
These State grants are for park capital facilities acquisition and construction,
and require a 50 percent local match.
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax
RCW 82.36 authorizes this tax,which is administered by the State Department
ofLicensing,and paid by gasoline distributors.Cities and counties receive 11.53
percent and 22.78 percent, respectively, of the motor vehicle fuel tax receipts.
Revenues must be spent for highway purposes including the construction,
maintenance and operation of city streets, county roads and State highways.
Local Option Fuel Tax
RCW 82.80 authorizes this countywide local option tax equivalent to 10
percent of the statewide motor vehicle fuel tax and a special fuel tax of 2.3
cents per gallon. Revenues are distributed back to the county and its cities on
a weighted per capita basis (1.5 for population in unincorporated areas and
Capital Fa.:ilitits 36
1.0 for population in incorporated areas).Revenues must be spent for highway
purposes (construction,maintenance, operation).
Transportation Benefit District
RCW 35.2 1.225 authorizes cities to create transportation districts with
independent taxing authority for the purpose of acquiring, constructing,
improving,providing,and funding any city street, county road or state highway
improvement within the district.
Road Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050.090 authorizes cities and counties to exact road impact fees
from new development for its fair share of the system improvement cost of
roads necessary to serve the development. Impact fees must be used for capital
facilities necessitated by growth, and not to correct existing deficiencies in
levels of Service. Impact fees cannot be used for operating expenses.
Local Option Vehicle License Fee
RC AV
Ile
Reventleq are diOriblited back to file County Ind cifiee, within t
County le-vying file t1X on 1 '�veighted 1)er-C11)iti bisis, (1 .5 for 1)o1)tt1iti"II III
for general transport
Street Utility Charge
RCW 35.95.040 authorizes cities to charge for city street utilities, to maintain,
operate and preserve city streets. Facilities which may be included in a street
utility, including street lighting, traffic control devices, sidewalks, curbs,
gutters,parking facilities and drainage facilities.Households and businesses
may be charged a fee up to 50 percent of actual costs of construction,
maintenance and operations while cities provide the remaining 50 percent.
The fee charged to businesses is based on the number of employees and may
not exceed$2 per full-time employee per month. Owners or occupants of
residential property are charged a fee per household which may not exceed$2
per month.
National Highway System Grants
The Washington State Department of Transportation awards grants for
construction and improvement of the National Highway System. In order to
be eligible projects must be a component of the National Highway System
and be on the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan.Funds are available
on an 86.5 percent Federal to a 13.5 percent local match, dependent upon the
proposed project's ranking is sufficiently high enough on the Regional TIP
list.
Capital Fa.-ilities 37
Surface Transportation Program Grants
This provides grants for road construction, transit capital projects, bridge
projects,transportation planning, and research and development.To be eligible,
a project must have a high enough ranking on the Regional TIP list. Funds are
not be extended beyond 1999.
Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program Grants
The Washington State Department of Transportation provides grants on a
statewide priority for structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges.
Funding is on an 80 percent Federal to 20 percent local match.
Federal Aid Emergency Relief Grants
This funding source is limited to restoration of roads and bridges on the federal
aid system which are damaged by natural disasters or catastrophic failures.
Funding is available at an 83.13 percent Federal to a 16.87 percent local
match.
Urban Arterial Trust Account Grants
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding for
projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion. Project funding is an 80
percent Federal and a 20 percent local match.
Transportation Improvement Account Grants
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board manages funding
for projects to alleviate and prevent traffic congestion caused by economic
development growth. Eligible projects should be multi-agency, multi-modal,
congestion and economic development related which are partially funded
locally.Funding is an 80 percent Federal to a 20 percent local match.
Sewer Districts/Users Fees
This is a special purpose district that must be established by the voters of the
affected area.Once established with an operating levy it may assess properties in
the district for operating and other expenses within approved limits and perform
all the duties and responsibilities related to the construction, maintenance,
and operation of sewage collection and treatment. The State authorizes cities,
counties and special purpose districts to collect fees from waste water generator.
Fees may be based upon the amount of potable water consumed or may be
flat rate fees. The revenue may be used for capital facilities or operating and
maintenance costs.
System Development Fees
The State authorizes a fee to connect to a sanitary sewer system based upon
the capital cost of serving the new connection.
Capital Fa.-ilities 38
Centennial Clean Water Fund Grant
The State Department of Ecology issues grants and loans for the design,
acquisition, construction and improvement of water pollution control facilities
and related activities to meet State and Federal requirements and protect water
quality. Future funding for this program cannot be reliably forecasted.
State Revolving Fund Loans
The State Department of Ecology administers low interest loans and loan
guarantees for water pollution control projects. Applicants must demonstrate
water quality need, have a facilities plan for water quality treatment, show
ability to repay a loan through a dedicated source of funding, and conform to
other State and Federal requirements.
Department of Ecology Grants
The State Department of Ecology grants to local governments for a variety of
programs related to solid waste,including Remedial Action Grants to assist with
local hazardous waste sites, Moderate Risk/Hazardous Waste Implementation
Grants to manage local hazardous waste, and Food and Yard Waste Composing
Grants.
Flood Control Special Purpose District
RCW 86.15.160 authorizes flood control special purpose districts with
independent taking authority (up to a $.50 property tax levy limit without voter
approval),to finance flood control capital facilities. In addition,the district can,
with voter approval, use an excess levy to pay for general obligation dept. This
is unneeded in the Pasco urban growth area.
Storm Drain Utility Fee
The State authorizes cities and counties to charge a fee to support storm drain
capital improvements. The fee is usually a flat rate per month per residential
equivalency. Residential equivalencies are based on an average amount of
impervious surface. Commercial property is commonly assessed a rate based
on a fixed number of residential equivalencies.
Storm Drainage Payment In Lieu of Assessment
Revenues from this fund may be used for the construction, maintenance and/
or repair of storm drainage facilities, acquisition of property, or related debt
service.
Utility Revenue Bonds and Property Tax Excess Levy
See above for a general discussion of general obligation bonds. The amount of
local government debt for utility bonds is restricted by law to 2 5 percent of the
taxable value of property. Local government utilities tend to use bonds backed
by utility user fees rather than general obligation bonds.
Capital Fa.-ilities 39
Capital Improvements Plan
TheCap ital Improvements Plan(CIP)supporisthe C ity ofPasco'sC omprehensive
Plan. That CIP and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive
Plan by reference.
The referenced CIP is presented in three sections:
I. Introduction: Purpose, benefits, and methodology of the CIP.
II. Fiscal Policies: Statements of requirements and guidelines that are
used to finance the CIP.
III. Capital Improvements: List of proposed capital projects, including
project costs, revenues, and timing, as well as future operating
costs.
The total cost of Capital Improvement Projects for 2012—2017 is:
Cast
Type of Facility (in thousands)
General 16,605
Park 2,475
Street Overlays 6,880
Street Coonslruction 97,274
Water 26,707
Sewer 19,828
Process Water Reuse Facility 5,550
Storm Water 583
Lrigation 1,401
SW d ie s/M aster Plans 848
Total $ 178,151
During the annual budgeting cycle the budgeted amounts per type of
facility are changed to reflect the completion of some projects and the
addition of others.
Transportation Capital Improvement Progr
The Benton-Franklin Council of Governments is the designated Regional
Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) and Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO). It maintains the regional plans for all modes of
transportation and allocates federal transportation funds for local improvements.
That program is updated yearly and is incorporated in this plan by reference.
Capital Faci lities 40
opert es
The City maintains a record of properties it has accumulated from gifts, tax
foreclosures, and purchases. The Planning Department has compiled a record
of properties called the PASCO PROPERTIES PROFILE.
The Properties Profile changes regularly as property is gained or sold by the City.
This management tool helps enable the City to use all its available resources
more effectively as it grows. This report may be viewed in the Planning
Department.
ateri"
The City of Pasco is responsible for providing water and sewer service to the
community. The City operates two water filtration plants, a. water distribution
and storage system, and a waste water collection system and treatment facility.
Other utilities are operated by other public and private providers. The City
utilities require expansion and maintenance which take resources.The following
Table No. 2., shows how the demand for services has increased.
General Statistics 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Population Served (City) 47,610 50,210 52,290 54,531 56,300 61,000
City Area(sq. miles 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6 33.6
except river)
2ble Water
The delivery of safe drinking water is the most important utility service
the City provides. Potable water is a necessary component of urban level
residential, commercial
and industrial growth. The
City builds capacity into the
water system for effective
fire suppression in structures �`
which is an important safety
measure. Pasco currently has - --�
a very efficient storage and
distribution system which
includes all unincorporated
lands within the urban growth
area.. The City water system
is highly sophisticated and
includes twowater treatment plants,reservoirs,pump stations and pipelines that
serve the Pasco Urban Growth Area.Progress is being made through the City's
efforts to bring former private systems in previously unincorporated Pasco up
to American Water Works standards.
Capital Facilities 41
The City system includes two water filtia:tion treatment plants and three Neater
reservoirs. The following is a list of hey system water fixtures.
• Butterfield Water Treatment Plant — capacity 30 million gallons
per day
• Riverview Heights reservoir - 10 million gallons.
• Road 68 standpipe -2.7 million gallons (currently used for
irrigation NN,ater)
• Rd 68 Composite Tower - 2.5 million gallons
• Broadmoor Boulevard reservoir— 1 million gallons
• West Pasco Water Treatment Plant clear well - I million
gallons
The City water distribution system has been arranged into three (3)service
zones. Generally these service zones may be described as:
Service Zone 1: South of I- 182 and west of the railroad yard
Service Zone 2: East of the railroad yard, the southern portion
of the airport and a strip south of I-182. between
Service Zone I and Service Zone 3
Service Zone 3: Generally north of I-1 82 and encompassing
most of the north par-t of the city.
The City has been implementing the Comprehensive Water Service Plan with
facility improvements that have been made in recent years. That Plan and
amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference.
The following Table No. 3 provides a statistical picture of the City's water
system.
Water 2006 I 2007 I 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mains(miles) 288.81 291.75 298.42 301.60 306.11 .309.38
Hy8 ants tri4.1 1887 1906 11266 1997 2036 2069
SC'vlccs 15621 15208 1 9006 15748 16081 16305.
,j3 t3aure(s�.s 1.) 70 7.0. 70
Number d Valves 6066 6129 6302 6369 tylt37 6580
�;Jater T eatment Plant 76.6 22.7 24.8 30.1 26.7 N/A
Peak Day Prod.(mqc)
Capital Facilities 42
Water 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Water Treatment Plant 10.9 11.4 11.5 12.1 13A N1A
Average Day Prod.(mgd)
Water Treatment PI. 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62
Storage Cap. (mgd)
Reservoir Capacity 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
(million gallons)
The City of Pasco draws water for domestic use from the Columbia River for the both
water treatment plants serving Pasco. The river water requires treatment before being
piped to customers. The main treatment plant (Butterfield) is located at "A" Street
and 12th Avenue and can produce 30 million gallons of water per day (MGD). The
secondary treatment plant (West Pasco Water Treatment Plant WPWTP) located at
11315 West Court Street, can produce 6 million gallons per day. The Court Street plant
was designed for expansion up to 18 million gallons per day. The raw intake for the
WPWTP will be upgraded in 2012. The City of Pasco Comprehensive Water System
Plan, prepared by HDR in June 2001, anticipated that the maximum capacity of the
existing water treatment plant could likely meet the projected growth of the City's
existing UGB until 2010 to 2012. In anticipation of growth beyond 2012 the city
purchased a site on West Court Street for a second treatment facility. The pumping
facility for the raw water intake has already been constructed.
94.rigation
In addition tothe Franklin County Irrigation District,the City provides irrigation water.
The City purchased the Water, Inc. system in 2003 which serves properties along the
I-182 corridor.The system has more than quadrupled in size since the City's purchase as
seen in the Table No below. In 2005 the City completed an I-182 Corridor Irrigation
System Plan. Said irrigation plan and amendments thereto is hereby made a part of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Irrigation 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mains(miles) 63.43 66.80 68.26 72.98 79.75 83.94
Number of Services 3356 3526 3598 3660 3749 3812
Number of Valves 1012 1062 1094 1322 1606 1809
Sianitary Sewer
-
In addition to water service, urban development with its associated concentration of
people requires sanitary sewers to safeguard the public health. The current wastewater
interceptor system is capable of accommodating the entire Pasco urban growth area
when fully developed.
Capital Facilities 43
ewage Treatment
The City of Pasco sewage treatment faci Iity was updated in 1998 2009 and is currently
operating at approximately 78% 55% of capacity. The plant is capable of handling
a population of about 72,000 80,600. The current City population is 50,210 61,000.
The Pasco UGA population is projected to reach 87,300 by the year 2027. Planning
is currently underway for determining a location of a second treatment facility. The
second treatment facility will provide additional capacity to cover the short fall and
future growth beyond the planning horizon. Funding for the facility will be through
the capital improvements process and will come from the serer utility fund.
The City has a goal of extending municipal sewer to un-sewed portions of the city
and improve affected streets, providing for recovery of the cost over time as adjacent
properties choose to connect to sewer.This is being done through the local improvement
district(LID) process and on select streets in recently annexed neighborhoods without
LID'S. This process enables the city to provide sewer service to areas that are lacking
service while at the same time upgrading the substandard county roads that have been
annexed.
The City under separate study has completed a Comprehensive Sewer Plan. That Plan
and amendments thereto is made a part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference. An
illustrated inventory of the sanitary sewer system is shown in Table No.5.
Sanitary Sewer 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mains(miles) 206.5 213.1 216.2 219.8 224.0 226.0
Number of Manholes 3656 3758 3819 3891 3972 4005
Number of Services 12023 12302 12488 12776 13195 13403
Force Main 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.52 5.52
P
Sewage Treatment Plant 72000 72000 72000 80600 80600 80600
Capacity(Pap.Equiv)
Sewage Treatment Plant 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.9 NIA
Daily Treatment (mgd)
Storm Water
Storm water is handled in Pasco by the storm sewer system, on-site collection
and dissipation systems or grassy swales along roadways. The storm water
sewer system has been used in the older parts of the City to accept storm run-
off from adjacent land developments as well as streets. In recent years the City
has been requiring development to mitigate the effects of storm water collection
at projects. This eliminates the need for an extensive storm sewer system.
Street drainage in newer areas is also accomplished in a similar fashion by the use
of catch basins and drain fields or grassy swales along the side of the street or by
Capital Facilities 44
collection ponds. The arid and often Nvindy climate which evaporates moisture
quickly enables these methods to function effectively and avoids impacting the
waters of the Columbia River. It is anticipated the City of Pasco «•ill continue
to require onsite storm water retention methods through the planning period an d
beyond. Table No.6 contains an inventory of the storm water system.
Storm Water System 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Lines - Miles 40 40 40 40 42 43
C
Manholes 1229 1231 1231 1231 1243 1252
Exfiltration Storm Drain 13.31 13.84 14.44 15.45 16.05 16.29
(Miles)
hools5
kw OfFieeiiew , .
imfiiiiiffliz
Public Facilities in the State of 'Vashhigton are defined as capital facilities
owned and operated by govenimental entities and include school facilities
(RCIV 82.02.090 17), The Pasco School District is the govenimeirtal entity-
that provides Reneral education sen ices (K-12.}Nvithin the Pasco Urban Growth
Area. The School District prepares Facilitti Plans including Capital Facility
Plans to assist with planning;for future school facility needs. The current Capital
Facilities Plan (2011-2017) provides the community with the District's facility-
and forecast needs for the next six A•ears.
Capital Facilities 45
In accordance with capital facilities planning under the Growth Management Act,
the School District Capital Facilities Plan contains the following elements:
• The District's standard of service, or educational Drogram standards
which are based on program year, class size by w7ade span,number of
classrooms, types of facilities and other factors identified by the District.
• An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by the District,
showing the locations and capacities of the facilities, based on the
District's standard of service.
• Future enrollment forecasts for elementary, middle, and high
schools.
• A forecast of the future needs for capital facilities and school sites based
on the District's enrollment proiections.
• The proposed capacities of expanded or new capital facilities over the
next six years based on the inventory of existing facilities and the standard
of service.
• The cost for needed facilities and the plan for fiil all cing capital facilities
within proiected funding capacities.
• A school impact fee calculation identifying the amount single-family and
multi-family developers should pay to mitigate the impacts newconstruc-
tion of single-family and multi-family homes has on the District.
The School District's Capital facilities Plan Droiects student enrollment will
increase to over 21,000 students by 2017,an increase of 5,000 students over the
2011 enrollment. To serve the forecasted increases in student enrollment the
District will need to construct four new elementary schools,two middle schools
and add capacity for approximately 1,600 high school students.
Financing for planned school facilities is explained in Section 6 of the CFP.
School capital facilities are financed through general obligation bonds, State
Common School Construction Funds and impact or mitigation fees. General
obligation bonds are the Drimary source for capital improvement Droiects within
the School District. The general obligation bonds are often augmented with
funding from the State Common School Construction Fund.
The Growth Management Act authorizes the use of impact fees to supplement
funding for the construction of public school facilities needed to accommodate
increases in student enrollment due to new development in the community.
Capital Fa.:ilities 46
School impact fees are a means of addressing the legal requirements that
provisions have been made for schools and school grounds as a }part of the
develoumentprocess. The Cite is required by law(RC1V 5 8.17.110)todeterm ine
whether or not provisions have been made for all tomes of public facilities.
including schools. when ne„v subdivisions are being revietived for approval.
The law prohibits the city from anroving a subdivision unless written findings
show appropriate provisions have been made for schools and school grounds.
The Pasco School District has placed the Cite on notice through written
correspondence (letter dated 1/11,120111 that the District has outp-rown its
ability to provide schools for the community without requiring development
that will be served by the schools to contribute to the cost of the schools.
Mitigating the imj2acts of new development on the school system through
individual review of new i)lats addresses only part of the development equation
in the Citv. Development can occur in anv area of the community on the
numerous subdivisions that have been approved in east vears as well as in
new subdivisions. School imj2act fees rather than individual mitigation would
ai2j)[,% to all new residential development thereby addressing the requirement
to provide for schools and school grounds hi a holistic fashion rather than a
i)iecemeal fashion.
The Pasco School District No.[ Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2017) and anv
subsequent amendments thereto is made a part of this Cotnnrehetuive Plan b�.
reference,A Q-9i?Y,gf the UP-is attached in-AppendtY NIM
Essential Public Facilities
Essential public facilities are capital facilities typically difficult to site because
of potential adverse impacts related to size, bulk-, hazardous characteristics,
noise, or public health and safety. Essential public facilities can be publicly
of privately owned and include, but are not limited to the following: Airports,
highways of state-wide significance, state or regional transportation facilities,
correctional institutions, solid waste handling facilities, se” age treatment
facilities, state educational facilities, mental health facilities, substance abuse
facilities, group homes, correctional work release facilities, juvenile care and
treatment centers, any and all facilities for incarceration and facilities identified
by the office of Financial Management consistent tivith RCSV 36.70A.2.00.
The GMA precludes local comprehensive plans or development regulations
from prohibiting the siting of essential public facilities. (RC-W 36.70A.200
[5]).
Essential public facilities are listed as unclassified uses in the city's development
regulations. As such these uses are generally not restricted by zoning districts,
Non�ity Utilities 47
but due to their nature require extraordinary review through the special permit
review process prior to locating within the city. Unclassified uses are listed in
PMC 25.86.020 and include the facilities discussed above.
A few of the essential public facilities located in Pasco include, the Tri-Cities
Airport, the Basin Disposal solid waste transfer station, the Franklin County
jail,the Benton-Franklin Detox Center,the BNSF Classification yard,Columbia
Basin College and the Chevron Tank Farms.
The distinction between lands identified for public purposes, as shown on the
land use map contained in Appendix VIII, and essential public facilities can
create confusion. Table No. 7 below illustrates the distinction.
Distinguishing Public Purpose Lands from Essential Public Facilities
Public Ptirpose Lands Essential Public Facilities
FOCUS: Lands needed to accommodate FOCUS: Facilities needed to provide public
public facilities. services and functions that are typically difficult
to site.
Lands needed to provide the full range
of services to the public provided by Those public facilities that are usually
government, substantially funded unwanted by neighborhoods,have unusual site
by government, contracted for by requirements, or other features that complicate
government, or provided by private the siting process.
entities to public service obligations.
Examp les: Examples:
• Utility Corridors • Airports
• Transportation Corridors • Large-scale Transportation Facilities
• Sewage Treatment Facilities a State Educational Facilities
• Storm water Management • Correctional Facilities
Facilities 0 Solid Waste Handling Facilities
• Recreation Facilities Landfills
• Schools • Inpatient Facilities (Substance Abuse
• Other Public Uses Facilities,Mental Health Facilities
Group Homes).
Non-City Utilities 48
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
10/20/2011
A. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# 2011-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner summed up the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update by
reviewing the memorandum and related materials the Planning Commission received in
their packet. The proposal for the amendment was divided into two sections; one dealt
with the land use maps and the growth boundary and the other dealt with the Capital
Facilities Element. The City has grown since the last review in 2007 creating the need
to update the maps accordingly.
Mr. McDonald explained the City has invested considerable funding for infrastructure
east of Highway 395 to serve future industrial development. The Urban Growth Area
needs to be modified slightly to allow the community to realize the benefits for the new
infrastructure.
Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed the Capital Facilities Element and discussed the School
Districts request for modification of the Plan to include the District's Capital Facilities
Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The School Districts request for the imposition
of impact fees was also briefly discussed. It was further explained that the City is
waiting on the School District to complete their capital facilities plan and as a result the
hearing will need to be continued to November 17, 2011.
Mr. White add that the Planning Commission will be reviewing the School Districts
Capital Facilities Plan in November and they might want to wait to make a decision
until the December meeting rather than November's due to the extent of the plan.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to continue the
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan updates until November 17, 2011. The motion
passed unanimously.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
11/ 17/2011
B. Comprehensive Platt 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (M F# 2011-00 1)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments froiu staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner reminded the Commission that the 2011 Comprehensive Plan
Update was reviewed in a Public Hearing at the October 20, 2011 meeting. The hearing was
continued to allow time for the Pasco School District to complete the District Capital
Facilities Plan. The Pasco School District request for the City to consider an impact fee
ordinance related to schools was a major reason for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The
central part of the District involves the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan, which would
be included by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The School District is still
working on their Capital Facilities Plan making it unavailable for consideration. As a result,
staff requested the continuation of the Public Hearing for another month to the December
15, 2011 meeting.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for comments. No one was present to make
comments.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Ha_y to continue the hearing on
the Comprehensive Plan updates until the December 15, 2011 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
12/ 15/2011
B. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# 2011-
001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Community & Economic Development Director, Rick White, explained the status of the
Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan, as it pertained to the 2011 Comprehensive
Plan Update. The School District provided the Capital Facilities Plan to staff on December
14, 2011. Due to the short notice staff recommended the hearing be continued until the
January 19, 2012 meeting.
Mr. White provided a brief synopsis of the School District's Capital Facilities Plan which
outlines the District's needs for the next six _years and identifies enrollment projections and
matches the projections with facility needs. The Plan outlines measures the School District
has already taken or is considering to alleviate the space needs, including multi-track
scheduling, the re-organization of elementary schools to include sixth-graders to postpone
the need to build another middle school for five or six_years.
The School District also made adjustments in their plan to consider portables as a certain
percentage of permanent classroom capacity. In terms of space, Pasco School District is
over capacity. The School District has a problem with portables because they can't
continue to install them due to capacity problems with cafeterias and gym space.
The School District is now seeking mitigation for development impacts and the City is left
with a system that is essentially producing great inequities for development on new lots
versus existing lots because Pasco does not have an impact fee ordinance. Development on
new lots requires mitigation while development on existing lots can occur without necessary
mitigation. The current situation is the worst of both worlds because it does not help the
School District and confuses the development process creating uncertainty and more or less
becomes a moratorium on new development.
Rick White addressed impact fees briefly by indicating that Capital Facility Plans for School
Districts must be reviewed every two _years to determine whether or not the enrollment
projections justify impact fees. It's not necessarily the case that once an impact fee is in
place that it lasts forever. Some Districts on the west side of the State have actually seen a
reduction in growth, a population loss, and they have not been able to justify continuation
of impact fees so they are no longer in effect. If the City gets to the point where the voters
determine that growth has or will pay its fair share for facilities and/or we have an
industrial tax base that lessens the burden on residential properties, Pasco might also be in
a position someday to exempt new homes from impact fees because the formula would not
call for their continuation.
Rick White explained that at the January 19, 2012 meeting, a representative of the School
District will speak to explain the Capital Facilities Plan and any questions the Commission
might have.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway to continue the
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan updates until the January 19, 2012 Planning
Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
01/25/2012
C. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2011-
001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White explained that the Planning Commission has seen this item several times. The
Comprehensive Plan was last amended in 2005 and since then there have been a number of
changes that warrant the consideration of an update. One of those changes is the adoption
of the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Boat Basin Concept Plan which were both
considered by the Planning Commission in 2009 and 2010. There have been considerable
City street and utility improvements on Capital Avenue and at SR-12 adjacent the Lewis
Street Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Those suggest minor amendments to the urban
growth boundary and this area will be requested to add into the urban growth boundary.
There are also a couple of changes occurring for a similar reason in regards to the Tidewater
Barge Terminal.
Since the update occurred last in 2007 the City has developed more than 1,700 single-
family lots creating a need to update the base map in the Comprehensive Plan with the new
subdivisions and developed streets.
The Capital Facilities Plan is proposed for updating to specifically include a number of
utility and infrastructure improvements that have occurred from a City basis and also to
include the Pasco School District's Capital Facility Plan as a base for establishing an impact
fee ordinance.
The District's Capital Plan identifies existing and future enrollment needs that the School
District will encounter for the next six _years and matches those needs with space and
facility needs. It also identifies the service standards that the District uses to establish
classroom size and educational parameters and takes that inventory of existing facilities,
the future enrollment, service standards, and develops a list of needed capital facilities. It
also discusses a funding mechanism for those capital facilities. A portion of that funding
mechanism includes an impact fee.
The impact fee calculation provides for a number of factors that are used in order to get to
an impact. A number of those factors take the fee from the very high amount to a figure
much more manageable after those factors are applied. The Capital Plan itself does not
contain a fee, it provides the calculation and in the calculation there is a "TBD" acronym,
meaning the impact fee will be determined after the impact fee ordinance has gone through
the political process and a decision is made.
The Pasco School District is at its physical and funding capacity for new school facilities.
The City, County, School District and Development Industry are in a situation of having no
capacity for additional school children and an inventory of approximately 1,500 single-
family lots in some form of approval that are being developed at a rate of about 400-500 per
_year, which impacts the School District to a great extent but there has been no mitigation
from the new development. At the same time, we can't provide new capacity for developers
of new subdivisions or multi-family projects unless they enter into an agreement with the
School District to specifically mitigate on a case by case basis impacts to the School
District. This creates a great deal of uncertainty and inequity.
-1-
Mr. White further went on in detail about the impact fee calculation, moving sixth graders
back to elementary school which postpones the need for another middle school which would
be significantly more expensive than an elementary school. The District has also factored in
the use of portables as a portion of the permanent capacity for students which did not occur
in the first Capital Plan. In the end, the District's proposed fees are: $4,653.34 for single-
family and $4,525.56 for multi-family. Mitigation fees would most likely be much higher
than the proposed impact fee because of the factors that reduce the impact fee probably
aren't going to be applied in a case by case negotiation.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make motion to recommend the City Council
adopt a school impact fee. The actual amount of the fee will be set at a later date.
John Morgan, 425 Road 37, with the Assistant Superintendent of the Pasco School District
explained that the Pasco School Board initially adopted the Capital Facilities Plan in
December of 2010. This was sent to both the City and Franklin County and they have met
with the City on numerous occasions. They have also met with the Home Builder's's
Association, realtors and School District stakeholders to discuss impact fees and the need
for them within the School District as well as the impact it has on the community. In
October 2011 the School Board adopted the recommendations of the multi-track year round
task force, another alternative to look at how the District can work on alleviating the great
amount of growth there is in the School District. Reconfiguration of the elementary schools
was done to place sixth graders back into the elementary schools. It is a common concept
that many people have already done before that saves money and delayed the need for
building a new middle school but increased the need for elementary schools. Portables
becoming permanent also caused a need for the revision in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Marnie Allen, 2500 NE 65th Ave, Vancouver, WA, employed with the Educational Service
District, provides legal services and calculations for school impact fees and capital facility
plans. She explained that State law states that you can't approve new development unless
there are adequate provisions for schools. Since there has been so much growth in the
Pasco School District consistently for 10 _years, there is no longer any room in the schools to
continue to serve kids that come from new houses. New development can't go forward
unless one of two things happen: 1) That developer has to mitigate the impacts they directly
cause on the schools, meaning they build classrooms to serve the students coming out of
new development or they enter into an agreement and make voluntary payments to the
School District equal to what it would cost to build those classrooms, 2) School impact fees.
Option 1 is not dependable and the amount could change depending on where the
development is and what the capacity of the school is at that particular time. The builders
she has spoken to prefer the impact fees over mitigation fees. It is a more equitable way to
share the costs across all housing, it's reliable, and produces a lower amount and defined
amount.
Ms. Allen showed the Planning Commission, Staff, and citizens a brief school impact fee
calculation and demonstration, with the formula as:
SIP= (CS X SF) - SM - TC - A
SIF= School Impact Fee
CS= Cost per Student (cost to build schools for students coming from new houses)
SF= Student Factor (student demand that new houses place on the schools)
SM= State Match Credit (money awarded by the State)
TC= Tax Credit (money back from property taxes)
-2-
IA= Reduction Set by City Council (ensures developers don't pay mare than their fair I
share)
This is a standard formula used by cities and counties around the state. The impact fee
has three deductions, which is something mitigation fees do not do. Deduction "A" is a
reduction percentage set by City Council at what they feel is fair. Some jurisdictions set it
at Oq'O' and some 50q,-O' . The Pasco School District is recommending 2590.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to clarify the definition of a multi-family impact fee. He
wanted to know if you have a multi-family duplex or apartment building, if developers paid
an impact fee was for the whole building or for just one unit. Ms. Allen answered that it
was for just one unit, so impact fees would have to be paid for each unit.
Commissioner Levin asked a question in regards to the tax credit and as to how the
developers receive it. Ms. Allen answered that it is built into the formula as a "tax
reduction", not actual money coming back like a rebate.
Commissioner Levin asked Ms. Allen what the comments and opinions have been from
developers in other districts where impact fees have been adopted. Ms. Allen responded
that the comments have varied. When starting out implementing the impact fees there is a
huge push from both the Realtor's Association and the Developers saying it is an aggressive
tax, it's going to cause the cost of housing to increase, it will slow development and stop
growth but then when they have to deal with SEPA mitigations they realize the impact fees
are much more fair and equitable.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Allen if she could give a number of school districts
throughout the State that are imposing an impact fee. Ms. Allen responded that she did not
have an exact answer but she thinks there are about 80-86 school districts receiving impact
fees, which is probably less than a majority. A number of school districts are also receiving
SEPA mitigations.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to discuss the timing of impact fees or when they are to be
collected. Ms. Allen and the School District recommend the fees are collected when the
building permits are issued to give the School District time to prepare. If money isn't
collected until the time of occupancy then the District doesn't have the funds to even buy a
portable on time for the kids that are coming from the house.
Rick White added to Ms. Allen's response that when the City and School District met with
the Home Builder's Association this past month, there was discussion about moving the
point of collection from the building permits stage to the portion of the transaction where
the fee would be paid through escrow, essentially when the sale occurred. Nothing was
decided since that is a separate process.
Marnie Allen responded to Mr. White's response. The primary reason for the School District
tying the payment with the time of impact fees through escrow is then the entire fee gets
passed on to the buyer of the home, who then when they are asked to vote on a
maintenance and operation levy that's not even tied to school facility construction feel
they've already paid it. It can be confusing and misleading to the home buyer when the cost
is wrapped into closing costs.
Jamie Southworth, 4521 Laredo Drive, stated she had three kids in the district ages 6, 9,
and 11. Her family moved to Pasco 12 _years ago and when they bought a house they were
surprised at the low price of homes. All of her children are crammed into the schools. The
elementary school her children attend was built for 500 students and there are currently
-3-
almost 900. To have an assembly they have to have two sessions. Her kindergartener is in
a portable so when it rains it takes a lot of time to bundle them all up to get them out the
door, time that could be used for education.
Miranda Bollman, 4811 Lucena Drive, moved to Pasco four _years ago from Clark County.
She is in support of the impact fee because she argues it does not stop homebu_yers from
purchasing a home. It becomes part of buying a home.
Renee Dahlgren, 1201 W. 14th Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of the Home
Builder's Association. They are a member based trade association similar to a chamber of
commerce with over 800 members representing over 10,000 employees and citizens of the
Tri-Cities. They are fundamentally opposed to the impact fee. Ms. Dahlgren gave the
following reasons for their opposition: 1) They artificially increase the price of a home, 2)
They reduce the amount of growth, and 3) They price people out of the market. She has
received calls from citizens since the impact fee came up. While builders do initially pay the
fees it is passed along to the consumer. Consumers usually finance those fees so they are
paying sales tax and excise tax so the $4,700 fee in the end is much greater. She discussed
a letter from an appraiser stating how difficult it is for the appraisal market to absorb the
costs. If a home one day is $130,000 and the next day it is $134,000 increased costs does
not necessarily mean increased value.
As for the costs of paying for the schools, Ms. Dahlgren said that the funds should come
from the whole community, not just one subset of the community. If the Planning
Commission does approve the impact fee, they ask that the fees be collected at the time of
closing instead of the time of building permit. When the building permit is issued, there is
no impact on the schools therefore the impact fee should not be paid until the impact is
made. They would also ask for a further reduction of the fee so that it doesn't go from $0 to
nearly $4,700 overnight. She feels the only "courtesy" deduction was the 2590 (or `A' in the
impact fee equation). The other deductions were just taxes that were already going to be
paid. She asked for at least a 509,-0' discount if imposed.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Dahlgren if the homebuilders would prefer the SEPA fee
or the School Impact Fee. She answered that the majority of the builders would prefer to
see the impact fee but she feels that there are other things that can be done by the School
District, such as working with State Legislators because the School District has a lot of
mandates to meet. Commissioner Anderson addressed the mandates and working with
Legislature stating that we would be in a long line to be addressed since the priority is not
very high.
Paul Roy, 2097 Hanson Loop, Burbank, WA represented the Association of Realtors.
Fundamentally they are opposed to impact fees because he feels many people will be
unfairly taxed since only a small portion of the community will have to pay the fee when the
schools are important to the whole community. Mr. Roy does realize that the situation the
Pasco School District is in really doesn't have any other options. He also addressed the fact
that not all new home owners will be impacting the School District; some will be retiree's
and some who've had kids already grown. In the future he wants to find other ways to fund
the School District so that the small minority doesn't have to unfairly pay. He would like to
see the City find ways to widen the tax base by bringing in new enterprise that is industrial
or commercial.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Roy about the time of collection of the impact fee. He stated that
if the fee is collected late at the time the house is purchased rather than when the building
permits are acquired, the School District will have to get money elsewhere in the meantime.
-4-
The School District needs the time to build and prepare for the impact of ne«- students—at
least 6 months or longer to get something started.
Mr. Roy answered that if it is an impact fee then he feels that it should be paid when the
impact itself occurs.
Chairman Cruz responded again that it is not realistic to collect the fees when the impact
occurs because the School District has to provide the facilities by the time the students are
ready, and they can't become ready the day those homes become occupied.
Mr. Roy responded that they are just trying to minimize the actual cost of the fee on the
home buyer. For example, if it's a $4,700 impact fee, then it's $4,700 at the time of closing
but if the builder's pay in the beginning, it will be a greater fee passed on to the consumer
for no services recognized due to interest. The earlier the fee is paid, the higher the fee will
be to the consumer.
Chairman Cruz did understand what Mr. Roy was stating in regards to a higher fee due to
interest if the fees are paid at the time of the permits. It could take _years from the time
something is platted until the home is sold which is an extended period of interest however
the schools still need advance time for their construction.
Heidi Redfield, 4007 Meadowview Drive, stated that she has three children in the Pasco
School District all elementary age. The school her children attend was built for 500 and
now there are almost 900. Portable after portable has been added. There are so many
students that the children have to do art/physical education activities during transitioning
from classes just to ensure they get the learning they are supposed to have. The PTO is
working on raising money to build a new playground since there are so many kids in such a
small area to play. She wants the community to think of the impact new construction has
on the children, not the money for the sake of their education. Ms. Redfield would like to
see more business come to the area. Without good schools she feels that businesses won't
want to come.
Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret, he is an employee at Pasco High School and wanted to
address the idea of "fairness" of new homes having to pay an impact fee. Currently, all of
the schools are overcrowded and there isn't room for adequate learning to happen. If
concerned about growth in the community there won't be growth without adequate schools
as well. The lack of school facilities proposes a greater risk than a modest impact fee. Also,
the fee needs to be collected as soon as possible for the schools to plan ahead.
Lane Donaldson, 4008 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that with an impact fee, it is only
applied to new homes. Every other family that moves into that home after the impact fee
has been paid will not have to pay the fee. He also doesn't feel that it is fair that people who
don't have children and will not impact the schools have to pay the fee. Pasco has the most
developable land in the Tri-Cities which is why it has had consistent growth. Pasco didn't
have the housing flop that happened all over the country because housing prices stayed
low. He wishes that SEPA mitigations would have started 10 _years ago so that we wouldn't
be in the current situation. He also doesn't feel that the impact fee can be added in at the
time of escrow because then families do feel the fee. Mr. Donaldson feels that perhaps 509'.0'
of the fee could be paid by the builders at the time of the permits and 509"0' when the home
is sold. He believes the main problem in Pasco is the lack of businesses in comparison to
residencies.
Preston Ramsey, 311 S. Shoreline Drive, Liberty Lake, WA spoke on behalf of FBA Land
Holdings. He had submitted comments for the packets sent to the Planning Commission.
-5-
He requested that the public hearing be kept open until the February 16, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting due to the complicated matter. Mr. Ramsey is not sure where the
numbers in the School Impact Fee calculation came from. He would also like to look at
alternative forms of revenue. Most of his clients own multi-family land and feels that there
is an unfair difference between a single-family fee and a multi-family fee. The multi-family
fee is 97°.••0 of the single-family fee. Mr. Ramsey said that given the cost of construction for a
multi-family unit the make-up of a multi-family occupant is often transient, less likely to
have kids and they are less likely to be permanent residents. He believes that it is possible
to have an impact fee for single-family residences and not for multi-family residences or by
a lesser amount.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Ramsey if he knew the historical average rate is for mortgage
interest since it's been recorded. Chairman Cruz said that it is 9%'D, so you push a lot of
_young families into multi-family housing Multi-family housing is very common entry-level
housing for many families starting out until they can move into single-family homes.
Multi-family housing is not just for transient citizens or families without children.
Dennis Lukehart, 425 W. Quincy Street, Kennewick, WA addressed multi-family housing.
He is a managing broker with Windermere Group and they are looking to do a major
development in Pasco. They have already submitted their preliminary plat. He is concerned
about the time the fee is to be collected. With the 47 four-plexes they are planning to build,
at the time of permit they would have to come up with $546,000. The cost of carrying that
amount in interest is very high. To be able to carry the burden while getting them sold will
hurt the process. They would only be able to do four buildings at a time and there is a need
for multi-family housing. He argued they won't be able to afford to build no matter how
cheap they acquire the land.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Lukehart what the total cost of construction for the 47 four-
plexes would be. Mr. Lukehart answered that it would be roughly $13 million. Chairman
Cruz stated then that the impact fee would be adding 1/13 of the cost of the construction
loan.
Chairman Cruz also asked what adding the $546,000 would do to the cost of renting each
unit. Mr. Lukehart answered that it doesn't matter because the rent will be set at what the
market can hold. And with the costs being added on to the buyer they can still only price
them where they can sell.
Ana Ruiz-Peralta, 4304 Laredo Drive, stated that her family moved to Pasco from
Vancouver, WA and they love the City of Pasco. She wishes the Planning Commission to
make the decision that would make Pasco attractive, including helping the School District.
She feels the Pasco School District does a great job with what they have but it needs to
remain good education to keep families coming to Pasco.
John Morgan addressed the Planning Commission again to ask not to delay this issue any
longer. The Capital Facilities Plan came out over a year ago and only minor adjustments
have been made. It has been open to the public to look at and the costs have only been
lowered. A resolution needs to be made for the builders, realtors, community and School
District.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Morgan to go further into the multi-family calculation and the
School District's position. He answered that the School District just made a
recommendation. They will not decide the final cost. The final cost is left to the Planning
Commission and City Council to set.
-6-
Commissioner Levin asked Mr. Morgan in regards to the status of_year-round schools and if
it could work in alleviating some of the overcrowding issues. Mr. Morgan answered that the
Multi-track Task Force is not total _year-round school, just multi-track. Only one group of
students will be off during a period of time in order to have more students in the school.
The community has told the School District to do multi-track as the last of all other possible
options. They are currently in the planning stages however they will not do multi-track in
the next_year. After the levy, the Board will consider if they are going to run a bond as well.
The public comments were closed, and the Planning Commission began a quick discussion.
Commissioner Kahn asked staff if the impact fee in the School District's Capital Facilities
Plan will be implemented once the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan Updates are
recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and approved by City
Council.
Rick White answered that the Planning Commission has two policy decisions: to incorporate
the School District's Capital Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan and provide a policy
recommendation to City Council to adopt an impact fee but not to calculate the fee at this
meeting. The Capital Facilities Plan has been out for almost a year and the only changes
have been to include portables as permanent capacity and the elimination of a middle
school as a needed facility within the next six _years, which has driven the costs down. The
impact fee calculation is going to occur through a process which could even end up different
than what is in the Capital Plan however it could also be the same.
Commissioner Kahn asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to consider Preston
Ramsey's request to extend the public hearing until the February 16, 2012 meeting. The
Commission decided that since the Capital Facilities Plan has been out for so long it is best
to move forward.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo dealing with Comprehensive Plan
Updates. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend the City
Council amen the Comprehensive Plan by updating the base maps, modifying the Urban
Growth Area, adopting by reference the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Marine
Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and including the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan in
the City's Capital Facilities. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf asked to clarify the third motion to make sure that they are just
agreeing to propose the impact fee, not set the actual fee amount. Rick White answered
that the Planning Commission is just setting a policy recommendation to City Council
including an impact fee as a portion of the funding necessary for the School District's
Capital Facilities Plan but no fee is being set by the Commission by doing so.
Commissioner Levin is opposed to the impact fee and sympathizes with the home builders.
He feels that it can be tweaked but for now will vote "no" on the impact fee.
Commissioner Anderson discussed that numerous times impact fees have been discussed
for the School District. He feels that this issue should have been addressed _years ago. He
doesn't like it but understands the need for an impact fee and will support it. The hallways
have been overcrowded in the schools for _years and if the community wants to grow, Pasco
must have good schools. Also, he recommended to Mr. Lukehart who was planning to build
47 four-plexes to build them four at a time if that is what is necessary. Mr. Anderson stated
-7-
that he works in public housing and realizes the need for multi-family housing in the
community but he cannot support what the home builder's state.
Commissioner Hay stated that this should have been addressed sooner and now that we're
out of options we need an impact fee.
Commisioner Kahn and Commissioner Kempf support the impact fee.
Chairman Cruz supported Commissioner Hay and Commissioner Anderson. This has been
a topic that has been remissed over the _years. He believes the future of Pasco is deeply
rooted in commercial development but a community needs good schools. He doesn't like
the way that the City of Pasco got to this situation with the either/or choice of SEPA versus
impact fees since it feels like pressure from the School District and the home builders and
home owners will feel some impact, especially going into a tough bond and levy climate,
however he is in support of the school impact fees due to there being no way around it.
Rick White noted that the Capital Plan is revised every two _years so the School District will
again go through the Plan and the need for facilities and the growth rate used in their
projections, essentially acting as a safety net to evaluate the need for fees. In regards to the
assessed values in the City of Pasco, Franklin County itself has a very low value per capita
in comparison to Kennewick and Richland. There are also many children in multi-family
housing structures. In fact, there are more kids in multi-family structures than in
comparable single-family homes.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to recommend the City
Council adopt a school impact fee. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner Levin
dissenting.
-S-
Correspondence
Homo 5w114gitAssxiiti0n dTri-dues
Building the Tri-Cities since 1958
Pasco Planning Commission
P.O. Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
January 17, 2012
On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities (HBA), I would like to submit our
opposition to the proposed school impact fees contained with the Pasco School District's (PSD)
Capital Facilities Plan. We first want to thank the City staff for meeting with our members and
discussing the issues surrounding the fees. While this is not something we'll come to agreement
on, we appreciate the open and forthright discussions with the City of Pasco. Our fundamental
opposition to impact fees remains the same, although we fully understand the need for the PSD
to find ways to fund their capital projects. Our members don't just build in this community—
they live and play here too, and their children attend our schools. Like everyone else, we
believe in the importance of public education and the need for funding for our schools.
However, school impact fees are not the way to do that—in the long run, they do more harm to
a community than good. Following are just a few of the arguments against impact fees.
• Impact fees are wholly manifested in higher prices of homes and a reduction in growth
and development of an area. The Tri-Cities area has been able to maintain relative
stability in this downturned economy—instituting impact fees, or effectively imposing
taxes on certain areas, is not the right thing to do in order to maintain a healthy
economy. Increasing the price of a home through new fees and taxes simply prices
people out of the market—depriving people of the American Dream.The City of Pasco
has been the epicenter of growth and affordable housing in our region, but a $4,683.34
increase in the price of each home will most certainly change that.
Nominally regarded as a tax on development by government, impact fees are in fact
computed in the price of a new home. True, developers and builders initially pay the
impact fees. However, like any other tax or fee associated with the production of a
product, the costs are then passed along to the consumer.This cost goes beyond the
initial cost because most consumers finance these fees into their loan and pay interest
on these fees. Consumers also pay sales and excise taxes on the fees, meaning that a fee
of$4,683.34 will end up costing the consumer thousands of dollars more.
Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336
(509) 735-2745 or(877)842-8453 1 Fax:(509)735-5470 1 www,hbatacom
• Initially, such a large fee increase will be very hard for the lending and appraisal market
to absorb. (Please see attached letter from a local Tri-Cities Appraiser for more
information).
• Based on consumer feedback that our members have heard, the imposition of a school
impact fee may make it even more difficult for the PSD to pass future bonds and levies.
Although the impact fee makes up a small percentage of the funds needed to build new
schools in Pasco, taxpayers may not understand that.
• Impact fees are an unfair tax on an industry that already pays their own way, and a way
to stifle growth and economic development. The HBA commissioned a study by the
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) In February 2009. This study, a copy of
which will be sent to your Building/Planning Departments Director,found that for every
400 single family homes built in the City of Pasco,the one-year, local impacts were
equal to $51.6 million in local income; $7.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local
governments, and 855 local jobs. in addition, those 400 homes generate substantial
ongoing annual local impacts, including$10.1 million in local income; $4.0 million in
taxes and other revenue for local governments and 189 local jobs. These numbers prove
what builders have always known to be true —that growth and development already
pays its own way—and in fact, pays more than its share because of these ongoing
annual impacts.
• New developments and homes already pay significant amounts in fees and other taxes—
just like everyone else—and because of that, they should not be unfairly burdened with
new taxes and fee structures. Growth and development benefits the entire community
—not just one neighborhood.
Impact fees unfairly target new construction, deter growth and development, and artificially
raise the cost of housing, A good example is to think about what happened to the housing
market when the federal government offered a first-time homebuyer tax credit of$8,000—
sales surged. What an impact fee does is just the opposite. We urge the City of Pasco to
consider these arguments and oppose the use of impact fees.The best alternatives to impact
fees are broad based-solutions where new construction is not singled out. Broad-based taxes or
fees allow the entire community to pay for something that we all benefit from.
If the City opts to go ahead with charging a school impact fee, we would ask the City to consider
a couple of compromises that would help make the fee easier on the homebuiiding industry
and future homebuyers in Pasco.
• Consider changing the time of collection of impact fees from when the building permit is
issued to time of closing. Until someone moves into the house, there is no actual
"impact" on the schools,so it doesn't make sense to charge the fee so early in the
Home Builders Association of Trl-Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336
(509)735-2745 or(877)842.8453 1 Fax:(509)735-8470 1 www.hbatc.com
process. The builder not only has to fund those up-front fees out-of-pocket in most
cases (due in part to tighter lending restrictions), but they cannot recover those funds
until the home is sold, which can be several months.The HBA has already provided City
staff with some examples of other jurisdictions that have done this successfully in
Washington.
• The PSD gave a 25% reduction in the fee in their request, which consumers will certainly
appreciate. However, because of the size of the fee—from $0 to $4,683.34, it will be
very hard for the market to absorb. We would instead ask that the City consider a larger
reduction in the fee, of at least 50%.
• If further reduction is not something the City is able to do, we would ask that a
incremental increase be considered for implementation of the fee over the period of
several years, to help the fee be more readily absorbed into the market.
• We would also strongly encourage the City and PSD to work with our State Legislators
on potential changes or exceptions to bond/levy laws, considering public/private
partnerships to build schools and other potential pieces of the solution to PSD's funding
problems.
Sincerely,
Rene6 Dahlgren
Director of Government Affairs
Home Builders Association of Tri-Gties,WA
10401 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336
(509)735-2745 or(877)842-8453 1 Fax; (509)735-8470 1 www.hbatc.com
Huxall &Associates Real Estate Services, LLC
Certified Appraisals, Analysis and Sales Consultation
101 N. Morain Street, Suite 100
Kennewick, WA 99336
Phone 509.735.6667
Fax 509.735.6697
January 12, 2012
RE: City of Pasco Proposed Impact Fees
Dear Renee;
1 can appreciate your concern about the proposed impact fee assessment by the City of Pasco. I
have consulted with many of my peers regarding this issue including Woody Ostic of Henderson
& Associates, INC. (certified appraiser) and we all seem to be in agreement. In today's market
the lenders and appraisers are scrutinized more than ever before. Any increases in new home
pricing must be well supported with solid inarket data indicating that buyers are willing to absorb
increased home pricing. Although the impact fee is deemed necessary by the City of Pasco, the
market place likely will not be as supportive. What I incan is that anytime the price of a home is
"adjusted upward" it has to be supported with appropriate market data showing a willingness of
the consumer to pay the increased prices for new home construction. Although our market has
remained active, it is still very competitive in the new construction arena. It is likely any increase
in fees to the builder and or the developer will be passed directly on to the home buyers of new
homes that are affected by any increase of additional fees. This upward trend in pricing will
likely occur "overnight" with the implementation of significaiit impact fees that will ultimately
have to be absorbed by the buyers of new homes. Because this fee is not proposed throughout
the Tri-Cities, it will likely force both new home buyers, builders and developers to other
competing areas in the Tri-Cities where impact fees are not assessed resulting in continued
competitive pricing of new homes. Additionally, home buyers will likely consider existing
homes in the resale market or consider more competitive areas of the Tri-Cities. However, it is
likely over time this fee increase will be absorbed Into the market place, thereby giving the
appraisers the market data to support the inevitable increase in new home prices. The time
required for market acceptance of higher new home pricing is unknown. The short term affect
will likely result in lost new home buyers,builders and developers for construction of new homes
within the City of Pasco. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted;
- I*Z��
Stan Nuxall Jr.
Certified Appraiser#1701322
Designated Broker #8806
Dave McDonald
From: Preston K Ramsey 111 <pkriii @msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:56 PM
To: Dave McDonald
Cc: Preston K Ramsey III
Subject. Pasco impact fees
Attachments: Auburn Municipal Code 19.02 - Impact Fees.pdf; Bellevue Municipal Code 22.18 - Impact
Fees.pdf; Federal Way Municipal Code 19.95- Impact Fees.pdf; Kent Municipal Code- 12.13
School Impact Fees.pdf; Mukilteo Municipal Code- 3.100 School impact Fees.pdf
Dear Mr. McDonald,
In our search, we confirmed that Spokane, Spokane Valley, Yakima, Kennewick, Moses Lake, Ellensburg and
Walla Walla do not impose school impact fees, and the majority of cities that do typically discount them by
50% of the total unfunded need (as opposed to Pasco SD's proposed 25% discount). Here's a summary, with
relevant code sections attached:
Auburn (Section 19.02.110) - discounts total unfunded need by 50%
Bellevue (Section 22.18.090) - discounts by 50%
Federal Way (Section 19.95.40) - discounts by 50%
Kent (Section 12.13.140) - discounts by %50
Mukilteo (Section 3.100 Attachment A) - discounts by 50%
As you'll note, these jurisdictions are in Western Washington, where school impact fees are generally more
accepted and imposed.
Another point worth noting is the relationship between multifamily and single family fee amounts in Pasco
School District's revised CFP. The proposed multifamily fee is 97% of the proposed single family fee! For the
sake of comparison:
Auburn's MF fee ($1,518.22) is only 29% of it's SF fee ($5,266.33)
Federal Way's MF fee ($2,172) is only 54% of it's SF fee ($4,014)
Kent's MF fee ($3,378) is only 62% of it's SF fee ($5,486)
Mukilteo's 2 bedroom MF fee ($2,224) is only 53% of the SF ($4,253) and imposes no fee for 1 bedroom units.
Pasco's proposed MF fee ($4,525.86) is 97% of the proposed SF fee ($4,683.34). This proportional amount is
extremely inequitable in comparison.
I respectfully request this analysis along with the 5 attached code sections be submitted into tonights PC record.
Thanks very much,
Preston Ramsey, on behalf of FBA Land Holdings, LLC
1
Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL M PACTFEES http://www.codepublisMng.corntwa/Auburn/Aubun]9/Auburn1902,httd*.
Chapter 19.02
SCHOOL MACT PEES
Sections:
t .902.010 Purpose.
19m.020 Definitions.
19.02.030 Determination of the amount of the impact fees.
19.02.040 In ierbcal agreement between the city and dis lct.
11302. Submission of district capital facilities plan and data.
1 P,w_ Amrel couril review.
19 M07Q Fee collection.
19.02.080 Exemptions.
19.62 09(1 Adjustments,exceptions and appeals.
10.(2.100 Impact lee accounts and refunds.
19,02,11 Impact fee tormula.
19 02.115 impact fee calculation Std whe ie for the Dieritger School District,
19.02124 Impact lee calculation and schedi for the Auburn School District.
19,0Z Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Kent School Dlstti
19,02-14 Impact fee calcOatlon and schedule for the Federal Way School District.
192010 Purpose,
The city couch hereby finds and delerri that cordrui growth and development in the city of Auburn vril create addilimal reed and demand for school facifdes,and
that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of devebping new facilities needed as a result.Therefore,pursuant to Chaptet 82.02 RCW,
the council adopts this chapter to address fderVied impects of new residential deveiopment on schools and to ensure that row development bears a proportionate stove of
N cost of capital wperdittres necessary to meet demands for schools in order to protect the public heath,safety and welfare.(Ord.6341 §2,2011:Ord,5078§1,1998,)
19.02.02o Det'imaice-
For purposes of this chapter.the follow ng terms shall have the indicated meaniings-
A.'Capacity'means it*nurnbW of students the district's taciitles can sccommodale district-wlde,based on the district's standard of service,as delermined by the dtstricl.
B.'Capltal tadM.es pear'means the distrio's facilitleg plan adopted by the school board consisting of:
1.A forecast of future needs for school facities based on the dbtries erroltnert projections:
2.An idert ticado n of additional demands placed on existing g pubic fadities by new devebprnShf;
S.The bng•ranlge construction and capital improvement PlOjects of the district;
4,The schools snider do, tnlct'on or expansion;
S.The proposed boattons and capedties of expanded or new school facAlies:
6.An Inventory of existing school fe hies,Including pemlanerd,transitional and rebcateble fecifitles;
7.At least a six-year financing Component.updated as reulessary to maintain at least a six-year forecast period.for rinancing needed for school faelideb v tiin
projected hrdng Ievais,and identifying sauces of firtancing for such purposes,Including bond issues aulflorized by the voted:
6.An idertYliccation of defictenlcfes In school facilities serving the student populations and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable
period of time;and
9.Any other long-range projects planted by the district.
C.-Capild fmprovemart'means land.improvements to land,structum and rebcatable structures Cwkckxft she planning,acquisition,design pennittling and construction),
initial furnishings and selected equipment.CapHai improvements have an expected useful life of at least 10 years.Other capital costs,such as motor vehlclas and molorized
equlpment,computers and office equipment,office furnishings,and small tools are considered to be minor capital eVerses and are not considered capital Improvements.
D.-Clt}r means the dry of Auburn
E.`Cieswooms"means 90"lonai facilities of tha district required to house students for its basic educational program.The classrooms are those taCittle9 the dfsfrict
determines are necessary to best serve its shxdert population.Speeiaized facilities as identified by the diistrict,Including but rot imRad to gymnasiums,cafeterias,libraries,
administrative offices,and child care Centers,shall not be courted as classrooms
F "Construction cost per sludert'rneens the estimated Cost of construction of a pemraned school facility in the district for the grade spars of school to be provided,as a
function of the district's design standard per grade span.
G.*Design standee means the space required,by grade span and taktng Into account the requiremerts of students with special needs,that is needed in Order to lukfi the
educational goals of the district as Identified in the district's capital facilities plan,
K-Developer,means the person or entity who owns or holds pudase Options or otherdevelopmert corCot over property for wlidt devebpmert&dishy is proposed
1.-Development aCi3vity near any residentiaf condrlstfOn,including the placement of a mobile home,or expansion of a building,sCUdtre Or use,any change in use of a
building or structure,or any charge in the use of land that creates adcli tonal demand for school facilities.
J."District'means the Auburn,Kent.Federal Way,or Dierini School District or successor ertities.
K.'Elderly'means a person aged 65 or older.
L.'Encumbered'means to reserve,set aside,or oth ise earmarkths Impact lees to pay for commitments,cortraci obGgarons,or other labililies inured for pubic
facildes as set out in the adopted capital facilities plan
M.-Grade span°means the categories into which the distict groups its grade Of shadents:e.g.,elementary,middle or junior high scdaool,and high school.
N.lmpaot fee'means.a payment of money unposed upondevabpment as a condition Of development approval to pay forsdsooi facilities needed to serve new grovdh
and deveopmenit that Is reasonably related to the new development that creates addffonal demand and need for pubic facilities,that is a proporlfonaie share of the cost of
the school facilities,and that is used for such facilities that reasonably benefit the new development,"Impact fee"does not include a reasonable permit or application fee.
of 6 1/19/2012 12:43 PM
Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL II4PACT FEES htip://www,codepublisWng.coal/wa/AuburrYAuburnI9/Auburni 902.html#.
a impact fee schedule'meens the impact foes to be charged pardwelrg unit of developmefa that shall be paid as a condnlon of residerdw development within the olly.
P.inierlocal agreement"means we agreement between the district and the city governing the operation of the school impact fee program and describing the relationship,
duies and liabilities 01 the parties,
Q,'Net fee obligation"means the maxdmrm impact fee obligation that may be assessed as determined in the school district caphai facilities plan.The net fee obligation I$
based on a formula that takes Into oonsideration factors such as site acclUsitbn costs,permanent and temporary facilities construction costs•state match credits.tax
croons,deveiper-provided facility credits IN applicable)and a focal share discount factor.
R.'permarwit facilities"meows facilities of the district with a toted foundation which are not Miocatable facRtles.
s.-Reocatable facilities"means any strucare,transportable in one or more sectlors,that is Inferded to be used as an education space to meet the nteed$of service areas
within the district,to provide specaized facilities,or to cover the gap between the fine that families move into flew residerlial developments and the date that construction
is completed on pemarert school facilities.
T"Relocatabse faciFtat;cost per student'means the estimated cost of purchasing and swing a ralocatable facility in the district for the grade span of the school to be
provided as a function of the dlslrlct's design standard Per grade span,
U.She cost per student-means the estimated cost of a site in the district for the grade span of the school to be provided as a function of tho district's design standards per
grade span.
v."standard of service'means the standard adopted by the dstrid which Identities the program year,the cieas size by grade span and talarg into aCCf}txt the requiremert
of studerts with special needs.the ember of classrooms,the types of facilities the district believes will best serve its student poptaetion,and other factors as ideri led by
tha distrld.The district's standard of service shall not be addusted for any portion of rte classrooms housed in relo0atable facilities winch are used as transitional facillfas or
any otter specanzed tacities housed in refocatable facilities.
W,'Student factor"means the number derived by the district to describe how marry students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelrg unit.Student
factors shall be based on district records of average actual student-gene rated rates for comparable devebpments constructed over a period of not more than live years
prior to the date of the fee calcuiatlo n;provided,that it such iriormaten is not available In the district,data from adjacent districts,or districts with similar derrographcs or
ootr"cle averages may be used.Student factors must be updated on an annual basis and separate+/determined for single-family and multifamily,dwelrg units and for
grade spars.
X."Transitional facii6es-means those school facilities that are being used panelling the construction of permanent facilities;Provided,that the necessary ffr®rtdal
tomrnitrnerts are In place to oD.*I,rd the permanent facilities,(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.5950§1,2005:Ord.5078§1,1999.)
14.02.030 Determination Of the atmutt Of the Irnpaet fees.
The amdtrt of tie impact fees shalt be determined for each school district as agreed to by the city and the applicable school district.The methodology to determine the
fees coal be based upon whet other jurisdictions have used to determine their sencol Impact fees and oil address the terms and concepts delked in ACC 19,02.0 ,
Deliritions.The city shall only consider requiring impact teas for any school district upon receipt of a written request duly executed from the applicable school district.The
city shat adopt by a separate ordinance an impact fee schedule for each applicable school district.
A.It the city annexes property and the affected school district has an Impact fee schedule,approved by lle applicable coumy.then if the affected school district has adopted
a capital facilities plan which hag been incorporated into the city's comprehensive plan under the Growth Manwrinerd Act that schedule shall Continue In effect on an interim
basis and the clty shat consider adopting by reference the tae amouris that the county has imposed together wMrh any fornwlas or melhodoWes used to arrive at the fee
amounts.
9,K residendat development ocors within a school uistrict That is*Win the city of Auburn,and an irnpad fee schedule has been approved for that school district by another
legislative authority,other than the city of Aubun,then K the affected school district has adopted a caplffiI facilities part vrtich has been incorporated into the day's
comprehensive plan under the Growth Management Act that schedule shat continue In effect on an interim basis and the city shall sorts der adopting by reference the fee
amounts that have been imposed by the other legislative authority together with any formulas or metirodolo*s used to arrive at the fee amounts.
C,Any impact fee Imposed shall be reasonably related to the Impact caused by the devetopmert and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the Cost of system
Improvements that are reasoraby related to the now devobpment.The impact fee fomnuia shat take Ingo account the future revenues the district will receive from the
development,along with system costs related to serving pte raw development.
D.The impact fee shall be based on a capital facili plan adopted by the district and Incorporated by reference by the City as part of the capital faciiies element of the
citys comprehensive plan,adopted pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW,for the purpose of an shirug the fee program.
E,Separate fees shall be calculated for s'sgle-family and multifamily types of dweing uric,and separate studen generation rates must be determined by the district for
each typo of cli eling unit.For the purpose of cilia ChaPlar,mrob4e homes shag be treated as single-family dweirgs,and duplexes and attached smtgie-tamily dw9irgs steal
be trealea as mult"amiy dweGrgs.
F.The fee shall be calculaled on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and date to be suppled by the district.The fee calculations shall also be made on a
dieldet-wide oasis to assure maximum utilization of all available school facilities in the district which meet district standards.
G.Credit shall be given for school facilities or sites offered by the developer which the district accepts and approves as meeting district needs and standards,consistent
within the Capital facilities plan(Ord.t5'j,41§2,2011;Ord.5078§1,1998.)
19.02.040 ntxbcal agreement between the city end dtsitrct
As a condition of the city's authorization and adoption of a sc ool inpail fee ordinance,the sly and the applicable"rid Shall enter into an interbcat agreement governing
the operation of the school impact fee program,and describing the relationship and labibes of the parties thereunder.The agreement mast provide that the district stall be
liable Vol hold the city tam less for all damages which may occur as a result of any falure by the district to comply with the provisions of Otis chapter,Chapter 82.02 ROW
or other applicable taw.The agreement must Provide that the district shall be fable,hold the city harmiess and reimburse the city for defense and paymem of al claims,
inciuA'rmg claims for damages,which may occur or arise as a result of ary failure or allsped failure to oomph/with the provisions of tubs chapter,Chapter 82.02 RCW or other
applicable law In the adoption,administration.or implementation of this chapter and any actions related to It,(Ord,6341 §2,2011;Ord.5078§1,1898,)
19,02.050 Submlasion of district capital facilities pion and data,
A.On an annual basis(by July 1 st or on a date agreed to by district Ord the city and stipulated In the Irierbcal agreement),any district for which the city Is collecting Impact
fees shelf submit the following materials to the city council:
1.The diatrlct's capital facilities plant(as defined herein)as adopted by the school board;
2.The drwcrs wrolmeri projacliors over the next six years.its c rreft enrofntert and the district's errolrrrerif projections and axial errotnerl tram the previous
year,
3.The dstricts adopted standard of service;
4,The district's overelr capacity over the next six yearn which shell lake into ace"the available capacity from school laciities planned by the district but not yet bulk
and be a furotlo n of the district's standard of service as measuad by the Mmber of students whicn can be housed in district facilities;am
!of 6 1/1912012 12:43 PM
Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL DAPACT FEES http://www.codepublisWng-conYwa/Auburn/Aubijrnl9/Auburn1902,tumt#,.
5.An inventory of the district's existing facilities.
B To the extent that the dmbicrs standard of service identifies a deficiency In Its existing faoities,the distdct's capital factwes plan mist identify the sources of funding
other than impact fees for building or acquiring the necessary I&d#bw to serve the exdsting student population In order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonsbia
period of time
C.Fadities to meet luture demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standard of service.It sufficient funding is rot projected to be availebie to fully turd a capital
facilities plan which meets the adopted standard of service,the ciatrid's capital facilities plan should docu ant the reason for the funding gap,and Identify all sources of
fundng that the district plans 10 use to trees the adopted standard of service.
D.The district shall also submrT annually to the city a report shoving the capital Improvements for which the impact fees have been used
E.In its development of the financing plan component of Its capital facilities plan,the district shall on on a six-year horizon and shaft demonstrate Its best efforts by laidng
the fObwl rig steps•
1.Establish a slx-year firendng phR and propose the necessary bord iss119l:,levies,andtor tnancing measures required by and Coftsfert with that plan and as
approved by the sc hOol board conswert with state law..and
2.Where applicable,apply to the state for funding."comply with the state requiremerts for efgibiity to the best of the district's abiity.(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord
$078§1,1998.)
19.02.060 Annual council review.
On dt least an annual basis,the city Council shell review the iformation submitted by the district pursuant to ACC 19 02. The review shall be In co rliluxdo i with any
update of the captal faciffles plan element of the city's comprehensive plan The city couch may also at this time determine it an adWTrert to the amount of the impact
fees is necessary;provided,that any school impact fee adjustment that WOW increase the school impact fee shal require to submittal of a vwMen request tot the
adjustment by the applicable aChoo)district concurrent with the submittal of the amial capital facilities plan pursuant to ACC 19.02.050.In making its decision to adjust
impact fees,the city council will take Into consideration the quality and completeness of the Information provided In the applicable school district capital facilities plan and
may decide to erect a fee less exam the amount supported by the Capital facilities plan(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.5950§1,2005;Ord 5078§1,1998.)
19.02.70 Fee eoreeffoe.
The school Impact lee shall be imposed,based on the impact fee Schedule,at the time of application to the city toe a devebpme it achviy permit.The school impact fee
SW be imposed based on the Impact fee schedule adopted for the applicable school distllcl.The impact fee and the application tee shall be collected by the aty and
maintained in separate accounts.All school Impact fees shall be paid to the district from the school impact lee account monitiy.The city shall retain al application fees
associated with the city's administration of the impact fee program.
A.impact fees shall be Imposed upon devebpmert activity in the city concurred with the issuance of a buildhrg permit.The tees are be upon tie adopted fee schedule
and collected by the city from any appicart where such development activity r"Antis issuance of a residential building pemft or a bu ldirg permit for a manfechred or
rnobile home located on platted lots within marxtactured/mobile ho me parks,and the tee has not been previously paid.Impact fees are only co faded arid disbursed wetin
the boundaries of a school district that has executed an Irferfocal agreement with the city of Auburn.
B.Applicants for single-family and multifamily residential building permits and for manufactured/mobile tome building permits shall pay to total amount of the impact fees
assessed before the binding permit Is issued,using the impel fee schhed/ets then in affect.The owner of the manufactrredhr>spbile home part[shel be responsible to pay
the tee.
C.The city shat not issue the required brr'iding permit or manuladuradnmobie home buktirg permit mess and crta the impact fees set forth in the impact fee schedule have
been paid
D.The cify will impose an application fee,as provided for in the city's adopted tea schedule,per dwelling unit which is subject to and not otherwise exempt from this Chapter
to cover the reasonable cost of administration of the impact fee program.The tee is not refundable and is Coiectod from the applicant of the development activity permit at
the time of permk Issuance
E.For complete single-family building permit applications for new development,redevelopment or a charge In use,during the effective period of April 4,2011.through Apra
4,2013,and Prior 10 or at the lime of Issuance of any sli gle-family residenlial building permh for a dwelBrg unit that is being constructed,the applicant may elect to record a
covenant against title to the property on forms prepared and provided by the city that requires payment of school impact leas due and owing by providi rig for automatic
payment through escrow of these school impact fees due and ow Ing to be paid no iffier than at lime of dosing of the sale of the unit or at fired inspection or issuarce of
carlirrate of occupancy or 18 morths from the date of issuance of the original building permit,whichever comes first.Falure to pay shelf result in the foeov*q:
1_t 30 days after the city has sent the responarbie party written nohlficffiion of iffi obigaeon to pay the charges established b this chapter the full amount remake
unpaid.the resporsible tarty shall be subject to the enforcement provisions of ACC 125,0 and 125.D65 written notification span be by regular and certified mail
and to the most current available contact information on file with the City.For the purposes of applying ACC 1 25.030 and 1.25.065,the responsible party shall
constitute a property owner,the property(les)for which a permit(s)has been issued shall constitute the property(bes)on which the violation is occurring,and the Impact
fee ammount remaking unpaid shell constitute a violation occurring on the permitted property(ies)uder these sections.
Z Any u paid Charges adopted hri this Chapter that are oulstardlrg 30 days lrocn the date the Charges are due t:hel coreflh,te a ten against the properly(ies)for which
a perrh t(s)have been Issued in the amount of ft unpaid charges.in addition to the actions authorized in subsection(E)(1)of this section,the cfty may record alien
against the permitted property(iss)In the amount of the unpaid charges and may Immediately suspend any permits previousy issued for the lot or urti associated with
the current development activity and shell limit the granting Of any future permits for the lot or until until such time that all outstanding water,sanitary sewer and storm
drainage development charges are paid in tug.
F.For Comptele multifamily building permit applications for new devsbPmBd.redevebpmert or a change in use,during this elfaeiive period of April 4,2011,through April 4,
2013,and prior to or at the lime of issuance of arty multifamily residential building permit that is being constructed,the applicant may elect b record a coverent against title
to the property on forms prepared and provided by the City thal requires paymert of school impact fees due and owing by providing for automatic payment through escrow
of these school impact fees due and Owing to be paid no later than at time of closing of the safe of the unit or at final iruspecton or issuance of certificate of occupancy or
18 morths from the dale of issuance Of the Original building permit,litichever comes first.Failure to pay shall result in the to":
1.Y 30 days after the city has serf the responsfbie party written notification of its obligation to pay fie charges established in this chapter tha full amount remains
unpaid,the responsicia party shall be sublad to the enforcement provisions of ACC 125.030 and 1,25 5.written notddcagon shall be by regular and cariified mimes
and to the most curer available contact infomnation on flue with the city.For the purposes of applying ACC 1,25.03Q and 125.oB5.the responsible party shalt
constitute a property Owner,the property(ies)for which a permits)has been issued shad constitute the propertr0es)on vMch the violation is occurring,and the Impact
tee amourt remaining unpaid shall constitute a violation euxuming on the permitted property0es)uder these sections.
2.Arty unpaid flanges adopted by this chapter that are outstanding 30 days from the dace the charges are dire shell constitute a lien against the property(les)forwhich
a pwrrWs)have been issued in the amour of the unpaid charges.in addition to the actors authorized in subsection(FX1)of this section,the city may record a Bert
against the penntmed property(i ss)in to amount of the unpaid charges and may immediately spend any permits Previously issured for the lot or unit associated with
the orrees development activity and shelf limit the granfing of any future permits for the lot or unit urali such dme that all outstanding water,sanitary sewer and storm
drainage development charges are paid in fug.(Ord,6341 §2.2011:Ord.6077§2,2007;Ord.5261§1(Exh.A),1999;Ord,we§1,1998.)
19.2.080 E-Mptioro.
of 6 1/19/2012 12:43 PM
Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES http://www.codepublishing.com/waJ Auburn/Auburni9/Aubtmtl902,hunik-
The fobwing development activities are exempt from the requirements of this chapter.
A.Reconsinctbui,remodeling or construction of housing projects for the elderly,irrclding nursing homes,retirement centers,assisted living facindes or othertypes of
housing projects for persons aga 55 and over,which hays recorded covenants Or recorded declaration of restrictions pfeciuding school-aged children as residents of those
projects.This exemption does not irhekrae indrvidual single-family homes on platted Jots unless the subjW plat has such recorded covenants.Where such covenants have
not already been recorded,but IN exemption is sought.the city may require the recording of a covenant or recorded declaration of restriction precluding use of the property
for other than Cie exempt purpose.if property using this exemption is subsequently used fora nonexempt purpose,then IN school impact fees than In effect shell be geld.
B.Rebuilding of legally established dwefng UM(s)destroyed or damaged by tire,flood.explosion,act of relit or Othen ax dart or cafastrpphe;prlhVlfded.Vhat such
rebuiIng takes place within a period of ore year after destruction and that no additional dwwetirg units are created.
C.Aiferetiorl explosion.reconarction,remodeling,or rebuking of ehdstli g single-family or multifamily dwerrg units;provided.that no/additional dwelling unb are created.
D.Condominium projects in which existing dwelling units are convened Into condominium ownership and where no new dwelling Inns are created.
E.Any development activity that is exempt fro m the payment of an Impact lee pursuant 10 ROW 62.02.100,
F.Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuart to a corxfaon of a plat,PUD or similar approval to pay fees,dedicate land or construct
or Improve school facilities,mess the condition of the plat or PUD approval provides otherwise.The corldnlonof the plat,PU D or similar approval must also predate the
effective date of fee imposition by the city or its predecessor In interesl as provided herein and/or was actually imposed by the city or As predecessor in interest,spedtiCaly
as a mitigation for impacts addressed in This chapter.Proof must also be submitted to the city that the required mitigation has been tendered for fie dtmapment activity
which would othenvLse be subjed to this chapter.
Ca Any deVeiopneri activity for which school impacts have been mitigated pursuant b a voluntary agreement erdered iri0 wdh tfhe district to pay fees,dedicate land or
construct or improve school facilities,unless the terms of the volubtary aweemert provide otherwise.The agreerrhert and development adfv'dy appi alxon must also
predate the enedive dale of fee imposition by the city or its predecessor in Interest as provided herein,Proof must also be submitted to the city,prior to issuance of the
development activity permit,that the required mitigation has been tendered for the development activity which would otherwise be subject to this chapter.
H.The replacement of a mobile tame with another mobile home within an existing mobile home park(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.5261§1(Exh B),1999:Ord.5076§1,
1998.)
19.02.090 Adjuutmlaflls,excepdOrhs and appeals.
A.Amarogemerits may be made for later payment of the krpad fee Win the approval of the dhstrtct arty if the district detaftnes that If nil be unable to use or will not need
fie payment until a later time;provided,Vial sufficient Security.as defined by the district is provided to/assure payment Security,shall be made to and held by the district,
which wilt be responsible for tracking and dorarrhentkg tlhe sacrrity interest.
B.The tee amours established In the schedule shall be reduced by the amount of ary eigble payment previously made for the lot or development activity in question,either
as a condition Of approval or pursuant to a voluntary agreement.
C.Whenever a development is granted approval subject to a condition that the development actually provide a school site or facility acceptable to the district,the developer
dial be entitled to a credit for the value of the facility,based on the actual cost of providing the facility,against the fee that would be required by this chapter.The value of
the}edgy,shall be estimated at the time of approval,but must be documented,and the doc mertat on confirmed after the facility is completed to assure that an accurate
credit amount is provided.If facility value based on actual costs is less Chan Ihhe calqlated fee amount,the difference remaining shall be chargeable as a school Impact fee.
O.The standard Impact fees may be adjusted by the planning dimclor.If one of the folowing circumstances exists:
1.The developer derno stralm that an impact fee assessment was improperly caloutated:or
2.Unusual cirizmhslaruces iderVied by the developer demonstrate that if the standard impact fee amount was applied to the development,it would be ari&or unjust.
taking Into account the purposes and Intent of this chapter and Chapter 82,02 RCw.
E.In cases where a develo per requests a fee calculation adjustment,exception or a credit pursuant to subsection(C)of this section,the plamtng director shall consult with
the district and the district shall advise the planning director prior to the plarnlmg director maldrhg the(trial Impact fee determination,
F.A developer may provide,and the plaming director shall review,studies and dam as a part of a request for a fee calomion adjustment,exception,or credit.
C+.Ary appeal of the final decision Of the planning director with regard to lee arnou nts may be made by the developer,rdishid,or other aggrieved party and shall follow the
process for the appeal of the urdaA/irg development application,as set forth in the Ahbun Cry Code.The planivig director's decision steal be given substantial weight and
the appeWlt ahahl shave the burden of proof that the final tee determination Is unfair,taldrg info amous the purposes and triert of Chepler 8202 RCw and this chapter.
H.Impact fees may be paid wider protest in order to obtain a permit or other approval of deveiopmuart activity.However,such payment under Prowl shall not excuse the
applicant's obligation to timely exhaust all administrative remedies and to comply with all applicable time irneation periods.(Ord.6341§2.2011;Ord.5078§1,1998.)
19.02.100 Impact fee accounts and refunds.
A.Inpacl fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest-beanng account established by the district solely for the district's school impact fees.
Ai irterest shall be retained n the amount and expended for the purpose or purposea for which Impact fees were Imposed.Annually.the district,based in part on cis report
prepared pusrant to ACC 19 02 OM.shall prepare a report on ft impact fee account showlna the source and amount of all rnorWS collected,earned or received,and
capital or system improvemerU for which vioad fees were used.The drstrid shall submit a copy of this report to the city.The city tkharroe director shall maintain separate
school Impact fee and administration fee accounts pusuant to ACC 19.02.070•and Shat prepare,for the dry council,a report on the source and amount of all school biped
isea Collected and transferred 10 the disltict.
B,Impact fees for the district's capital improvements Shell be expended by the district Only in conformance with the capital facilities plan elemert of the city's comprehensive
per•
C.Impact fees shell be expended or ercumbeed by the district for a oermissble use within six years of receipt by the district,unless theta exists an extraordinary or
compelling reason for fees to be held longer than six years,Such extraordinary or compel"reasons shall be iderdified to the city by fie district in a mitten report,In any
decision approving such an extension,the city council shall identify the dsird's extraordinary and compelling reasons for the lees to be held longer than six years in the
written ff n;rs;provided,that any party that volxtarily elacls so use the alemative fee payment meted specified in ACC 1562.070 shag signas a cordition of use of Cie
alernative fee payment meted a waiver of right on a form prepared and provided by the city to recovery of school Impact fees nob spent with the statutory six-year
ttmefrarns
D.The currert owner of properly on whichan impact fee has been paid may receive a refuel of such fees if the Impact fees have rot been expended Or enrxumberad wthirt
sir years or an extension granted under subsectben(C)of this sedan of receipt of the funds by Ube district on school facilities intended to benefit the developmeml adltiy
for which Ve impact fees were paid.impart fees shall be cottsxiered encurbered on a first in,ffrst out basis.The dSMCt Ill notify potential claimants by f rsi-okus mall
oaposlled with the United Stales Postal Service addressed to the arrant owner of the property as shown inthe catty tax records.
E.An ovmer's request for a refund must be submitted to the district In witting wittin ore year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that ro1'ioe is given,
whichever date is later.Any impact fees that are not enmrded or encumbered by the District in conformance wilh the capital lscGitles plan within triese time limitations,tiro
for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period.shall be retained and expended consistent wkh the provisions of INS section Refunds of
t of 5 1/19/2012 12:43 PM
Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES http://www.codt publishing.com/wa/Aubum/Aubu nl9/Auburni 902.htm1#.
Impact fees shall Include any interest earned on the impact tees
F Should the city seek to terminate any or al school impact tee requtrernerts,all unexpended or unericurne+ed funds,including Interest earned,shelf be refueled to the
Current owner of the property for which a school impact fee Was paid.Upon the firdfrgs that any or al fee razorernerts are to be tefmnated,the City shelf pace notice of
such lam>ratlon and Ifhe avaiWRY of the refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify elf poterCal claimants by first-class mat addressed
to the owner of the property as shown In the cowry tax records.AS funds available for refund shelf be retained for a period of one year.At the end of one year,any
remaining funds stet'be retained by the district,but must be expended by the district consistent with the Provisions of this section.The notice requirement set forth above
shag not apply H there are no unexpended or unarcumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated.
G.A developer may request and shag receive a refund,inciuding interest earned on the impact fees,when
1 The devsioper does not proceed to finalize the develoPmerlt activity as required by statute or sty provisions Wicluding the Uniform Bjkfug Code;and
2.No impact on the district has rsstufed.9mpeol stag be deemed to include cases where the district has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior
to the application for a refund.In the evert that the district has expended or encumbered the fees in good faith,no refund shelf be forftomirp.However,ti Wdthin a
period of three yours the same or Subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the substartiafy similar development activity,the owner shall be etigibfe for a credit.
The owner must petition the district and Provide receipts of Impact fees paid by the owner to r a development of the same or substarliaty sirifar nature on the same
property or some portion ffereol The diSInCt shat de nine whether to gran a credit and Such determination may be appealed by following the procedures set forth in
ACC 12JI&ys4
H.Interest due upon the refuel of irtnpact fees requred by this section shat be calculated accordng to the average rite received by the dusw on invested furls throughout
the period during Much the fees were retained.(Ord.6341§2.2011;Ord.5078§1,1998.)
19,02.110 Wvpact 100 fofmukL
The Impact fee calculation and schedule shall be based upon the formula set forth below.The formula is the city's determination of the appropriate proportionate share of
the costs of pubic scool capital facilities needed to serve new growth and development to be folded by school Impact fees based on the factors defined In ACC
1 j,0Z .Separate fees shall be ca3culated for sirgie-family and nxdtitamiy dwelling units because of their different impact on so=t facilities.Separate student generation
rates(sudent taclor)must be determined by the district for each type of dweing unit.
Given the following variables;
A.Fit cost fee for sla acquuisition costs-Al+A2+A3
Al-ElemarRBry school site cost per souderit x the saxlett lacmr
A2-Middle school site cost per student x the ehdett factor
A3.High school site cost per student x the student factor
B.Full coal fee for school construction-B1+B2+B3
B1.Elementary school construction cost per sftxW x the student factor
B2.Middle school constrwton cost per student x the stWent factor
B3.High school construction cost per student x the student factor
C-toll cast fee for temporary facilities maintenance.01+C2+C3
Ct.Elementary school temporary facitity cost per student x the student factor
C2.Middle school lemporary facility cost per student x the student tactor
C3.high school temporary facility cost per ahtdent x the shideft factor
D.Slate match credit-D1+D2+D3
DI-Boedch index x SPI square footage per student for elementary school x state match%x
student lector
02.Sceckh Index x SPI square footage per student for middle school x stale match%x student
factor
03-BoacIM Index X SPi square footage par student lot high school x state match%X student
factor
TC•Tax payment credit- the net present value of the average assessed value for the dwelling
unit type In the school district,<(1+1)nr1
1(1-1)n X the current school district capital property tax levy rate,111+qn,where I-the current
kterest We fa outstanding bond issues
n-the number of years heft before the bond or capital levy is retired.W to a maximum of 10 years
FC.Facilities credd. the per dunning unit value of any site or facilities provided directly by the
development Subject to ACC 19.02.080
FC.Value of fee payees eonftudon M
Number of dwelling urhits in the tievebprrnent
Then the unlurded need(L":
UN-A+B+C-D-TC
The Fee Obigalion:
Total Urhiunded Need x 50%-Fee Calcnlatio n I
Where,in addtien to the clef i itiors in Aix I%QLQZV.
A.-Boeckh index'means the area cost allowance for school corstntdiondetermined under wAC 180-27-o6o.
B.'SPl square footage per student'means the space allocations per grade span determined by WAC 180-27-035,
C-State matching credit"means the calculation set forth in Attachment A of the district's Boeckh Index Rmes SPI square footage per student per grade span times state
of 6 1/19/2012 12:43 PM
Chapter 19.02 SCHOOL MACT FEES http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/Aubum/Auburn I 9/Auburt,I 902.htrrd#..
match pemertage times applicable student factor.
D.'State match percentage-means the percenlage of school construction costs for which a district is eigiwe to receive state funding pursuant to RCW 18A.525.166 and
the rules of the State Board of Educallon.
E.'fax payment credit or"TC'means the caCtlatlon in the formula of the district's average real property taxcletermined value for siroe-family dwelling units or multifamily
dim6ing units times the district's capital property tax rate as adjusted by the current interest rate for any bonds being refired by a capital tax and the number of years each
capital levy tax shall be Imposed up to 10 years.The district's capital tax rate consists of authorized tax levies to retire bonded Indebtedness intoned for school district
capital purposes urder Chapter 28A.530 RCW and school taciity levies for construction,rerttodeirg,and moderrization under RCW 64.52053.(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.
5950§1.2005.Ord.5096§1,1998.)
19.02.115 flrtlpact be calculsthan and schedule for the Dierinpr School District.
The impact fee calculation and schedule below is based upon a review of the impact fee calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily residences sal forth in
the most recent version of the Dledrger School District Capital Fachltias Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn comprehensive plan The
calculation is the determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital facilities needed to serve now growth and development to be
funded by school impact tees based on the factors defined In ACC t 9.02.0
Effective January 1,2011,the school impact fee shall be as follows:
Per Single-Family Dwelling $3,500.00
Unit
Per Multifamily Dwebg Unit $0.00
(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.8340§1,2010;Ord.6279§1,2009;Ord.6214§1.21108;Ord.6134§1.2007;Ord.6060§1.2DO6;Oro.59W§2.2005.)
19.02.120 Impact fee calculation and schedule for the Auburn School District.
The impact fee calculation and schedule is based upon a review of the Impact fee calculation for single-family residences and for multifamily residences set forth in the most
recent version of the Auburn School Distrct's Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Auburn city council as an element of the Auburn comprehensive plan The calculation Is
the determination of the appropriate proportionate stare of the costs of pubic school capital facill ies needed to serve new growth and development to be funded by school
impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19..02,p20
Effective January 1,2411,the school impact fee shat be as follows:
Par Sugle-Family Dwelhrg $5266.33
Unit
Per Multifamily Dwelling Unit $1,518.22
(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.6340§2,2010;Ord.6279§2,2009;Ord.6214§2,2006;Ord.6134§2,2007;Ord.6 060§2.2006;Ord.5950§1,2065;Ord.5793§1,2003;
Ord.5232§1.1999.)
19.02.130 t.npecot gee caicutatiort and schedule for the Keno School Olathet
The impact fee Calcutation and schedule Is!'lased upon a review of the Impact fee and motion for sin*4am9y residences and for mrlbfamiy residences set forth in the
most recent version of the Kern School Districts Capital Facifrtiees Plan adopted by the Autxm city council as an element of the Auburn conprehenslve plan.The cab uquipn
is the determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of pubic school capital tacnfilies reacted to serve new growth and development to be faded by
school impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19-02-020
Effective January 1,2011,the school Impact fee shell be as folows:
Per Single-Famlly Dwelling $5.486.00
Unit
Per Multifamily Dwelling Urit $3,378.00
(Ord.6341§2.2011:Ord.6340§3.2010;Ord 6279§3,2009;Ord.6214§3,2008:Ord.6134§3,2007;Ord.6060§3,2006;Ord.59W§1,2005;Ord.5233§1.19N.)
19.02.140 Impact tee catculation end schedule for Me Federal Way School Disp
The impact fee calk--ulafion anti stitedule is based t q o n a review of the Impact fee and calculation for single-family rasidencas and for multifamily residences set forth In the
most recent version of the Federal Way School District's Capital Facilities Plan adopted by the Album city council as an element of 1h a Auburn comprehensive plan,The
calculation is the determination of the appropriate proportionate share of the costs of public school capital leclifties needed to serve new growth and development to be
funded by school Impact fees based on the factors defined in ACC 19.42 020.
Effective January 1,2011,the school Impact fee shelf be as follows
Per SkVkg -Fandly Dwelling $4,01400
Unit
Per Multifamily Dwefrg Unit $2,172.00
(Ord.6341§2,2011;Ord.6340§4,2010;Ord.6279§4,2009;Orel.6214§4,2008;Ord.6134§4.2007;Ord.6060§4,2006;Ord.6042§1,2006.)
This pet of tha Auburn City Code b o—mo th row9h Ordaunee 63F7,paaond March 71.7011. City W ebsite:http.//+.ww.6Ab a.epv/(http://www.aubumwa-"j)
orsdarnxr:The City Qark's Office has the oMdal w lion of the Aubton Oty Code.Usara Shedd coritad the Qty Oty TNephone:(257)931.3000
a,k's Owim to ordinances passed subsequent to the arAro cited above. Code ptlO60*V Cwrprrr fM[DJ/www-wd+Pblrsrtn0.mmn
r of 6 1/19/2012 12:41 PM
Chapter 22.18 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DI... http;//www.codepublisH ng.com/wa/bellevu efhtrdBellevue22/Bellevw2,.
Chapter 2218
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES FOR ISSAOUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.411
SOC iora;
22-18. 1 0 Ridings and authority
22.18 020 Defiritions.
Q impact fee program elements.
2218,040 Fee calculations
22.18.054 Assessment of impact tees.
2218,Q¢g Exempborts and credits.
22• 18.074 Appeals and Independent calculations.
2218.0811 Impact fee accourt,uses of Impact tees,and refunds.
22,1809 Formula for determliing school Impact fees
22.18.100 school impact fee schedule
MiS-110 Review.
2218.010 Findings and authority.
The city council of the city of Bellevue(Ite"COuneill hereby finds and determines that new grovAh and development in the city of Begavue wig create additional demand and
need for school facilities in the lbsaquah schlpot dstricL and the council We that now growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new face tles
needed to serve the new growth and development.
Therefore,pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW,the council adopts this chapter to assess school impact fees for the Issaquah school district.The provisions of this chapter shall
be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the school impact fee program.(Ord.Ma§2,19M;Ord,4767§1,1995.)
2218.020 DOWlons.
The fofowing words and tens shall have the logo"meanings for the purposes of this chapter,mess the corte#cfea(fy requires otherwise.Terms otherwise rof datined Y
fenein shall be defined pursdert to RCW 112,02,p90,of given their usual and customary meaning.
A •Capital facilities plan'means the district's capital facilities plan adopted by fire school board consisting of:
1.A forecast of future reeds for school facilities based On the district's enrollment projections;
2.The long-rarge construction and capital improvements pro)ects of the district;
3.The schools urndef construction or elparsior
4.The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new school faC110e3:
5.At least a six-year financing plan component.updated as necessary to maintain at least a six-year forecast period,for financing needed school facilities within
projected funding levels.and idertlfying sources of financing for such purposes,including bond issueo authorized by the voters and projected bond issues not yet
authorized by the voters;and
S.Any othar long-range projects Planned by He district.
B."City'rneens One city of 891evue.King County,Washington
C.'Classroorm means educations]facilities of fire dlsUict required to house students for its basic educational program.The Gassroorns are those faclilies the district
determines are necessary 10 best serve its student popuhation Specialized facilities as identified by the district,tncludirg but not limited to gymnasiums,cafeterias,libraries,
administrative offices,and child care centers,shall not be courted as classrooms.
0.'Construction cost per student'-ears the estimated cost of construction of a permanent school facility in the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as a
funnction of life ddstrMs desgn standard pet grade span and taking info account the requirements of studem with special needs.
E."Design standard'means the space required,by grade span and tandng into accourt the requiramments of students with special needs,which is needed in order to fuiilthe
educational goals of the district as rdentBied in the district's capital facilities plan
F.-Developer means the person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or ottw dwelopmert control over property for which development activity is proposed.
G.-Development activity'means any residential construction or expansion of a builifinp,structure or use,any change in use of a building or structure,or any charge in the use
of land that creates additional demand for school facilities.
H."Districr means the Issaquah School Dusirkf No.411,King County.Washiggton.
I.'Ekkyly-nears a person aged 62 or older.
J.'Encunbered"means to reserve.set aside,or otherwise narmark the Impact fees in order to pay for comet trams.contractual obtigalions,or other frabigiies incurred for
pubic taciiiles.
K.-Fee Schedule"means the scledule set forth as 8CC 2218.100 indxa6ng the standard fee amount per dwe&V unit that sham be paid as a condition of residertaf I
development within fire City.
L Grade span'means the categories into which a district groups Its grade of students.i.e.,elementary School.middle or jdriar high school.and high school
M.-frterlocal agreement'mee s the inlenlocal agreemeri by and between the city of Betawe and He Issaquah school diSW as a,ttnnzed by Resolution No.5888.
N."Permanent facilities'means the faclitles Of the district with a fixed foundation which are not relocatable facilities
O."Relocalable faciily'means any factory-0tilt structure,transportable In one or more sections,that is designed to be used as an education space and Is needed to prevent
the overbullivrg of school facilities,to meet the needs of service areas within the district,or to cover the gap between the time that families move into new residential
developments and the date that con sh ion is eotrpieled on permanent school facilities.
R'Relocatable facilities cost per student"means the estimated cost of purchasing and siting a relocatable facility In the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as
a function of the districts design standard per grade span and taking Into account the requirements of students with special needs
O"Site cost per student'means the estimated cost of a site In the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as a lurclion of the dstrlct's design standard per grade
span and taking 11110 accOu t the requirements of students with special needs
R."Slandard of service"meads the standard adopted by the district which Identifies the program year,the class size by grade span and taldrg Irto a=Lrt the requirements of
of 6 1/19/2012 12:45 PM
Chapter 22.18 SCHOOL BAPACT FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DL._ http://www.codepublist ing.cons/wa/bellevue llmT"ellevue22/Believue2.
students with special needs.the number of classrooms,the types of facilities the district believes will best serve its student population.and other factors as identified by the
district.The district's standard of service shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed in relocatable facilities which are used as transitional facilities of for
any specialzed faciities housed in rialocatabie facilities.Except as otherwise defined by the school board pnrsuart to a board resoktion,'transhional faWtes'shel mean
those facilities that are used to Cover the time required for the construction of perrW ant IatdUies:provided.that the district has the necessaryy financial commibnents in plwa
to complete the permanent facilities called for inthe capital fwlfes part
S.•Studentt factor means the ember derived by the district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dwelling unit.Student
factors shag be based on district records of average actual student generation rates tot new developments constructed over a period of not more than five years prior b the
date of the fee calculation;provided,that it such information is not available in the district,data from adle0ent districts,districts with similer demographics,or coutywide
avaragm may be used.Student factors must be separately determined for single-family and multifamily dwelling wits,and for grade spans.(Cod.4401§2,IM,Ord.4767§
1,1995.)
22.18 030 impact fee program elements.
A.Impact fees vAl be assessed on all resideMW development adhrrty in that portion of the city located within the district's batxtdarfes based on the provisions of 8CC
22.18, .
B.The Impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caunod by the development and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system
improvemerts that are reasonably related 10 the development.
C.The impact fee shall be based on a capital facilities plan developed by the district and approved by the school board,and adopted by reference by the city as part of the
capital facilities element of the city's comprehensive plan.(Ord.4M§2.1995;Ord,!!M§1 1995.)
22.18.040 Fee calculafloru.
A The Impact fees for the district shat be calculated based on the formula set forth in BCC 1 0908.
B.Separate fees shat be calculated for single-family and multifamily dwelling units.and separate sadent generation rates must be detemvred by rite distriol for ex')type of
dwearg unit.For purposes of this chapter,mobile homes shall be treated as skgl-farr lv&+Welling units and duplexes shall be treated as mullffamily dwelling nits.
C The tee calculations shall be made on a dstrictwide basis to assure mandmun utilization of all school facilities In the district cumeriy used for Insintctional purposes.
D.The formula in BCC 22,10.09 provides a credit for the anticipated tax contributions that woL0d be made by the development based on historical levels of voter support for
bond:sale in the district.
E The formula also provides for a credit for school sites or facilities ach]aly provided by a developer which the district finds to be acceptable as provided for in 8CC
122 8. 4(Ord.AIMLI§2.1995:Cud.4767§1,1896.)
7 l&=Aesesmrtertf 01 Impact fags.
A.The dry shag collect school impact fees,based on the fee Schedule in BCC 22,18100 from any applicant seelong development approval from the city for dwelling nits
located within the district's boundaries where such development activity requires final plat or PUD approval or the issuance of a residential building permit or a mobile home
permit.
S.For a plat or PUD applied for on or attar the effective date of the ordinance cold ed in this chapter.50 percent of the Impact fees due on the plat or the PUD shag be
assessed and collected from the applicant at the time of final approval,using the fee schedule In effect when the plat or PUD is approved.The balance of the assessed tee
Shall be abcaed to the dweirtg oils in the project.and shtal be collected when the building permit tot each dwelling unit is traced.Resklettlal developments proposed for
short plats shad not be governed by this subsection,but shall be governed by s bsecbon 0 below
C.it o n the effective date of the ordinance caddied in this chapter a pat or P UD has already received preliminary approval,such plat or PUD shat not be required to pay 50
percent of the impact tees at the time of final approval,but the impart fees shall be assessed and Collected from the lot owner at the time the building permits are issued,using
the fee schedule then in effect.If on the effective date of tie ordinance codified in this chapter an applicant has appied for preliminary plat or PUD approval,but has not yet
received such approval.the applicant shall follow the Procedures set forth In subsection B above.
D_For existing lots or lots not covered by sulasectlon B above.applications for single tanifle and multifamily residerfiai building permits,mobile(tome pamtils,and site plan
approval for mobile home pant proposed,the total amours of the impact fees shall be assessed and 0OWed from the applicant when tie butrfntg permit is Issued,using the
fee schedule tier In effect.Irrespective of the date that the appicabon for a building permit or mobile home permit or sae pier,approval was stbmRIJed,no approval shat be
granled and no permit shat be issued until the required School impact fees set forth in the foe schedule have been paid.
E.The city stall not grant firm]plat or PUD approval nor issue the required building permit or mobile home permit nor grant the required site plan approval for a mobile home
park for projects located within the district's loo utdarles unless and until the impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have been paid.(Ord.g$Q)§2,1995;Ord.JM§1,
1995.)
221t1utf80 Exemption@ and ctedts.
A.The tokw g steal be exempt from the application of Imped fees'
1.Any form of homing exclusively for the elderly,Including nursing homes and retirement centers.so long as these uses are maintained in perpetuity and the necessary
cover@nts or declarations of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensue that no children will reside in the development;or
2.The replacement of a structure with a new stnrctue of the same size and use at the same site or lot when such replacement ooms vAthin 12 months of the demolition
ordestndction of the prior structure or
3.Afteratlons or expansion or enlargement or remodelirg or rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional units are created and the use Is
not changed:or
4.Art/development activity that Is exempt from the paymenn of an irpect fee pur%M to RCVV§g OZ 100.due to mitigation of the same system improvement under fie
State Environments]Policy Ad;or
5.Any development activity for which school impacts have been mitigated by the payment of tam,dedication of lard,or construction or improvernent of school facilities
pursuant to a preliminary plot or PUD approval prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified In this chapter,mess the terms of the plat or PUD approval provide
otherwise;or
g.Any development activity for which sclmoof impacts have been mitigated by the payment of fees,dedication of lard,or constriction or improvement of school facilitles
pursuant to a volutary,agreement entered Into vAlh the distdd prior to the effective dale of the ordinance codified In]his chapter,unless the terns of this agreement
provide otherwise:or
7_Any development activity that complies with the derfiridon of Voidable housing'set forth it BCC 20 SO 010 and the regtAremer is set forth in BCC 202()l
mandating the provalon of affordable housing and the recording of a covenant running with the land so that the nits remain as affordable housing for rite lfe of fie
project,The school Impact fees for these units shall be considered paid by the district through its other funclitV sources,without tine district lectualy transferring funds from
Its other lundhng sources into the Impact fee account.
B.Am&Vemefts may be made for later payment with the approval of the district Only if the district determines that it wig be unable to use or wit not need the payment until a
of 6 1/19/2012 12:45 PM
Chapter 22.18 SCHOOL INVACT FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DI... bttp://www.codepublist in&corn/wa/bellevumfhmV&Ilevue22/Bellevue2,.
later time;provided.that sufficient security.as defined by the district in its sole reasonable discsetioq is provided to assure payment.Security shall be made to and heid by the
district,which writ be responsible for tracfdnq and dacuiroer eng fie security Interest-
C.After the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chaptef and t tiro devebprina t aciMty is not exempt from limped fees puararl to stibsectio n A above,the
developer shelf receive a credit to r any payment made for the b1 or development activity In question,either as a condition of development approval or pursuant to the terms of
a voluntary midgatio n agreement.The fee amount due on the development activity shall be reduced by the wricult of the credit
D.After the effective date Of the ordInVC0 codhf9d in this chapter,the developer can request that a credit or credits be awarded for the value of dedicated tsrd.
ksproverntma,of construction Provided by the developer.The disbid shall first determine the general soUb lify of the lend.Improvernpiril4,andAOr coretruct0nfor district
purposes.Second,the district shall determine wRhaMen the land.improvements,and/or the facility cvrsfruefed are included within the district's adopted capital faailes plan or
the board of directors tar the district may male the firdinp that such curd.Improvements,artdnor facilities world serve the goals and objectives of fie capital facilities plan of
the district.The district shall forward he deterrrd of onto the city,including cases where the district determines that the dedicated lard,improvements,and/or corsfiction are
not suitable lot district Purposes.
E.For each request for a credit or credits,if appropriate,the district shat select an appraiser from a ist of independent appraisers.The appraiser shal be directed to
dekKmine for the distric the value of the dedicated land,irnprovsrnerts,or construction provided by the developer on a case-by-case basis.The developer shal pay for to
cost of the appraisal
F.After receiving the appraisal,ihte district shall provide the devaloperwth a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of(he credrl,the reason for the credit,where
applcsble.the legal description of the site donated,and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be appled.
Tra appkAN must sign and date such letter or certificate Indicating hi9Aher agreement to to terms of the letter or certificate,and reRan such signed document 10 the district
before the city wit award the impact fee credit The failure of the appicart to sign,elate,and rheum such document within 80 calendar days shat nullify the credit.
G.Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit (Ord.-4-4�—Qt§2,1995;Ord.4,n7§1,1995.)
22,18.070 Appeal&end itdepanderx calculations.
A.The city may adjust the amount of the school impact fee assessed if one of the following circumstances exist;provided,that the developer can demorstrafe to the city's
satisfaction that tte discount set forth in the fee formula(F-UNt2)fails to adW for the error In the calculation or fails to ameliorate for the uriaimess of the fee
1 The developer demonstrates to the cnys satisfaction that an impact tee assessment was ircortscty,calculated;or
2-UnuSxlax and unique circunstances identified by the developer demonstrales that if tte standard impact fee amount were applied to the developmerl,it world be unfair,
un#m or unlawful
B.Requests for fee adjustments,and the administrative appeals Process for th�e.under" of an impact fee,shall follow the process for the appeal of the uderift development
applcabor In cases where no adrrnistrattve appeal is provided for the tnhderlytrg action fie appeal shall be prod pusum to the Process 11 appeal procedures(LUC
2QZM.except that the appeal must be receved by to city cleric no haler than 5,00 p.m.on the 14th day f allow rig the date of issuance of the underlying development
siocation,if pubfcalionof the decision is not raquired.
C.A devoloper may provide studies and data to demonstrate that any particular factor used by the district may not be appropriately applied to the development proposal,but
the dstricra data shah be presuned valid unless clearly demonstrated to be otherwise by the developer.The developer shal Pay for the cost of this studies and data,and must
demonstrate to the city's satisfaction that the discount set forth M the fee formula(F=UN12)fails to ad]rnt to r the error In the factor or in the fee calculation.
D Any appeal of the decision of the henrhg examiner with regard to fee amounts shall follow the appeals process for the underlying devaiopmert application end riot be
subject to a separate appeal process.Any errors In the fomri la Identified as a result of an appeal should be referred to the GDMA for Possible modification
E Impact fees maybe paid heder protest,but It the fee is protested,the city shal make construction or development Pursuant to the Issuance of airy approvat or permit so
obtained conditional upon final resolution of the protest.(Ord.4978§34.1997;Ord.4 1§2,1995;Ord,4767§t,1995.)
22.18.080 I IF -tae account,uses Of I F-r lutes,hind F*hgldR
A.lmpact fee receipts shat be eamharked speafiaNy and retained In a special interest-bearing accent established by the district solely for the distrids school inpact foes as
provided for in BCC .AA interest shall be retained in the ac tout and expended for the purpose or purposes identified in subsection a Anxxaly the city,based on the
report submitted by the district pursuant to BCC&78.090,"prepare a raw rl on school impact lees showing the source and amount of sit moneys colacted,earned or
received,and Mille)or system Improvements that"refinanced In vAcie or'n part by impact fees.
B.impact leas for the district's system improvanxrts shall be expended by the district for capital improvements.Including bull not smiled to school pfarnig,hard aogtisition,
sae improvements,necessary off-site ifi provernwits,eonstructioa engineering.arohltectual.permitting,finsrelrg,and admh>iytratve,expenses.rebcatebse tectl ties,capital
equipment pertaining to educational facilities.and any other expenses which Could be eapitei2ed,and which are cong dent with the district's caphtel facilities plan
G.In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are Issued for the advanced provision of capital facilities for whch impact fees may be expended and where consistent
with the provisions of the bond covenants.Impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or
improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this Milan.
0.Schoch impact fees shell be expended or eraxnbereci within six years of receipt,unless the council idertfies In written flt*d gs ex tre0ndinwy and compelling reason Or
reasons for the district to hold the ttees beyond the six-year Period.The district may petition the council for an extension of to six-year period and tho drsinct shelf set forth
any such extraordinary or compelling reason or reasons on its petition.Where the council identifies to reason or reasons in wafteen findirps,the council shall establish the
period of time within which the Impact fees shall be expanded or encumbered,after consultation with the district.
E.The arrant owner of property on which an Impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if fie impact fees have rot been expended crarunbered within sic
years of
reca pt of the funds by the city,except as provided for In stixsedion 0.In delarmsirg whether impact fees have been erc=bWed,impact fees shall be considered
ercw*red on a first-in,first-out basis.The city shall notify Potential claimants by first-class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service addressed to the owner of
the property as shown in the city's tax records.
F.An owners request for a refuel must be submitted to the council in writing within one year of the date the night to Claim the refund arses or the date tat notice is giver
whichever date is later.Any irrpact fees that are not expended or ennntebered w4W n the Irritations In subsection D.and for which no appicaton for a refund has been rnade
within the one-year period,shall be retained and expended consistent wflth the provisions of die section.Refuels of knpadd fees shall Include any interest earned on the I react
fees-
G.Should the city seek to terminate any or all school Impact fee requiremerts,all unexpended or unencumbered funds,Including interest earned,shall be refunded to the
current owner of hie property for which a school impact fee was paid.Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminal&d,the city dal place notice of such
termination and the"abfRCy of reftrhds in a newspaper of general dreutation at least two tines and shelf notify al potential claimers by hrstciess mail addressed to the
owner of the properly as shown in the city's tax Taco rds.At funds available for refund shal be retained for a period of one year.Al the end of one year.any remaining funds
shal be retained by the city.but must be expended for the district,consistent with the provisions of this section The notice reWrefnent set forth above shall riot apply If there
are no unexpended or unencurnbared balances within the ae0ou hl or accounts being terminated.
Fi.A developer may request and shat receive a refund,including interest earthed on the impad fees,when:
of 6 1/19/2012 1 2:45 PM
Chapter 22.1$SCHOOL IIvWAC'I'FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DI... http://www.codepublisMng.com/watbellevue/htm]/Bellcvuc22/Bellevue2..
1.The developer does not proceed to finraize the development activity as required by statute or city code or the Uniform Building Code:and
2.No impact on the district has resuked.'impact"shelf be deemed to include cases where the district has expended or encumbered the Impact foes In good faith prior to
the application for a refund.In the event that the district has expended or enumbered the fees in good faith,no refuel shall be forlhcoming.However,it within a period of
three years,the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially Birrtlar development Edtvity,the owner shelf be eligible for a credit.
The owner must petition the city are provide receipts of irtpact fees paid by the owner for a development of the sarne or substand*simiYu nature on the same
property or some portion thereof.The city shel delenNne whenrr to grant a raadd,and such determioutiors may be appealed by following the procedures set forth in
BCC 22:0 425)
I.interest due upon the refund of impact fees required by this section shall be calculated amordng to the average rate received by the city or the district on invested funds
throughout the period during which the fees were retained.
J.Notwithstanding arty other provision to the contrary in this code,the city,with the approval of any affected school district.may determine co refund school Irrrpect fees In
cucurnsw ces where a void msm artists concerting the legally of the imposition and cobction of such fees.Refunds shelf be made to the currert owner of the property,upon
which the Impact tees were imposed.(Ord.M§1.1985:Ord.459LI§2,1995:Ord_1M§1.1995.)
22.18.090 Fcrnwia for deprnekWq school itrepect%as.
The following tcmxb Shelf be used to determine school impact foes:
IF
A= Student factor for dwelling unit type
and grade span x site cost psi
student lot sites for facilities In OW
grade span.full cost fee for site
ac¢tshion cost
B. Student factor for dwel"unit type
and grade span x school construction
cost per student for facilities in that
grade span x ratio of district's square
footage of penttarent facilities to total
square footage of facilities-full cost
feu for schnel construction
C. Student faLior for dwelling tM type
and grade span x reioratabte facilities
cost per student for faciities in that
grade span x ratio of district's square
footage of rebcamble fablmey to
total square footage of facilities-full
cost fee for rebcatable facilities
D- Sluded factor for dweilg unit type
and grade span Saeckh Index'x SPI
square feet per student factor x state
match%=state match credit,and
A1,81,C1,01-A,B.C.Dfor
elementary grade
Spam
A2.B2.C2,D2.A.B.G.D for
middelfuior high
grade spans
A3,83,C3.D3.A.S.C.D for high
school grade spars
TC- Tax peyme et credit.the rot present
value of the average assessed value
in the district for unit type x current
school district capital property tax levy
rate.using a 10-year dismuntt period
and current interest rate(based on the
bond buyer twenty bord general
obipttlon bond hider
FC- Facilities credit-The per dweirgrrit
value of any ste or facilities provided
d
inactty by the development
THEN the unturided UN-All+ +C-
need. (01•D2-D3)-TC
AND to developer fee F-UN/2
obligation-
AND the net fee NF.F-F-C
obligation-
Notes:
of 6 1/14/2012 12:45 PM
Chapter 22.18 SCHOOL MACT FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DI... http://www.codepublishing.com/wafbellevwjhmtSellevLx22Mellew2,
1.Student factors are to be provided by the district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments constructed over a period of
not more than five years Prior to the date of the lee calculation;If Such irOrmatlon is not available In ft district.data from adjacent drslricts,cfS10cts with slmiler
rtemograpNcs,or countywide averages must be used.Studenl factors must be separately determined for single-family and muttiiamiy ding nits,and tot grade spurns.
2 The Boeekh Index-IS a 00r6irudi0n trade index of consm coon costs for various Inds of buUdlrgs:It is adjusted wv=ty.
3.The d&Aci is Uc PrUvicle ft own sfte and fac*Ws standards and projected costs to be reed hlthe formula.corsisferr vote the requirements of this chapter.
4.The fomxb can be applied by using the fobWnrg table!
TABLE FOR CALCULATING SCHOOL IMPACT FEE OBLIGATIONS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
(To be separately cal--dated for single-family
and muEfanvly rnht)
Al -EWrortary school s4e cost per
student x the sittderr factor
A2 -Mldd+e/M-dor fxgh school site
cost per student x saudert factor.
A3 .High school site cost per
student x Student facto r-
A .A1+A2+A3=
Bt -Elementary school construction
cost per sludert-the student
factor-
B2 .Mlddefjulbr high sdnol
construction cost Per Student
-the student factor.
B3 -Hlgh school construction cost
per student.the student facto r-
B =($1+62+133}■ '
Square footage of permanent facirdie�s
Total square footage of facilities.
Ct -Elemeftary school relocatabte
fadity cost per student x student
factor•
02 •Mlddleljtrior high school
roiocatable facility cost per
student x student factor
G3 =High school rabcalable faddy
cost per student x shudart factor.
C -(C1+02+03)-
Square footage of permanert facilities
tote!square footage of facillies.
Di .Boeckh Index x SPI square
footage per student for eierrxsrtary
school■state match%x student
factor-
42 .Boeckh Irmex-SPI square
footage pe r st udeft for mido W
junior high school x state
match%.student factor-
D3 -Boecd+Irxfex■SPlsquare
footage per student for high
5 of 6 1/1912012 12;45 PNJ
Chapter 22,18 SCHOOL PAPACT FEES FOR ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DI... http://www.codepublisHng.cordwa/bellevt&Ai il Rellevue22BellevueZ.
school> state match%
r student factor.
0 .D1+D2.03.
TC
((1 4110)-1■average assessed
I(1.i)10 value for the dwelling
unit type in the school
I
district F
x current school district capital property tax levy rate where t.the parent Interest rate as stated In the bond buyer twenty bo ncf general obligatlon bond Index
FC. Value of site or facilities
provided directly by the devebpmerr
number of dwe[np chits
in development
Total untLgxW need.A.B+C-D-TC=
A
♦ B
C
D
TC
Total urrl rn need UN=
dMded by 2=
.DEVELOPER FEE
OBLIGATION
LESS FC(f applicable)
NET FEE OBLIGATION
(Ord.4aZ§2,19%;Ord.4767§1,1995.)
22.18.100 SChoof Nhpaet fee schedule.
School Krpad fees are established as tobWs_
A.Impact fees per sirhgie-family dwelling alit:53.808
B.Impact fees per rrxatl}amily dwelling unit'$O-(Ord §1.2010;Ord.5926§1.2009;Ord.;3 $1.2008;Ord.SZ�H§1,2007;Ord.�§1,2006;Ord-64§1,
2005;Ord.3W§1,2004;Ord.=§1.2003;Ord. 41 @§1,2002;Ord.5342§1,2001;Ord.jM§1.2001;Ord. �§2.2000;Ord.�M§1,1899;Ord.4956§1,
1996;Ord.4801§2,1995;Ord.4/v7§1,1995.)
22.18.110 Review.
The fee schedule sat forth herein shall be reviewed and updated by the council on an annual basis after the council receives the district's plan and data The review may occur
in corpxxxion with the annual update of the capital facilities plan elemed of the city's comprehensive plan(Ord-.4W§2.1995;Ord-Eff§1,1995.)
Trhs vw�of the edev.n Cal CaM 1t Doan!thetyr Oriana ple,Mid Arent 3 201E Oh'W 6W1t*:trtM=//www.Wit..awe _
(helot—The City 6ark`6 Oita h.z the eNhdah VO.W.N the wile—OtT C-da•Ul zhotfd artad die Cry Vim/pdTeWp w. (425)452-6466 QWVz oma for ardaa+cas ynsed stOseWrrn to the wdiruna dt d Ae C.dc PJAW*D C-0ary(p*ffi—.dpdeput WW*V—W)
.UDnry{httV'1/nw..rpErpupKzhh4.a�NenEra7-Matt]
i of 6 1119/2012 l 2:45 PM
Chapter 19.95 SCHOOL II&ACTFEES http://www,codepubl isWng.cowrWA fFederalWayA=dfFederaiway19/Fc.
ChaPl&►19.25
5CROOL MPACT FEES!
Sections:
495.oio Firdingsarda"rhy.
1995.020 ✓Defin1wris.
19.95 GKiO Impact fee program elements.
19.95.04D Fee calculations.
19.95.050 Assessment of impact fees.
19.95.tasp Exemptions and credits.
19.95,0711 Appeals and Irdependenl calculations.
19.95.D80 The impact fee accourt–Uses of impact fees and refunds.
19.95.090 inarbcalagreement.
1995.1OD Submission of district capita]facilities plan and data
19,95,110 Review.
19.95.010 Findings and auth 4
Th$city Council of the city of Federal Way Sthe'councill hereby finds and determines that continuing growth and devebpnnenl in the city of Federal Way will create
additional demand and need for school faculties,and the council linds that the Washington state Growth Management Act requires that new growth and development shOW
M a proportional&share of the cost of new fadlties needed to serve the new growth and devebpmert.
Therefore,pursuant a Chapter 82.02 RCW,the council adopts this this b assess sctmf Impact fees.The previsions of this title shat be liberally construed in order to carry
out the purposes of tlo council in establshing the school k+pael lee program.
(Ord.No.95-249,§1,11-21.95.Code 2001§14-209.)
19.95.020 Deffritions.
The definitions in this section apply througrout this d%pter uriess the context chanty requires otherwise.To the extent they do not mrtfet wroth this section,the definitions In
RCW 82.02.090 are adopted and aWy throughout this chanter unless the cooled clearly requires otherwise Terms not defined here or in RCW 82.02.090 are defined
arxording to FWRC 1.05.Q24-
-Capital faculties plan'means life disaiers Capital factlt m plan adoped t7y the school board Consisting of:
(1)A forecast of future reeds for school fachi based on the district's erraltrwi pro)ediona;
(2)The long-range construction and Capital improvements projects of the dwfrgl;
(3)The schools under Construction or e>partion;
(4)The proposed I=tlorls and capacilles of expanded or new school faditles;
(5)At east a six-year ftnencing pan component,updated as necessary to maintain at least a elx-year forecast period,for financing needed school facilities will pro)oded
funding levels,and Identi0i ft sources of financing for such purposes,irrkidrng bond Msues authorized by the voters and pro)ected bond issues not yet authorized by the
voters;
(6)Any offer bng-range prOpM planned by the dishlef;and
(7)A fee schedule indicating the standard Impact fee am0urt Per dweli unit type.
"Classrooms"me&rs educational facilities of the district required to house students for its basic educatlonal Program.Specleized facilities as identilled by the district,
Including but not Smiled to gymnasiums,cafeterias.Wrades,adminlstrW6ve offences,and child care centers,are not classrooms.
,Corstru000n cost per student'means the estimated cost of mnsirwion of a permanent school facility in the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as a
function of the district's design standard per graW spanand taildrg Into account the regiirenenbit of students with specieu reeds.
'Design standard'means the space required,by grade span and Wong Into account the requi rerneni s of s%denta with special reeds,which is needed In order to i t"the
educational goals of the district as klerttfied in the ckli 'scapillaffackespan,
'Developer"means the person or erifty who owns or holds purchase options of other development Control over Property for vA In development activity is proposed
"Development activity Teens any resudem4f consl,ucbon cr exparsfon of a buiding,struclire or use,arty change in use of a bulidrg or structure,or arty change In the use
of,and that creates additional dernard for school facitues.
"District"means the Federal way School District No.210,King County,Washington.
,Eidemy means a person aged 62 or older.
-Enounbered"means to reserve,set aside,or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments.contractual obligations,or other ial i Incurred for
Public facues.
`Fee schedule'means the schedule set forth in the cWhol's Capital facilities Ptan adopted by reference by the c'ay ird;cating the standard tee amount per dweAirg rift that
$half be paid as a cordtion of residential devebpmertt within the city.
'Grade span'meats the categories Into which a Astrid groups its grade of students,i.e.,Memertary school,mkidle,or junior No school,and high school,
irtnbcal egreernerr means the interboal agreement by and between ft city and the district as acuUrorized in FWRC 19.96, 9�0.
'Pemaanert faciliies'means the facilities of the district with a raced fou elation whicri are not relocatable facati".
R&bc=bW fadWy,means any tactory-bit stnucare,trareportebte in one Of more sections,&W Is designed to be used as an education space and is needed to prevent
the overbutdng of schOOi i8d%es,a meet the reads of service areas within the dWrid,or to cover th>e gap between the time that families move into now residertked
developrnfents and the date that consti olon is cornplded on permanert school facilities.
"RebcataNe fact ies cost par studenr'means the estimated cost of purchasing and siting a rebcatable facility In the district for the grade span of school to be Provided,as
a function of the rkslrict's design standard per grade span and taWng into account the requirements of students with special needs.
Site cost per student"means the estimated cost of a she in the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as a function of the districts design standard per grade
span and Laic rig into account the m4kemarts of students with spacial reeds.
Standard of 9ervica'means the standard adopted by the district whichidenhfies the program year,the class size by grade span and tatong into amount the m1ulremerls of
students with spec of deeds.the amber of classrooms,the types of facitles the dshiCf believes will best serve his student population,and other factors as identified by the
district.The district's standard of seNiC8 shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms housed In rebcatable facilities which are used as transitional faculties or for
any specmafized facilities housed in rebratable facilities.Except as otherwise defined by the schoor board Pursuant to a board resolution.'transhlonal facill shall mean
those facilities that are used to Dover the lime required for the oonsIn ction of permanent faculties Celled for In the capital laciilies plan,where the district has the necessary
ffnarciai commtrnerts in place to complete the pemenert facilities.
-Student factor,meens the number derived oy the district:fo describe how many students of each grade span are etpected a be generated by a dioeWrg unit.student
factors shat be based on distrld records of average actua:student genera>ion rates for new developments co slncted over a period of not more than five years prior to the
date of the tee calculation,uiess such Wo-a ion is not available in the district,in Which case data from ad)acert&Wells,districts with similar demographics,or couty-wide
averages may be used.Student factors must be separately determined ier single-family and multifamily dweling nits,and for grade yearns.
(Cod.No.09.600,§16,1-6-09;Ord.No.95-249.§1,11-21-95.Code 2001§14-211)
19.95.030 Mriptce hie Program eWn*nt&
(1)Impact fees will be assessed on au residential development acgvity in the city based on the provisions of FWRC 19.95.050,
(2)The impact fee imposed shat be reasonably related fo ft Impact caused by the development and shell not exceed a proportionate stare of the cord of system
Improyemrerts that are reasonably related a the dsvelopmedf-
(3)The Impact lee shelf be based on a capital facilities plan developed by ft district and approved by the school board,and adopted by reference by the city as part of the
capital facilities efement of the city's comprehensive plan
(Ord.No.95.249.§1,11-21-95.Code 2001§14.211.)
19.95.D40 Fee csIcL*Tlons.
(1)The impact fees for the diisMid stall be Calculated based on the formula 6&t forth in Exhibit A aaachled to the ordinance codified in Luis rbalow.A copy of the fee
cake ialfon formula shall be kept on file withthis ordnarca in the office 01 ft Federal Way sty clerk Such formula slat lake into accourt ft following:The capital facilities
reeds of the&strict as identified In the capital facilities plan,1118 dlstrki s sludart generation rates for single-fam ly and mWi}amlly dwelling units,the school sfte and school
construction costs per student per grade favaf,the district's standard of service,and the relocalable facilities cost per student per grade level.
(2)separate fees shall be calcurated for single-family and multhamiy dwelling unfits,and separate stud"generation rates must be determined by the dlshict for each type
of 3 1/19/2012 12:47 PM
Chapter 19.95 SCHOOL R"ACr FEES htt p://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Federa)Way/bmiVFederalWayI9/Fe.
of dwelling unit For purposes of this chapter,manuactured homes shat be treated as singlo4amily dweNg trills and dupexes shall be treated as mutifamily dwwarg nits
(3)The fee calD fions shalt be made on a district wide basis to assure maximum utilization of all school facli ties in the district current*usecf to r instructional purposes.
Impact fees shag be calculated annually,and set forth in a fee schedule adopted by city council pursuant to FWRC 19.95.10(1 and 19.85.110
(4)The formula In Exhibit A provides a credit for the ardicipated tax contributions that mould be made by the development based on historical levels of voter support for
be rd issue in ft district,which Nstorlcal levels shall be determined by the distrtct
(5)The tormula also provides for a credit for school$pas Or fadlities actually provided by a developer which the district finds to be acceptable as provided for in FWRC
19.95.060.
(Ord.No.97-293,§1,4-1&97;Ord.No.95-249.§1,11.21-95.Code 2001§14-212.)
19.96.060 Assesserm of I psct fees.
(1)The W shelf collect school impact fees.based on the tee schedule adopted by city couick from any apps i seeldrg development approval from the c'ay where such
development activity,requires the Issuance of a resider"building permit or a manufactured home pemit
(2)The impact lees due on a plat or a PUD shelf be assessed and collected fro m the lot ownar at the time when this buiding permits ton each dwelling untt is issued.using
the fee schedule than In effect.Residential developments proposed for short plats shaft not be governed by this subsectiort but shag be governed by subsection(3)of this
section.
(3)For existing lots or lots not covered by subsection(2)of this section,applications for single-family and multifamily residential building permits,manufactured home
permits.and site plan approval for manufactured home parks proposed,the total amount of the Impact fees shall be assessed and collected fro m the applicant when the
building permit Is issued.using the fee schedule then in effect.Irrespective of the date that the application tot a building permit or manufactured home permit was submitted,no
permit shall be issued utll the required school Impact fees set forth In the fee schedule have been paid.
(4)The city shag not issue the required building permit or manufactured home permll unless and uti the impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have been pad.
(Ord.No.97-293,§2,4.1597;Ord.No.95-249,§1,11-21.95.Code 2001§14.213.)
19.95.060 Eaemptiorrc and credits.
(1)The following shall be exempt from the appfCabon of impact fees:
(a)Any form of housing exclusively for the alrfery.inckdmg nursing ho mes and retirement ceders,so bug as these uses are maktalned in perpetuity and the
necessary covenants or declarations of restrictions are recorded on the property to ensure that no children will reside In the development:or
(b)The replacement of a structure with a new stnucttre of sulbstantiaiy the same size and use at the same silo or bi when such replacement occurs within 12 months of
the demolition or destruction of the prior strtacture:or
(c)Alterations or expansion or enlargement or remodeling Or rehabilitation or conversion of anexisting dwelling unit where no additional units are created and the use Is
not charged;
(d)Accessory dwelling units("ADUsl.whether ocauplad as an ADU or not;provided.that as of December 21,19%.such ADU satisfied the definitlon of an ADU set
forth in lFWRC 19.05.010:and provided further.that such ADU registered with the city during the ore-year period commending on Decerber 21 1995,and lerminatlrg on
December 20,1998.
(2)Arrangement may be made for later payment with the approval of the district arty i the defrict determines that 4 will be unable to use c veil not reed the payment until a
hater time:provided.that Su fiGBnt Searlty,as defied by pre district in ills sole reasonable discretion,is provided to assure payment.Socurdy shat be made to and led by the
district,which will be responsible for tradang and documenting the security interest.
(3)The developer shall receive a eredk for any payment which has already been made for the lot or development actMty In question,either as a condition of development
approval or pursuant to the terms of a voluntary mitigation agreement.The fee amour due on the development achy shall be reduced by the amour of the credit.
(4)The developer can request that a credit or cWfts be awarded lot the value of dedicated lard,inproverneAS,or constriction provided by the developer.The district shill
first determine the general suitaNity of the land,improvements,andlor construction for district purposes.Second,The district shall determine whether the land,improvements,
and/or the facility constructed are Included within the district's adopted capital faclities plan or the board of directors for the district may make the firdirg that such lard.
Irnproveman s,and/or fadOties would serve the goals and objectives of the capital facilities plan of the district.The district shall forward Its determination to the city,Includirg
cases where the district determines that the dedicated land.Improvements,and/or construction are not suitable for district purposes.
(5)For each request for a credit or credits,if appropriate,the district shall select an appraiser from a list of wK eperdert appraisers.The appraiser shag be directed to
determine the value of the dedicated lazed,improvements,or construction provided W the developer for the district.The developer shag pay for the cost of the appraisal.
(6)After receiving the apprai set,the district shat provide the developer with a*Met or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit,the reason for the credit.where
appioabie,the legal descripton of the site donated,and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the crack!may be applied.
The applicant must sign anti date such letter or eartihcate indicating his/her agreement to the temps of the carter or certificate,and return such signed document to the district
belore U1e cry will award the impact fee cradt Tha tours of the appiwrt to signs,date.and return such document wtttin60 calendar days shat nullify the aedi.
(7)Any deist for credo must be made no Inter than 20 calender days after the submission of an application for a bricking permit
(e)In no event shelf the credit exceed the amount of the Impact fees due.
(Ord.No-9G265,§1,4-2-96;Ord.No.95-249,§1,11-21-95.Code 2001§14-214.)
19.95470 Appeals and Independent:cabulatkxa.
(1)The city may adjust the amount of the school impact fee assessed 0 one of the foliowing circumstances exist;provbded,that the developer can demonstrate to the city's
satisfaction that the Miscount included in the fee formula set forth In the district's capital facilities plan fails to adjust for the error in the calculation or fails to ameliorate for the
utairress Of the fee.
(a)The developer demonstrates to the city's satisfaction light an impact fee assessment was Incorrectly cebukead;or
(b)Unusual and utque circumstances bdertited by the developer demonstrate that it the standard Impact fee amount were applied to the development,it would be
u lair.urnsst or unlawful.
(2)Requests for fee ed}stments,and the administrative appeals process lot the appeal of an Impact fee,steal follow the process for the appeal of the underlying
development application.
(3)A developer may provide studies and data to dermonstrale that any pwbcu W factor used by the district may not be appropriately applied to the cle-vafopment proposal,
but the district's data shat be presumed vaid unless clearly demonstrated to be otherwise by the developer.The developer shah pay for the cost of the stud es and data,and
must demonstrate to the city's satisfaction that the discount Included in the fee formula set forth in the district's capital facilities plan fads to adjust for fie error in the lactor or in
the fee caculation,
(4)Any appeal of the decision of the city's hearing examiner with regard to tee amounts shall follow the appeals process for the underlying development application and not
be subject to a separate appeal process.Any errors in the fee fotmtxla identified as a result of an appeal Should be referred to the counci for possible modlflcabon-
(5)Impact fees may be paid under protest in o rder to obtain a permit or other development approval.
(Ord.No.95-249,11,11-21-96 Code W01§14.215.)
19.6.080 The itrepaot fact Occcg 4—Uoes of imps t lees std fWwlds
(1)Impact fee receipts shag be earmarked specifically and retained in a special interest-bearing account established by the dnsirict sob*for the clLstricrs school"Pao fees
as provided for In FWRC 19.95.090.AN interest shall be retained In the account and expended for the purpose or purposes identified In subsection(2)of this section Annually.
the city.based o n the report submilled by the district pursuart to FW RC 1�.95.700.will forward a copy of the district's report to the state of Washington Growth Management
Sector,pursuant to RCW 82-02.070 which shows the source and amount of all monies collected,earned or received,and capital or system Improvemeres that were 8rienced
in Whole or in part by impact fees.
(2)Impact fees for the district's system improvements shall be expended by the district for capital Improvements including but not limited to school planning,land aequilsitiort
site improvements,necessary off-site Improvements,construction,engineering,architectural,permitting,linwrlrg,and administrative expenses,ralocatabe facilities,capital
equipment pertaining to educatloml facilities.and any other eMerees which could be capitalized,and which are consistent with the district's capital facilities pier
(3)M the event that bonds or sin*V debt irstrumerts are Issued for the advanced provision of capital facilities for which Impact tees may be expended and where
eonatatant with the provisions of the bond covenants,impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or slmilar debt instnments to Oil extent that the facilities or
improvements provided are consislert with the requirements of this section
(4)sceoh krped tees shell be expended or encumbered within six years of receipt mass the council ldersifiPs in wrrglen findings extraordinary and compeing reason or
reasons for the district to hold the fees beyond the six-year period.The district may peMtbn the coufci for an extension of the sot-year period and the district set forth any
such extraordinary or compelling reason or reasons in Rs petition.Where the council hdertif ies the reason or reasons N wrttten findings.the councii shat establish the period of
time within which the lrrpact fees shall be expended or encumbered,after consultation with the district.
(5)The current owner of property on which an Impact tee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees if the impact fees have not been expanded or enuarnbered within
six years of receipt of the funds by the city,except as provided for In subsection(4)Of this section.In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered.impact fees
shag be oorsidered encumbered on a first In,first out basis.The city shall notify potential claimants by first-class mall deposited with the United States postal service
addressed to the owner of the property as shown in the city's lax records.
(6)An owner's request for a refund must be submitted to the coup it In writing within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the dale that notice IS given.
of 3 1/]9/2012 12:47 PM.
Chapter 19.95 SCHOOL IMPACT FEES http://www.codepublishing.com/WA fFederalWaylhmUFe&ralWayl9/Fe.,
y,Aichavar date is later.Any impect fees-mt are not a pended orencumbered within the fimAadons b subsection(4)of this section,and for which no applaaw for a refund
has been made within this are-year period,shay be retaked and expended consistent with the PluY fors of this section.Relurds of Impact fees Shall inrdude any Interest
earned on the Impact fees.
M Shout the City seek to lermirale any or all aloof impact fee regtiromer't .9 unexpended Or unencumbered bids,lrxc ng interest aamad,shat be refunded 10 the
currert owner Of the property torvfth a school Impact lee was paid.Upon fie finding that any Or at fee requirements a's t0 be terminated,the city shall place notice of such
lermination and the"aptly 01 refuxds in a newspaper of general dreJaf on at least two times and steal notify all pofertlol ctaima,ts by first-class mall addressed to the
owner of the property as shown In the ci ys tax records.All fads avaflabie for refL-d shall be retained for a period of one year.At the end of one year,any rernairdv funds
shat be retained by the city,W must be mosin lied for the district.consistent with the proviso ns of this sedbn The notice rewiremerif sell forth above shell not apply H there
are no trtaxpended or uraricunbemd balances YoWn the socc nt a r socourtli befnp Wrminated.
(8)A developer may request and shall receive a refund.Inducting inlerert earned on the Impact tees,wA1ea
(a)The developer does not proceed to finiaize ft development ac"as required by statute or C4 code or the Uniform BoVing Code;and
(b)No impact 00 the district has resulted,-Impact sW be deemed to include cases where the distrld has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior
to the application for a refund,In the event that the district has expended or encumbered the fees In good faith,no refund shall be forthcoming.However,II with a period of
three yaare,the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or subslamialy similar development activity,the owner shall be eligible for a credit.The
owrer must patillon the city and provide receipts of Impact fees paid by the ownef for a development of the Sam*or substarlAlly similar refire o n the same property orsome
portion thereof.The city she]determine whether to grant a credit,and such delamineirions may be appealed by fOliowirng the prOcedtret set forth In FW RC 19.45 07D.
(9)Interest due upon the refund Of krpect fees required by cif section shall be calculated according to de average rate received by the ally or the dWVict on invested firth
ftt%#vL*tie period drhng which ft fees were retained,
(Ord.No.65.249,§1,11.21.95.Code 2001§14-216.)
19.95,090 irflerlocal agreement
(1)The mayor is authorized to execute,on behalf of the city,an Irtarbcal agreement for the coled'on,expenditure,and reporting of school impact fees;provided that stich
interlocal agreemert complies with the provisions of this section,be in form and portent acceptable to ft cry attorney and be approved by the city cou¢N.
(2)The district shall establish a school impact fee account with the office Of the K g County treasurer,who serves as the treasurer for ft district.The aCCQuft slel be an
i ten?st-bearing account,and the schoot knead fees received stall be prudently Vied in a rrenner consistent with ft Investment policies of the msut i.
(3)For administrative convenience while processing the lee payments,school impact fees may be tempo redly deposited In a city a0court.On a monthly basis,the city sha]
deposit the school impact lees collected for the distnot in the dlstrid's school impact lee account.
(4)The district shell agree to irdemNfy and hole the city,its elected officlals,officers,employees agents,and vokriaers harmless from any and all claims,demands,
losses,acd ores and NOWes(including costs and all att ivy fees)to or by any and al parsons or entities,Incariing,witnoul imitation,their respective agents,licensees,or
representatives,arismp from,rwang from,or connected with the collection of impact fees or any other actions taken by fie cdy pursumt to the terms Of rive on**nce
codfled in pis afapter or ptrauart to the terns Of the 11r1 al agreement
(Ord.No.10.669,§70,&21.10;Ord.No.95-249,§1,11-21.95.Code 2001§14-217,)
19.95.1 00 Submissbn of diatricl capital facilities plan and date.
On an annual basis,no later than May 1 st of each year,the dirtrid shag submit the lolowing materials to the city:
(1)The annual update of the district's capital facilities PW;
(2)An updated fee calct ton,and a proposed revised fee schedule Y*kh reflect the update to the rislWs Capital facilities plan;and
(3)An annual report on the sd=i Inped fee account,slowing the source end amount of al monies collected,earned,or received,and the public ImproverrefYS that were
firnanoed in whole or in part by wnpact fees.
(Ord_No.97.293,§3,4-15-97;Ord No.95-249,§1,11.21.95.Code 2001§14-21 B.)
19.95.110 Review.
The city ootrhdl she]review an an anruaf basis the materials received from the district and required under FVVRC 19.95.100.The city council may make a*tsimems to the
fee schedule as nacesskated by Its review,or applicable law aril B the city couxra deems appropriate,steal adopt the fee schedule by resole tion The review and fee 8chedi de
adopted decision may Oocur In corpicdon with the a-40 update of the cagift facilties plan elernert of the Ws compreinemive plan.
(Ord.No.97-293,§4,4-15-97;Ord.No.95-249,§1,11.21-95.Code 2001§14.219.)
2Cross reference:Taxation.FWRC Tllle Division I,
TIt4 W w N tv■a■�er■1 W■�R■wia■e eeJ■as ernwe err�w/b orwr■vw is-710.f■■■■d Damaraer 4 amL Sty wsbsa■:nt[p://dtwetrsderalray.aam ChttP4jdtlort+xtavrrrw.wm)The all s Oamir fcw fw wwcu pair WdwC�s■W■d too tfwoaM nwic*dt@d■wee-"e rid..wvs shwula cant.a cry rdepw,e:tm)935-2540
[na puEtislunq Comp+rry(►tW://www�o0pxbiislWS-mnV)
■uCrarr(ht+P'/lw�rw-mdepuep�rwni?-mn+/w hraey.nfnv)
of 3 1/1912012 12:47 PM
Chapter I2.13 SCHOOL EAPACFFEES http://www.codepublisiling-conVWA/Kent/htnVKent]2[Kent1213.htrnl#I2.1
Chapter 1213
SCHOOL WpACT FEES
Sections:
12.1101 Findings and authority.
1213,Q2Q Definitions.
1213.030 Impact fee—Applicability.
1213,04 Exemptions.
113 050 Interbcal agreement between the city and district.
12,13, Submission of district capital facilities Plan anti data.
I&I Annual council reYlM
12.11 0$9 Impact fee program elamems.
12.13.096 Fee calcu al
12131100 Assessment of Impact fees.
12,13.11 CoNectiOn of Impact tees.
12-13-1 20 Determination of the fee,&*stmevU.exceptions and appeals.
12,13.1 Impart fee accounts;and refunds
12,13.140 Formula for determining school Impact leas.
12,1 3.1 Repealed.
12.11-1 Base fee schedule.
1213.010 fiditps and wthorge
The city council of the city of Kent hereby finds and determines thad confining growth and development in the city of Kerr will create add t nal demand and need for sdwi
facilities,and the council firds that the Washington State Growth Management Act requires that new growth and development shouid pay a proportionate share of the cost
of now facilities needed to serve the new growth and development.
Therefore,Pusuart to Chapter rte nZ RCW,the co ndf adopts this chapter to assess 30ml Impact fees.The provislors of this title shat be fibmaly constnied in order to
carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the school impact fee program
(Ord.No.3260,§1,12.1395)
12.13=Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter,the following terms shell have the irndi�cated meanings-
Cjpachy maans the amber of students the diWcrs facAks can accommodate district-wide.Lased on ft district's standard of service,as determined by the district.
Capita;lactkies plan means the eltstrict's facilities Plan adopted by the school board consisting of:
1 A forecast of ftlue needs for school facilities based on i e dtstrid's enrelimen i projections:
2 An identification of addttfonel demands Pieced o n e)6&brg pubic taclities try rew deveopTwe;
3 The long-range construction and capital Improvement projects of the district;
4.The schools under construction or experebn:
5.The Proposed bcatiom and capacities of expanded or new school facilities;
6.An inventory of existing school faifties,Including permanent,transitional and rebcatable facilities;
7.At least a SIX(6)year financing component.updated as naDessary to maintain at least a six(6)year forecast period,for financing needed for school facilities within
projected frxnding levels,and idertifyfrg sources of financing for such purposes,including bond issues alhodzed by the VW WS;
S.An Identification of deficiencies in school facilities senvirg the s x*v POPtlatiorts and the means by which exi$ft deficencies MN be eliminated within a reasonable
period of time;and
S.Any other long-range projects plamed by the district.
City means the city of Keft_
Ciessrown means educational facilities of the district required to house students for its basic educational Program.The classrooms are those fttc111ties the district r
determines am necessary to but serve Its student population.Speclalized facilities as identified by the district,including but not Umfted to gymnasiums,cafeterias,Ql raries, I
administrative offices,and child care centers.Shell not be courted as classrooms.
Carsm sbn cost persnxkw r means the cost of consmclion of a Penranerrt school fadity in the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as a function of the
distnors design standard per grade span
vesign standard means the space required,by grade span and laldrg into account the requirements of students with speclef needs,which Is needed In order to fulfill the
edncaWnaj goals of the distnal as idnlntifled in the dstrict's capital facilities plan
Developsrrneans the person or entity who owns or holds purchase OPWrhs or other deveopmert comrol over property for wNch devebpnterlt activity is proposed.
Devaloprnerd activity means any residential oorstruction or expansion of a boding,structure or use,any charge in use of 8 bxrdcing or Structme.or arty change in the use of
{and that creates additional demard for School facilities.
Disvfct means any school district whose boundaries Include,in whole or in part,areas of the city of Kerd
Efdeo means a Person aged sbny-two 162)or older.
Encumbered maens Impact fees iderVied by the district as being committed as part of the funding for a school facility for whiohthe publicly faded share has been assured
or building permits sought or construction cortracts let
Grade Vann means tie rmiegones into which the district groins Its grade of students:i.e..alerhnerhtary.middle fir)tnfor high school,and high school
impact fee means a payment of money Imposed upon de vODprnent as a Condit"of development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new growth and
development,that is reasonably totalled to the new development that creates additional demand and need for Pubic facilities,that Is A prOPoitbrtate share of the cost of the
Pubic facilities.and that is used for facilities that reasonably banefft the now devebpment.'Impact fee'does not inckde a reasonable permit or appioation fee
of 6 1/19/2012 1:05 PM
Chapter 12.13 SCHOOL WACT FEES http://www.codepublishing.conYWA/KenYhunVKentl2/Kem1213.hud#12.1:
fmrpad tae sc*dufe means the table of impact fees to be charged per unit of development,Computed by the formula adopted under this chapter,indicating the=ward fee
amount per diAvai g unh that shag be paid as a condition of residential devebomerd wittdn the o ty.
Intertocai agreem&v means the agreement between the dstrlct aril the city,governing the operation of the school Impact fee program and describing the relationship,
duties aril tabilltlas of the parties.
Permanent facisa'es means facilities of the district with a fixed foundation which are not rebcatable Iaciilities.
Ralocafable%aiti"means any factory-Wit structure,transportable in ore(1)of more sections that is designed lobe Lead as an education space and is needed to
prevent the overbuilding of school faciliges,to meet the needs of service areas within the dsubc orlo cover rite gap between the time the fam&m move irso new residengal
developments and the date that construction is completed onperrnared school fadfilies.
Aebcatabie feciltdas cost per Mud"moans the estimated cost of puctssing and siting a robcatabie facility in the district for the grade spen of school to be provided,as a
function of the district's design standard per grade apart.
Site cost perstudent means the estimated cost of a site in the district for the grade span of school to be provided,as a hmdon of the ids hors design standard per grade
span.
Standard of service means the standard adopted by the district wricln WoMies the program year,fits class size by grade span and iakrg Into accoul the requirements of
students vv:1h spedal reeds,the number of ciasaooms,the types of fWltles the district beWOS Will best serve 04&Ldent POPUteflon,Ord other factors as identified by the
district.The dktricrs Stardand of service shall rot be adjusted for any por50n of the classrooms horned In relocaabie facllties which are used as ttarsbtiorw facna Or any
other specific fOkies housed In rebcatabte facilities.
Snudert factor means the runnier derived by the district to describe how many students of each grade span are expected to be generated by a dueling unit.Studerl factors
shall be based on district reaxds of average annual skiderd generated rates for new developments corstrudad over a period of not more than five(5)years prior to the
date of the fee wbiiation;provided that,it such information is rot available in the disE101,data from adjacent dWrids,or districts with similar demographics or courty wide
averages may be used,Student factors must be updated on an annual basis.and separately determined for sIngle•lamily and multifamily dwelling Lots and for grade spars,
TranslfbnW tacff1#as means those school facilities that are being used pending the construction of pemeren t faciWbes;provided;That Ge necessary financial commitments
ere in place to construct the permanent ladttiea.
(Ord.No.3280,§1,12-19-95)
12.13.030 Impact fee—Aptakabillily
Impact lees,based on the Impact fee schedule adopted by the city colricil,using the district's capital hedges plait shag be applied so al forms of development ac&*y
regtlnng city review and approval whose such requires the issuance of a residential tiillirg permit The impact fees shag be assessed for each dwelling unit,incsudng
manufactured homes,at the time of pafmil apptiraticR and shall be coiec"d whan the permit is issued as provided for in this.chapter
(Ord.No.3260,§1,12.19,95)
12.13,040 Exemptbns.
A.The foaowing development activities are exempt from the requirements of this chapter:
1.Low-income housing as fobwsr
a.Low YOone housing projads that are constructed by pubic housing ageroies or private nonprofit tossing developments.
b.Low-income residentiab sits,rented or purchased,that one dedicated and corn RxW by private developers.
2.Sheller;or dwelling arils for temporary plaoement.which provide housing to persons on a temporary basis for not more than two(2)weeks.
3.Corslnuction or remodeling of transitional lousing facilities or dwelling units that provide housing to persons on a temporary basis for not more than twertyfour(24)
months,in comectio n with job training,self-suit icienscy training and human services counseling,the purpose of wHch is to help persons make the transhion from
homelessness to placement In permanent housing.
4.Any form of housing for the alderiy,incrrdng nursing homes,retinsimnt centers,and any type of housing units for persons age fifty-five(55)and over,which have
recorded covenants or recorded declaration of restrictors preckdrg sctnol-aped children as residents to those utta.
5.Rebuilding of legally esmbished dwelling utt(s)destroyed or damaged by fire,flood,explosions,act of God or other accident or catastrophe,or remodeling of
exisitng 199W established dwelling unit(;),provided that such rebuilding takes place within a period of one(1)year otter des mKtor>and so long as no adelftlonal
drueling u11ts are created.
6.Condomirium projects in which existing awaiting utts are converted Into condomfnium ownership and where no new dwelling units are created.
7.Any development activity that is exempt from the payment of an impact fee pursuant to ROW 82,02,1 ,due to m1119atlon of the same system bmprovernent under
the State Environmental Polity Act.
6.Any development activity for which school Impacts have been mitigated purslmd to a condition of pint or PUD approval to pay fees,dedicate lard or construct or
Improve school faMbes.mess the condition of the pal or PUD approval provides otherwise:provided that the oondition of the plat or PUD approval predates the
effective data of fee Imposition
S.Any development activity for which sctrool kr pa cft have been ntggated pursuant to a vokrrtary agreement entered into Wth the dWo to pay fees,dedicate lend or
construct or improve school facilities.uniees the lends of Oe voluntary agreement provide otherwise provided that the aWeernerf predates the effective date at fee
lawshion
B,For purposes of the section,a lox-income housing project unit or a low-Income residential rental unit Is one that has a maximum rent and a maximurn income level for
terents equal to or less than fifty(50)percent of the countywide median household income,adjusted for household size.A low-Income resldendal purchased unit Is one that
has a sales price of one haaidreci thirty thousand dollars($130,000)or less for sirgie-family horses,and ninety-five thousand dollars($95,000)or less for nnultilemily units.
These maximum sale prices shell be adjusted by the Seattle CPt-U consumer pion index each year,vAth 1992 being the base year.The purchaser's family income cannot
exceed efghty(80)percent of the countywide median houselgW Income,adjusted for household size.
C,Whena lo, -Icore purchased ail has received a building pemrl,the director of the linance department shall record a notice of the exemption and ge income
quaFf cation requirements for suchuwt with the King County author.
D.When a bw-income purchased aft is sold or rented to a person who does riot qualify as a lour-income purchaser or tenant,an amount equal to the Impact fee on the data
of the sate or rental shall be paid by the seller or the property owner to the Gty.
E.The director of the planning department shalt review requests 10 r exemptions from Impact fees under subsection(A)of this section pursuant to criteria and procedures
adopted by administrative rule,and shag advise the developernt wining of the granted or denial of the request.in addition,the director shag notify the school district of all
of 6 IM 912012 1:05 PM
Chapter 12.I3 SCHOOL M PACTFEES http://www.codepublisMng.CO rnrWA/Ken0itrn1[Kent12J]Kent1213.htnil#12.1
applications for exemption when they are received and shag notify the school district when such requests are granted or dined.
F.Inpad fees for low-Income housing and other doveiopmeng activities wth broad public purposes pursuant to RC W fi2.Q2.()fi4(2)shunt be paid from public turds.The
Impact fees for these units shall be considered paid for by the school district through its other fuming sources.without the distnet Wualy transferring furrle from its other
funding sources moo the impeq fee exourt.
(Ord.No.3260.§1,12-10.85)
12.13.050Interlocaf agreement between the city and district.
As a condition of the city's authorization end adoption of a school impact fee ord1nance,the city and district shell enter into an lnterocat agreement governing the operation
of the school impact fee program,and describing the relaborrship and Fabiities of the parties thereunder
(old No 3280-§1.12-19-%)
i2-13.060 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data.
A.On an annual basis.the district shall submit the following materials to the city council;
I.The district's capital facilities plan(a$defined in KCC 12.13 Q1 herein)and adopted by the school board-.
2.The dtsinct's enrolment;projections over the next six(6;years.its current enrollment and the district's eroll rient projections and actual emoltman from the previous
year:
3.The distries standard of service:
4.The district's overall capacity over the next six(6)years which shall take Into account the available capacity from school facilities planned by the district but not yet
bugs and be a function of the district's standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed I n district facilities:
5.An ir.rentory of the district's exisft facilities
e.To the extent that the districts standard of service Identifies a deficlercy in its existing facilities.the district's capital facilities plan must Identify the sources of funding
other than impact tees,for building or aoeufrin if the necessary faciities to serve the existing student population In order to eliminate the detkierrJea within a reasoriabie
period of time.
C.Facwties to meet future demand shah be designed to meet the adopted standard of service.If sufficient fading Is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital
facilities plan*Mich meets the adopted standard of service.the dWrict's capital f aciifies plan should docurmant the reason for the finding W.and Identify alt sources of
furhdkhg tttd the district plans to use 10 meet the adopted standard of sery ice.
D.The dnstrkX shag also submt an annai report to the dry codicil Show ng the capital improvements W*h were serviced In whole or in pmt by the impact fees-
E.In its development of the financing plan componert of the capital facilities pion,the district shad plan on a six(6)year n i2on and shah demonstrate its best efforts by
taking the folovring steps:
1.Establish a six(6)year financing plan,and propose the necessary bond Issues and levies required by and consistent with that plan and as-sporoved by the school
board corsistert with RCW 2M 53 020 84.5ZO52 and 84-52,056 as amended:and
2.Apply to the state for ftnding,and campy with the stria regeiremenls for eligibility to the best of the district's ability.
(Ord.No.3260.§1,12-1995)
12.13.070 Annual counci review.
On at feast an annual basis,the cay council shah review the Information submitted by the district pursuant to KCC] 12,J&a)herein.The review shpt occur in cortj inodon
with any update of the capital f acinies plan element of the city's comprehensive plan.
(Ord.No-3260.§1,12-1995)
12.13.080 impact fee program eiements-
A Impact fees will be assessed on every now dwelling unit In t he district for which a fee schedule has been established.
P Impact lees will be imposed on a district by district basis,on behalf of any school district which provides to the city.a capital facilities plan,the district's standards of
service for the various grade spani estimates of the Cass of providing needed f acilli and other Capital Improvements,and I he data from the dsirtd called for by Ora
famnuia in KCC 12.13.140.Any Impact fee imposed shat be reasorx"related to the impact Caused by the development,and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the
cost of syslxn kmpnovements that are reasonably related to the development The impact fee f ormiia shat accout in the fee calculation for future revs"trio district we
receive from the development.The ardmrine adopbrtg the fee schedule shall specify under what circumstances the fee may be adjusted in the interests of fairness.
C.The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilities plan developed by the district and approved by the school board,and adopted by reference by the city as part of
the capital fadhties element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of estatikheg the foe program.
(Ofd.No-3260,§t,12-19.95)
12.13.090 Fee calantaborts-
A.The fee shelf be calculated based on the fomrmte set our in KCC 12.13.140.
0.Separate fees shall be calculated for single-family and multifamily types of dwelling nits,and separate student generation rates must be determined by the district for
each type of dwelling unit.For the purpose of this chapter,mobile homes shah be treated as single-family dwellings aid dtnpiexas shall be treated as multifamily,dwellings,
C.The fee shag be calaieted on a district-wide basis using the appropriate factors and data to be supplied by the dstriri,as indicated in KCC 12,13,140.The fee
cak:t ions small also be made on a dishict-wide basis to assure mtaxiinm utilization of all school fac+litm in the dtslricl Used Ccrmnpy or wthin Uhe fast two(2)years tot
trismictional purposes
D.The formula in KCC 12.13.140 provides a credit for the artiapated tax contributions that would be made by the developments based on historical levels of voter support
for bond issues In the district.
E.The formula also provides ion a credit for school facilities or sites acliuwy provided by a developer which the district finds acceptable.
F.The city may also impose an application tee to cover the reascrable cosu of administration of the Impact fee program,
(Ord.No.3260,§1,12-1395)
12.13.100 Assessment of Impact fees.
At the time of appgcadon for a residential binding permit with the city,including an application for a manUactured home.the school impact fee shelf be assessed based an
ft impact fee schedule then In affect using the capital facilities plan of the district adopted by the city council as pat of the city's cor prettaustve plaA Tie impact fee and
of 6 1/19/2012 1:05 PM
Chapter 12.13 SCHOOL EVPACTFEES h ttp://www.codepublishirIg-corWWAt KenUhtffUKent12/Kent1213.htll2.1=
the application fea shall be collected by the city,and maintained in separate accounts.Al schoci impact fees shall be paid to the district from the school impact fee accourt
monthly.The city shelf retain all application fees associated with the city's administration of the impact fee program
(Ord No.3260,§1.12-19-45)
mo.110 Comectfon of lnnpact feet.
A For residendai developments located in school districts where impact fees have been adopted by city ordnance,the city shall colim irrpact fees based upon"
schedule set forth in KCC 12.13.1ea.and stall be collected by the city from any appfcart where sucti devebpmerif ad"requlms issuance of a residential building pem it
or a manutacaxred home permit.
B.For application for slntpie-family aid muhtfamity residealal building permits and manufactured home permits,the total amount of the impact tees shall be collected from
the applicant when the building permit is Issued,using the Impact fee$Chedules In effect at the time of application.
C.The City shag not issue the required bxlkting porrNt or main fact red home permit unless and until the impact fees set forth In the impact fee schedule have been paid
(Ord.No.3280.§1,12-11395)
12.13.120 DeternbwbOn of the tae,adjushronts,exceptions and appeals.
A.The city stag determine a developers impact fee,based upon the schedule provided by the district
B.Arrangement may be made for later payment of the Impact fee with the approval of the district only H the dfstrtet determines that H will be uiabhe to use or call not creed the
payment until a later time.provided that sufficient security as defined by the district,is provided to assure payment.Security shall be made to and held by the district.which
will be responsible for traddig and documenting the security Interest
C.The fee amount eslablished in the sc l uIe shall be reduoed by the amount of any poymert previously made for the blur devObpineiM actiyf[y it question either as a
ou rdtion of approval or pursuant to a voirtary agmemert.
pJ.whenever a developer is granted approval stiblad to a condition flat the developer achaiy provide a school Iaciity acceptable to the district.the developer shell be
entitled to a credit for the actual cost of providing the facility,against the fee that would be Chargeable under the to rmla provided by tltis Chapter.The cost of construction
shall be estimated at the time of approval,but must be documented,and the documentalio n c onlifted after the construction is Completed to assure that an accurate credit
amount Is provided.H constriction Costs are less than the calculated fee amount,the difference remaining shag be Chargeable as a school impact fee.
E.The sterdard impact fees may be adjusted,If one(1)of the folforriig Circumstances exist,provided that the discount set forth in the tee formula fails to admit for the
error in the calculation or falls to ameliorate for the unfairness of tta fee:
1.The developer demorsVaWs that an impaCl fee assessment-es intxoperhy calculated;or
2 Unusual circumstances iderified by the developer demonstrate that H the standard Impact fee amount vss applied to the developmert,it would be untai or WW.
F.In cases where a developer requests an Independent fee Calculation,adjustment exception or a cmdt pursuant to RCW 82.842 C>FO(3),the city stmt consu t with the district
and the district shall advise the City prior to the City making the flint i impact fee determination
G.A developer may provide sallies and data to d11=115lrate that any pa C lar factor used by the district may rot be appropriately applied to the development pxoposA
H.Ary appeal of the decision of the City with regard to fee amounts stag follow the process for die appeal of the underlying development application,as set forth in Kent
City Code.Any errors in the fomilla identified as a result of the appeal should be referred to the council for possible miodiflcatlon
I.lmpad fees may be paid wider protest ino rater to obtain a residenil l buVing permit or a mobile home permit
(Ord.No.3260,§f,12-1 0-95)
12.11130 Impact fee ac Courds and rafunde.
A.impact fee receipts shall be eamuadied specifically and retained in a special interest-bearing account established by the distil of solely for the distnct's school4ntpad fees
Al interest shag be retained in the account and expanded for the purpose or purposes for witch Impact fees were Imposed Annuely.the district,based in part on fs report
prepared purrrart Io KCC 12.13 060 stet prepare a report on the impact fee acxauf shaving the source and amout of all mories collected,eamed or received,and
capital or system improvemocfs that were financed in whale of in part by Impact fees.The district shag submit a copy of this report to the city Council The city shell maintain
separate school impact fee and adminiStratbn lee accounts pursuart to KCC 1Z13,/1D.and shag prepare a report on the source,and amowl of all school Impact fees
collected and transleored to the district.
B.Impact fees to r the district's system Improvements shag be expended by the district only In conformance with the capltell facilities plan element of the comprehensive plan
C.limped fees shall be expended or encumbered by the dislrld for a permissible use within six(6)years of receipt by the district,unless there exists an extraordinary or
comps"reason for fees to be hod longer then sbt(6)years.Such extraordnwy or competing reasons shag be iderHied to tfle city by the district in a written report.The
dry courog stal IdeAify the 6sUict's extreordirery and on-pie3rg—ons for the inns to be held longer then sir(6)years in the counors own writan findings
D.The eurerf owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid may receive a refund of such fees It the Impact fees have not been expanded or enannbered wtlfn
six(s)years of receipt of the funds by the district on school facilities intended to benalit the development activity for which the impact lees were paid.In determinfrg whether
Impact tees have been erxxrrrbered,impact fees shag be cc nsldered encumbered on a first IA first out basis.The district stall notify poterilial Claimants by first Cass mail
deposited with the United Stales postal service addressed b the owner of the property as shown in the county tax records.
E.An owners request iof a refund must be submitted to the dlsWet in writing within one 11)year of the date the right to claim the refund arses or the date that notice Is
given,wlichaver date Is later.Arry impact fees that are not expended or encurnbered by the district Ineenfommance with the Capital facilities plan within chase time imitations,
and for which no appication for a refund has been made within this ore(1)year period.shag be retained and expended consistent with the provisions of this sectlon
pelinds of impact foes shag ucixde any interest earned on the impact fees
F,Should the city seek to l emrimate any or all school Impact fee requirements,al uexperded or unencumbered funds,incising interest earned,shat be refunded to the
current owner of the property for which a school impact tee was paid.Upon the finding that any or al fee requirements are to be terminated,the city stag piece notice of
such termination and the availability of the reftnids in a newspaper of general circulation at least two(2)limes and shag notify al potential claimants by first class mail
addressed to the owner of the property as shown It the county lax records Al funds awliable for refund shall be retained for a period of one(1)year.At the and of one(1)
year,any remaining funds she#be retained by the district,but must be expended by the district,consistent with the provisions of tits section The notice mWiremeit set
forth above shall not apply H there are no unexpended or uiencunberad balances with the accout or accounts being terminated.
G.A developer mW request and shelf receive a refuel,trcidrrg interest earned on the imped fees,where
1 The developer does not prooeed to tln elze the devebprnent antivify as required by stable or ally mile including the Inters atlonal EWUng Code.the International
ResitfMW Code.or other applicable building ding codes.as adopted aril amended in Ch 14,01 KCC;and
2.No Impact on Iha district has resulted.°Impact"shall be deemed to include cases where the district has expended or encumbered the impact fees In good faith prior
to the application for a refund.in the event that the district has expended or encunbWed the fees in good faith,no refund shall be forthcoming.However.if w thin a
of 1/19/2012 1:05 PM
Chapter 12.13 SCHOOLRAPACTFEES http://www,codepublisiing.com/WA/KendhaN/Kerdi2/Kent]213.htrd#12.1:
• period of three(3)years,the same or subsec.rart owner of the pro perty proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity,the owner shall be eigible
for a credH.The owner must petition the district and provide rece4pts of Impact fees paid byte owner for a development of ft same or st bstarrtWy sim7ar nature on
the$ame properly or some portion theraoI.Tne drs l anal determine whether to grant a oredrt,and such determim6orts may be appealed by fofowirg the
prooadures set forth in KCC 1?--13,1 20 above.
H.Irterest due upon the refund of impact fees required by this section shall be cakviated according to the average amount received by the district on ircdested funds
I MLWout the period during which the fees were retained.
(Ord.No.3260,§1,12.19-96;Ord.No.3690,§13,5.4-04)
12.1114§Formula lor delemrinN sotwd ir, 11"S.
A.School i rnpact fees shat be cielermined as follows:
IF:
A.Student factor for dwelling unt type and grade span x silo cost per student for sites for facifflles in that grade span.Full cost fee lot site aoqufsllion cost
a.Student factor for awelIng unit type and grade spar x school construction cost per studert for facilities in that grade span x ratio of ot"s square footage of
permanert facilities to total square footage of facilities=Full cost fee for school oorstnatron
C=Student facto for dweirg uif type and grade span x rebcalable laciiaes cost per student for facilities in that grade span x ratty of ftuws square footage of
relocatabte tacRties to total square footage of facifrties-Full cost fee for relocalable tacftes
D.Student factor for dwelling unit type and grade span`Boeckh bide)'x SRI square it per student factor x state match%=State match credit,and
Al,61,01,D1-A,B,C,D for elementary grade spans
A2,92,02,02=A,B,C,D,for mic ie/fuior high grade spars
A3,8.3,C3,D3.A.B,C,D for high school grade spars
TC•Tax payment credit-The net preserl value of the average assessed value in the district for unit type x current school district cOtal property tax levy rate,using a ten
(10)year oiscourt period and current interest rate(based or the xrd buyer twenty(20)bond general obligation bond index)
FC-Faculties credt=the per-dwelling-unlit value of any site or facilities provided directly by the devebpmert
Then the urtunded need.UN=A 1+,..+C3(D 1•D2-D3)-T C
And the developer fee obigafion.F.131N2
Arid the net fee obligation.NF-F-FC
S.Notes to fomxla.
i.Student factors are to be provided by the district based on district records of average actual student generation rates for new developments corstriued overa
period of not more than five(5)years prior to the date of the fee cafcutabon;if such information is nol available in the dslrict,data from ad*ert districts,districts with
slrm'tarderrograptirs,orcourtywide averages must be used.Saudert factors must be separately determined for single-family and nXtIfamty dwelling units,and for
grade spares.
2.The'9eeckh index'Is a constnnction trade index at oonstruclion costs for various kinds of buildings;It is adJusled annually.
3,The dstrfd is to provide Its own site and facilities standards and pru}ecled costs to ba used in the formula,consistent with the re%ifements of this chapter.
4.The lorrmb can be applied by rising the fobwing table:
Table for Calculating School Impact Fee Obligations for Residers al Dwelling Units
(to be separately ca Dulatac ter single-family and muldfamlhy alts)
At. Ele nenlary school s'te cost per student x the studerl factor
A2= MiddleApior filth site cost per sk4ert x the slue ert factor =
A3= High school site cost per studand x the shrdenl factor
A. A'+A2+A3
Bt= Elementary school construction cost per student x the student factor
B2= Middle*rior high eonst iodon cost per student x the student facxnr =
63. High schooi carsbuction cosh per student x the shxi&N factor =
B. (B1+62+83)x square footage of permanent tacifrties
ictial square'ootage of facilities
C1. Elementary school relocstable fac ty cost per student x the student
factor
C2= MrddW)xkr No rebeatable,facility cost per student x the student factor =
C3. High sohoot relocafable facility cost per student x the student factor .
C. (C 1+C2+C3)x square footage of permanent fadlitles :
total square footage of facilities
D1= i index x SRI square footage per shxiert for elementary school x ..
state marsh%x stude n factor
D2= BoeCW index x SRI square footage per student for midcia/jurior NO =
school x state match%x"am factor
of 6 1/19/2012 1:05 PM
Chapter 12.13 SCHOOL EVEPACT FEES http://www,codepubl ishing.conirWA/Kent/htmUKentI2/Kert1213.htril#12,1:
D3- Boeclah irdex x SPI square footage per student for no school x stale
match%K student factor
D1+D2+D3
TO. ((1+1)10)-1 x average assessed vakm for the dweffing unit We in the
scnool 6Str.c1
I(1 ai)ln
x Current school dstrd Capital property tax levy rate where 4 Cie rnurert
Interest rate as stated In the bord buy twenty(20)bond genera:
obligation bond Index
PC. Vat*of site of facilities provided&ecdy by the development
rumber of dwelling units in development
Total unVxWneed-A+B+C-0-
A
+B
-D Stbtotal
-TC
Total unfunded need UN.divided by 2.Developer fee obligation
less PC(It appkable)
Net fee oblgdion
(Ord.No.3260,§1.12-19.85)
12.13,150 Tarmhatlon of school impact fees.
Repeated by Ord No.3484,§1,11.16-99.
(Ord.No.3260,§1,12-1495;Ord-No.3339,§1,2.18-97;Ord,No,3393,§1,2-17.981
12.13.160 Base tee sdm4LP e-
The folbwng fee shall be assessed for the indcaled types of devebpmem:
School Sirvie- MLAftmityr w"amBy
DisWd Famiy Sw*
Kett,No. $5,486.00 $3,378.00 $0.00
415
Federal 4,014,00 2,172.00 0.00
Way,No.
210
Auburn, 5,266,33 151822 0.00
No.408
(Ord,No,3261,§3,3-5.96;Ord,No.3412§2,7.21-9B;Ord.No.3482,§2,11-16-$g:Ord,No,3546,§1,3-6-01;Ord.No.3591,§1,2-19.02;Ora.No 3537,§1,
3-18-03;Ord.No-3675,§1,12.9.03;Oro.No,3730,§1,12-14-04;Ord,No.3777,§1,12.13-05;Ord.No.3827,§1,12.12-06;Ord,No,3870,§1.12-11.07;Ord.No.
3904,§t,12.9-08;Ord.No.3941,§1,12-8-09;Ord.No.3987,§1,12-14-10)
This ps 1"ei aha Meet Msed at Cede hs artr.rhl r+r..,A Ordbwwa e00F,pnssb 11*V0#w*r fir 2a1L Oty Wabsite;wwji• o tat.we.ur/(http://ww.,p.ka++t..s.uy}
mdalrner;The Chr aeries O�has the am dw mnhert or the Kent w+Upal Code.U"m should mnba this Ory Telephone:(M)ess-m5
oty dens omm tar oMrwwu passed subs"ArA to IM anananoe died aba„e. Cede Pubhs*"ODMPOMY(PCP://w r .cedePubhi%".wwn
aUbrary(Mtp:lM andapubllf Nnq,mMehihxery.Brhhi)
iof6 1/IQ/�nt� 1•naalr
Chapter 3.100 SCHOOL VVWACT FEES hf1!p://codepublishing.com/wa/nulditoo ftmnUMUlditeo03/MU]dlteoo3I00A.
Chapter 3.100
SCHOOL IWACT FEES
Sections:
3.1o0.o10 Purpose and applicability.
3,10D.0 Authority.
.ems Definitions.
a School district eligibility.
1-1 fit Capper facilities plan requirements and procedures
,�„1�;= School impact fee
*fir pa7.g Impact fee accounting
m7�0r 3 Adlustmerte,appeals and arbkrafio n
3.to0.olo ftrpose and appkoblW
A. Tire purpose of this title is:
1. To ensure that adequate school facilities are avaifabs to serve new growth and development;and
2 To require mat new growth and davebpnenl pay a proportionate stare of the costs of new school feciities needed to serve new growth and development.
B. Applicability.The terms of fits We shat apply to al development for which a oomphate application for approval is subneaed o n Or after the effective date of dis Chapter,
except for development that was the sd*d of a prior SEPA threshold determination that provided for school ntsgation,AS building permit applications accepted by the
department prior to the effective date of INS chapter,or for development that was the subject of a prior SEPA dveshold determination that lrc Wed provisions for school
mitigation,shal be reviewed for al purposes allowed under stale law.including errArormertal review pursuant to the city of MUdlteo environmental poky ordnmrce.Chapter
17 94.(Ord.967§1(pan),1999)
3,100A20 chapter is ld h after 82-02 RCW
The chapter is adopted as a basis for the exercise of substantive atahorhty by the coy under the Growth Macagernert Ad,Chapter 36.70.A RCW end C
as a means of mfigafing Impacts on school facilities as an elemert of the environment(Ord.967§1(part),1899)
3.100.030 Oeii it"S.
A. As used in this chapter the followkV terms rave the mearng set forth below.
words defined by RCW 62.02.090"meats words used in this title"defined In RCW 1)2.02.090 shell have the same meaning assigned)n ROW 82.02.090 unless a more
Specific deflrition is contained herein.
'Average assessed value"means the district's average assessed value for each dwelling unit type.
'eoedhh index"means the current coretrudion trade index Of constnrlgncosts for each school type.
'Capital fadiCes'means school}asides Identified in a school di ict's Capital faciFbes plan and are'system improvements'as defined by the GMA as opposed to bcaized
'project improvements."
'Capital facilfies pkW means a district's facilities piatm adopted by its school board consisting of those eterneots requied by Section 3.1 oo.0a0 and meetug the
requirements of the GMA.
"council'mesas the Muldbo,city Crouncll.
'County'means Snohomish County.
'DeparM*nr means the city of Muldkeo planning department.
'DevatOper"means the proponent of a development activity,such as any person or entity who owns or holds purchase options or other development control over property
for which development SCdvky Is prOpOSed.
Devabpmert.'Development."for the purposes of this chapter shall mean,all single-family structures which require a building permit and which have not already paid a
school Impact fee,cond0nnkturn and m ultdarniy rasldentlal development,including multifamily rezones which require bindirg 349 plans,planned residential development,and
as multifamily structures which require buikfirg permits.but w cWdirg remodet or renovation permits which do not result in additional dwelling urns.
I)evelaprnart acbvlty'means any residential oorstnrctan or expansion of a building.structure or use of hared,or any other large in use of a building,Structure.or land that
creates additional demand and need for school facilities,but excluding bulldirg permits for remodeling Or renovation permits which do not result In additional dweang units.
Also exchxded from this definition is'housing for older persons"as defined by 46 U.S.G.§3607,when guaranteed by a restrictive covenant.
•Oevetpment approval`means any written authorization from the city which authorizes the commermeement of a devebpmert activity.
-Director•means the planting director or the pU mnng diractcr's designee.
-01stricr means the Mtldkao school district.
,01strict property tax Iavy rate•means the district's amen capital property tax rate per thousand dollars of assessed value
'Oweltrg unit type*means.
i. Single4amiy residences;
2. Muki family ore-bedroom apartment or condominium units;and
3. Muk[family muitipie-bedmom apartment or condominium urts.
•F ncutmbered"means school impact fees identified by the district to be commttted as part of the funding for capital facilities for which the publigy funded share has been
assured,development approvals have been sought or constaction contracts have been let.
"Estimated facility construction cost'means the planned Costs of new schools or the actual colsblCtion costs Of scoots of the same grade span recently constructed by
the c1mid"inclxdirrg and-sde and off-$rte knpr---t costs if the distrh does not have this cost Wormelion available,co stnraion writs of school facilities of the same or
sirnkr grade span within another district are acceptable.
'Facility design capacity'means the natter of students each school"Is designed to accommodate,based on the districts standard of service as determined by the
dislricl.
-Grade spa n•means a category into which a district groups its grades of students(e.g.,elementary,middle or prior NgN and high school).
'Growth Management ACUGMA'means the Growth M anegemert Act,Chapter 17,Laws of the State of Washington of 1990,1st Ex Secs.,as row in existence or as
hereafter amended.
-Irteresi rate'meatus the current interest rate as stated in the Bond Buyer Twenty Bond General Obligation Boni Index.
lard cost per acre-means the estimated average lard araaUsmon cost per acre(in current dolaml based on recent site acquisition Costs.corniondsons of comparable sae
acquisition costs In other districts,or the average assessed value per acre of properties comparable to school sties located within the distrid-
'MUdifamity unit"means any residential dweing unit that is not a Single-famiy unit as defined by this ordinance.
"Permanent hadkties'means school facilities of the district with a fined foundation.
'Relocatable facifties"means factory-built structures,transportable in one or more sactions,that are designed to be used as education spaces end are needed to prevent
the over building of school facilities,to meet the needs of service areas wthin a district,or to cover the gap between the time that families move info now residential
developments and the date that construction is completed on permanent school facilities.
-Rein atabie faciities cost means the total coa based on acaue!costs Incurred by the district,for purchasing and Instainp portable classrooms.
•Relocatabhe jadkies studerit capacity means the rated capacity for a typical portable classroom used for a specified grade span.
School Impact too'means a payment of money Imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for school facilities needed to serve new
growth and development-The school impact fee does not Include a reasonable permit fee,an appfxatio n fee,the admminstralive fee for collecting and handing impact fees,or
the cost of reviewing indeperderr fee calculation
'Single-family unit'means any detached residential ctweIRng unit dealgned for occupancy by a single family or household.
"Standard of service"means the standard adopted by the district which identifies the program year,the class size by grade span and taWng Into account the requirements of
students with spacial reeds,Use number of classrooms,the types of tadities the district believes will best serve its shxdeN populatio,R and other factors as identified in the
district's capital facilities plan.The district's standard of service shall not be adjusted for any portion of the classrooms horsed in rebcalable facilities which are used as
transitional far:iitles or from any speciaized facilities housed In reloratade facilities.
'Stag mmalch percentage'means the proportion of fads that are provided to the district for specific capital projects from the state's common school construction turd.
Time funds are disbursed based on a fomnUa which calculates district assessed valuation per pupil relative to the whole state assessed vaixation per pupil to establish the
maximum percentage of the total project eligible to be paid by the state.
"SUxdenl factor(student generation rate)'means the number of stud"of each grade span(elementary,rnifdle*.high,high school)that the district determines are typically
generated by different dwelling unit types willin the district.The school district win use a survey or statistically vaid methodology to derive the specific student generation rata
(Ord.967§1(part),1999)
of 4 1/19/2012 1:15 PM
Chapter 3.100 SCHOOL RVIPACT FEES hp:H codepubl ishing.com/wa/nm idlteo/hm-d/Muidl"3/MukilteoO3100.h..
3.100.040 School district eligibify.
A. Capital Facilities Plan Required.The Muldffeo school d:strict shall be eligible to receive school impact fees upon adoption by the Mulditeo city council of a capital
facilities plan for the district by reference as part of the capdai facilities element of the city's comprehensive plan The pAn shall meet the requirements of to GMA.These
actions wlp a'so constitute adoption oy the city of tme schedule of school Impact fees specified in such capital facilities plan.
E. Expiration of District Plan.For purposes of school impel fee eligibiity,the d+Stnct's capital facilities plan shat expire two years from the date of is adoption by the
council,or when an updated plan meeting the requirements of the GMA is adopted by the council,whichaverdate first occurs.
C. Updating of DtMnct Plan.
1. The distrid's capital facSties pan stall be updated by the district and trartsmitted to the city by the district at least sixty days prior to Its blenrdal eltplration date.The
district's updated plan shall be submitted by the departmert to the counci for its consideratfo n wtfin forty-live days of the delowunerfea receipt of the districts approved CFP
N the updated plan Is received fn tkne 10 allow review and approval through the citys annual comprehensive plan update process.that process steal be used won Ce board
of directors of this district declares,and tie city finds,that an emergency exists.tell the updated plan is not received in time to allow review and approval through Ce dtys annual
comprehensive plan update process.the city shall defer consideration of tha updated plan until the nett annual cycle unless the board of directors of the district declares,and
the airy finds,that an emergency exists.Notwithstanding the foregoing,however,it the updated plan proposes a charge In the amount of tie impact fee,the city may adopt the
same outside of the annual comprehensive plan amendment process d such adoption is done concurrently with the adoption or amendment of the clay budget.The city txxlgel
shall inGude an appropriate One item to recognize the receipt of impact fees from development aril the trarsmlttel of Ihose fees less the city administrative charge to the
district.
2. The districts updated capital facilities plan may Include revised data for the fee caictdation and a corresponding moddicabOnto the impact fee schedule,consistent with
the city's GMA comprehensive plan(Ord.1136§1,2005;Ord.967§1(part),1999)
3.100.050 Capital tac§b"plan requirwrierft and prooWues.
A. Minimum RequlrwrierU for the Otstict's Capital Facilities Plan.To be eigbie for school impact fees,the dWricl must submit a capital facilities plan to the city pursuant
to the procedure established by this chapter.The capital tadf9eb Pin shall contain data and analysis necessary and sufficient la most the fquirements of the GMA.The plan
must provide sufficient detafl to allow eornputation of school impact fees according to the fommuia contained in Attachmeri A.set out at the end of this chapter.
B. Council Adoption Fotowirig receipt of the districts capital facOhies Plano r amendment t hereof,the council shell consider adoplbn of said plan or amendment by
reference as part of the Capital lacifties element of the city's comprehensive plan
C. tf an updated captal faciihes plan has rot been adopted by the council poor to the existing plan's ex Piral O l date due to the d sfricl's failure to submit an updated plan,
the district shat be Ineligible to receive school impact fees until the updated plan has been adopted by the council,(Ord.967§1 (part),1999)
3.100.060 School Impact fee.
A. Fee Required.Each develo pment adviy,as a conditio n of approval,steal be sd*d to the school Impact fee establi shed pursuant to Ks title.The school MVW fee
shall be calculated in accordance with the formula established in Atteohanent A.The school impact fee due and payable shat be as shown In Aftechment D.
S. Administrative Costs.Each development activity shat be required to pay two percera of the schoot impact fees co iecled per diveirg unit to fray for the chy's costs of
administering she school impact tee program.
C. Impact Fee Schedule.The school Impact Fees apK ied into dfsves capital fadli ies plan and adopted by the counchl shaft COM Me INS dhys schedule of school
mpeot fees.The deparlmari shat,for the conivenionce of the pubic,hauep available an information sheet summarizing the schadfule of school impact fees applicable
throughout t the city.
D. Service Areas Established.For purposes of catxtetirg and hmpOSlng school Impact fees for various lard Luse categories per unit of development,the geographic
boundary of the district co nsthum a metals service area.
E, Impact Fee Urnitalions.
1. School Impact fees shall be Imposed for district capital facilities that are reasonably related to the development under consideration,shall not exceed a proportionate
share of the Costs of system Improvements that are reasons*related to the development,and shad be used for system Improvements that vnll reasons*benefit the new
developm,erd.
2. School impact teas must be expended or ercumbered for a permissbie tae within six years of receipt by the district.
3. To tie extent permitted by law,school impact fees may be colected for capital facilities costs previously marred tore extent that new growth and development*Ube
served by tile previously Constructed Capital families,provided the!school impact fees stall not be Imposed b ma1w up for any®dstirg system derf a0fen1de5.
4 A developer required to pay a fee ptrstrazf to RCW 43-21C.060 for capital facilities shat not be required to pay a school Impact fee pursuant to ROW 82.02.0 50
though 13202 090 and this Gee for the same capufal fac*des.
F. Fee Determination.
1. At the time Of development approval,the city stall determine wheter school impact fees will be due at the time of lidding penult issuance.Where such tees are tun,
the development approval shall state that the payment of school impart lees will be required prior to Issuance of building permits.The amount of ft fee due shat be based on
the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit application Credit amounts and allocation of credits to be applied against the fees shell be determined at the Erne of
development approval in accordance with subsection G of this section
2. The final determination of a development activity's fee obfrgalion under this chapter shall be made prior to the application for buiidnlg permil,Said final determination
shall include any credits for Irrkind contributions provided under subsection G of this section Finaf determlmalions may be appealed Nnsuart to the procedures established In
Section 5j00.OBQ.
G. Credit for in-Kind Contributions.
1. A developer may request and the district may grant a credit agairst school krnpect fees otherwise due under this Mile for the vauue of"dedication of".
improvement to,or new construction of any capital faaities ldmified In the riusmcrs capital fatalities plan provided by the developer.Such requests must be accompanied by
Sdppolllrg documentation of the astinraled vaire of Such in-idnd contributions.At requests must be submitted to the district In writing prior to the O ys detem ination under
subsection F of this section
2. Where the district determines that a developmmert activity is eligible for a credit for a popond In-lord conai>uloN It stall provide the deparVnent and to devebperwith
a litter setting forth the justification for and dollar amount of the credit,the legal description of any dockated property,and a oescriptibn of the deveiopmhent wMty to which
the credt may be applied.The value of any such Mod may not exceed the impact fee obligation of the development Kid,**in question
3. Where there Is agreement between the developer and the school dfslrict corxeming the value of proposed In4drxr contributions,the devoiOper's eigib0ty for a credit,
and the amout of any credit,the director may:
a Approve the request for credit and adjust the Impact lee otilgallon accordingly;and
b, Req+lre that such contributions be made as a condition of development approval.Where ttsre is disagreement between the developer and the school district regarding
the value of In-Wrid contributors,however,ft director may render a decision that can be appealed by either party prrsUant to the procedures In Section3.1M.080.
4. For subdivisions,PROS and other large-scale developments where credits for in lurid contributions are proposed or required,4 may be appropriate or necessary to
establishthe value of the credit on a per-urit basis as a pan of the developmerif approval Such credit values will then be recorded as pert of the pet or ottler instrument of
approval and will be used in detemnining ft fee obligation—k any—at the time of building pemnit application for the devebprrhent actk*.In the event tat such credit vats
is greater Can the Impact fee in effect at the tine of permit applicat ion,ft fee obligation sial be considered satisfied.
N. SEPA M bgabon and Olhar Review.
1. The cry she!review development proposals and developrhert WIN*permits wivsnt to al applicable state and local laws and eugulations,includktg the State
Envtromnental Policy Act(Chapter 4321 C ROW),the stale subdivision law(Chapter 58.17 ROW),and the applicable sections of this code.Following Such review.the city
may condition or deny development approval as necessary or appropriate to mitigate or avoid significant adverse Impacts to school services and facilities,to assure that
appropriate provisions are made for schools,school grounds,and We student waedrng conditions,and to ensue that development is compatlbis and consistent with the
district's services.faclties and capital facilities plan.
2, impact fees required by this title for development activity,together with compliance with development regulations and other mitigation measures offered or Imposed at
the dime of development review and development activity review,shelf constitute adequate mitigation for a1 of a developments specillc adverse enviromnental Impacts on the
school system for the purposes of Chapter 17.84.Nothing In this chapter prover"a determination of sigri ficance from beirg issued.Vie application of new of dhffete v
development regulations.ardor reorwrherls for addrtional ertrironinertal analysis,protection,and mitigation measures l0 the extent required by applicable haw.(Ord.967§1
(part),1999)
moo.o70limped lee exourdirxg.
A. Coiecdon and Trarsf er of Fees.
1, School impact fees shat be due and payable to the City by the developer at the time of Issuance of residential building permits for all development activitles.
2. The district shall establish an interest-bearing account separate from all other district a courts in which to deposal the impact fees.The city YAP remit to the district an
impact fees collected.Mhoul interest,Wliin forty-five days of receipt.The district shalt deposh all impart fees received from the city Intte Impact lee account.
3. The district shall Institute a procedure for the disposition of impact fees and orovidirg for annual rope hung to the City that demonstrates compliance with the
requirements of ROW 82,02.070.and other applicable laws.
of 1/19120)2 1:15 PM
Chapter 3.100 SCHOOLAAPACt FEES http://codepublishing.corfllwa/Irfu dIteoAmTd/MUJd1 eo031Mu;dlteo03100.h
B use of Funds.
1. School impact fees may be used by the district only for capital facilities that are reasonably related to the deveiopmentt for which they were assessed and may be
expended only in 004lormance with the district's adopted capital facilities plan
2. in the event Met bonds or skrgW debt instruments are issued for the advance provision of capital faciiOWa for which school impact fees may be expended,mid where
coraistim with the provisions of tlx:bond covenants and state law,school impact fees may be used to pay debt WAce on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the
extent that the capital facilities provided are consistent with the requirements of this title.
3. The resporsdbil ty for assuring that school Impact fees are used for authorized purposes rests with the district.AN interest earned an a school impact fee account must
be retained In the account and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the school impact fees were imposed,subject to the provisions of Section 3.1 o0.070C below.
4. The datriCt shell provide the city an annual report showing the source and the amount of school impact fees received by the district and the capital faclitiles financed In
whole or in part with those school Impact fees.
C Refunds.
1. School Impact fees not spent Or encumbered within six years after they were collected suet upon receipt of a proper and accurate claim be refumded,logeear with
eterest,loft then eatrent owner of the property.In deleffyirirg whetter s0100f impact leas have been encumbered,impact tees shelf be considered encixnbened on a last ht
first out basis.At least a-u*.the City.based on the annual report received from the district pursuant to Section 1�[Q,f:7 (B)14)and aw iin notice to the last wtown
address of poterflel C1alma is of any funds.if any,that If has collected that have not been spent W encumbered The notice will state that any persons entitled to such refunds
may make Claims.
2. Refunds provided for under this sactlon shall be paid only upon submission of a proper claim pursuant to city claim procedures.Such claims must be submitted to the
director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises,or the date of notification provided for above,where appicabla,whichever is later.(Ord.987§1(part),
1998)
3.100,080 A4mihnrnits,appeals and arbitration
A. Administrative Adpustmert of Fee Amout.
1 Wdhin twenty-one days of a=eolance by the city of a bulidrng permit aplikalbrk a developer or school district may appeal to the director for an adjustment to the fees
imposed by this titla-The director may adjust the amount of the fee,in considera0on of studies and data submitted by the developer and any affected district,if one of the
following circumstances exists.
a. It can be demonstrated that the school impact fee assessmart was incorrectly calculated;
b ursual circumstances Of the development activity demonstrate that application of the school impact fee to the devetopmert would be urtair or unjust;
c A credit for irrldnd contributions by the developer.as provided for order Section 3.100-060{Fl above,is warrtated;or
d. Any other credit specified in RCW 82.02.060(1)(b)may be warranted.
2 To avoid delay pending resolution of the appeal.school papas fees may be pad under protest in order to obtain a development approval-
3, Faits 10 exhaust he administrative reined/shat preclude appeals of the scteW imped fee pirsuart to stbsectlion B of this section.
B. Appeakof Decisions-Procedure
t Appeals of the requirements Imposed pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the appeal provisions of Chapter 17,13.
2. At the hearing,the appellant shall have the burden of proof,which burden shall be met by a preponderance of the evidence.The Impact tea may be modeled upon a
dateffnInation that It is proper to do so based On the application of the criteria contained in subsection A of this section Appeals shat be limited in application of the impact
fee provisions to the specific development activity and the provisions of this tile shall be presumed varld.
C. Arbitration of Dtsptses.With the consent of the developer and ft dstrict,a dispute regarding imposition of cakillefbn of a school Impact fee maybe resolved by
arberadon(Ord 967§1(part),1999)
Adischment A
impact Fee Calculation Formula
The formula listed below provides the basis for the impact fee schedule for the district.The district's capital facilities plan shat include a CalCUlaoon of Its proposed impact
fee schedule,by dwelling unit type,utilizing this formula.In addition,a detailed tskrg and description of the various data and factors needed to support one fee calculation is
included herein and within M MC JJ 0Q,�Q.Definitions.
Detesrnirelion of Prod School Capacity Needs
The dsttrict shall delermira.as part Of its Capital facilities plan projected school capacity reeds for the current year and for not less Bien the succeeding rive yea period
The Capital facilities plan shat also hnctrde estimated capital costs for the adcrtional capacity reeds.The district shat then calculate the Impact fees u*g the formula set forth,
in this Attachment A.
Cost Calculation try Flamer!
The fees shat be CalcAled on a'per dwelling tlnit`basis.by'dwelling trill type"as set to th below:
SiteAcqusitionCost Element
([B(2)-B(3)]+B(1).lj.A(1).Site Acquisition
Cost Element
Where:
6(2).Site Size(in acres,to the nearest 1/10ot)
8(3)•Land Cost(Per Acre.10 the nearest dollar)
B(1).FaciNy Design Capacity[see MMC3 100.0301
A(1).student Factor(for each dwelling writ type)see MMC W t utf.G'i0!
The above calculation shall be made for each of ore identified grade lnvfiis(e.g.elementary,middle.junior high ardor senior high).The totals shall then be added Witt the
re to bfing the'Total Site Acquisition Cost Element"for purposes of the first school impact tee calc lation below.
School Conshiction Cost Element
[C(1)=B(1)]x A(1).Schoo I Construction
Cost Element
Where=
C(1)•Estimated Facility Construction Cost Isee MMC 3.100.0301
B(1).Facility Design Capacity
A(1).Sadert Factor(for each dwelling unit type)
The above calajW*n shelf be made for each of the identified grade levels(e.g.elementary,middle,junior high and/or savior high).The totals shall then be added and
m AIpked by the square footage of permanent lacllhles divided by the total square footage of school facilities,with the result being the'Total School Conshu ction Cost
Element'for purposes of the flail school Impact fee ealc labonbelow.
Relocate*Facilities(Portables)Cost Element
[E(1) E(2)1•A(1)=Ftetocafable Facilities Cost Element
Where.
E(1)-Rebcafable Facilities.Cost
E(2).Aetocatabie Facilities Student Capacity[see Section 3100.030]
A(1).Student Factor(for each dwelling unlit type)
The above calculation shall be made for each of the identified grade levels(e.g.,elementary,middle,junior high and/or senior high).The totals shall then he added and
muiopked by the square footage Of reiocatabie facllties divided by the total square footage of school faclities.with fha result being the-Total Rebcatabie Facilities Cost
Elemere tof purposes of the final school Impact fee calculation beinw.
Credits Against Cost Calculation—Mandatory
The losowel0 mornetay,credits shat be deducted from the calculated cost elements defined above for purposes of cat Ulalitg the final ached impact fee below
1.State Match Cnad[rt
D(1).DO)■D(2).A(1).State Match Credit
Where:
D(1).Boeck h Index[see Section 3-100.030]
D(3).Square footage of school space allowed per student,by grade span,by the Office of the Surpedn tanderd of Public Instruction
D(2).State Match Percentage[see Section 3.100-0301
of 4 1/19/2012 1:15 PM
Chapter 3.100 SCHOOLrs4PACT FEES http://codepublisNng.con/wa/muidlteo/hnTiUMuldlw)03/Mul iltCO03100.t,
A(1)-Student Factor(for each dwelling unit type)
The above catculatlon shat be made for each of the identified grade IevO1E(e.g.,elementary,middle.junior h9h andfor senior high).The totals sh&,then be added with the
result being the'Total State Match Credit'for purposes of the final school impact fve rmlctlalion below
2.Tax Payment Credtl
((1 t F(1))10}1
__.F(2)).F(3).Tax Crest
F(1)(1*F(1))1()
Where
F(1).interest Rate(see Section 3.100.030)
F(2).District Properly Tax Levy Rate(see Section 3.100.0301
F(3).Average Assessed Vain(for each dwelling unit type)(sea Section 3.100.0301
Calculation of Total Impact Fee
The total school impact tee,per dwelling treat,assessed an a dovebpmott activity steal be:
The sum of.
Tabal Sde Acquisition Cost ElemerY
Total School Construction Cost Eiarnerd
Total P.Obcatable Faciitias Cast Element
Mires fie sum of:
Total Stale Match Credit
Total Tau Payment[Credit
Elective Adjustmerd by District
Equals.
Total Dollars per Dwelling Urit.by Ouelirg Unit Type.
The total school impact fee obligation for each development act"ptrsuaM to the school Impar.'t fee schedule of Ws chapter shall be calculated as folbws
Number at Dwelling Units.by Dwelling Unit Type
multiplied by
School Impact Fee for Each D+reYng Unit TYPO
less
the value of any Irrldnd contrfbttions proposed by the developer and scoepled by the school district,as provided in Section 2191.OWl91
Adl istmernls
The school impact fee calctAted in accordance YAM the formuia established in Attachment A"then be multiplied by 0.5 to determine the school Impact fee due and
payable In accordance wflh Section 3-100-0 -(Ord.1033§1,2001)
Attachment a
School IterppCy Fee SehedWel
Typo of DevebpnWt Base Fee City Administrative Total Fee
Charge
Single-Family $4.170.00 $83.00 $4,253.00
MugifarNly,1 Bedroom None Norte None
Mwam)y,2a $2,2240() $44.00 $2,268.00
Bedrooms
1 Base fee amount transferred to school district.City admlristrative charge retained by sty to cover processing Costs.
(Ord.1208§1.2008:Ord.1177§1,2007:Ord.1136§2,2005:Uri 1076§1.2003:Ord.1060§1.2002;Ord.1033§2.2001)
This Pall of the Muktteo Nun l00-1 Cadt b curraw through 0rdh.—32716 Pared 3sty 6,2011. Code Pubtlshing ComP*AV(httP://wmv.(odePubRstfn—ffVr)
Oledalnw:The CRY Clerk's Orr"hag the orndal vaRlon or the Mukllteo MuNdPal Code.Users should contact the City Onk9 ONIo for Clty WEbfita:http/passed sub—fucrnt to the ve.
ce cited ab
( p:Avtvw.d.mukk—a.uc
TNaphone number:(025)263-6005
Of4 1 mo x(11,) I tC PM
Dave McDonald
From: Preston K Ramsey III <pkriii @msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:17 AM
To: Dave McDonald
Cc: Preston K Ramsey lit
Subject: PC Hearing Comments
Attachments: Pasco_Planning_Commission_Hearing,pdf
Dave,
Please accept the attached comments for the record on behalf of FBA Land Holdings LLC, which owns the multifamily land NW of the intersection
of ltd 68 and Sandifur Picky,
Thanks very much,
Preston
1
Pasco Planning Commission Hearing, 1/19/12
Substantive Comments:
• The Pasco School District needs to demonstrate that the impact fees
recommended in the CFP are based on reasonable assumptions and sound data
and comply with legal requirements. The CFP itself does not contain sufficient
information to make this demonstration. Among other things, the generalized
"student factor" in the CFP is not supported by a breakdown of land acquisition,
construction, transportation or other costs. The City should require the District
to disclose all the information it used to develop its CFP, and it should provide
that information to the public for review.
• We can tell from the face of the CFP that it is based on several flawed
assumptions. First, it does not acknowledge that many new single family or
multifamily homes will be occupied by families that are currently in the Pasco
school district. Second, there is no examination of other sources of revenue or
analysis of how the impact fee will adjust if a levy passes. The CFP's student
projections are based on a total head count rather than a full-time-equivalent
student factor, which overestimates the anticipated student count. And the CFP
does not mention the District is considering transitioning to year round schools,
which could significantly decrease the need for new facilities.
• The multifamily rate is particularly troubling. When you combine the student
generation rates for MF, and the much lower MF assessed values, you get an
extremely unusual outcome that the MF fees are nearly as high as the single-
family fees. Given the significant difference in the value/cost of these units, the
MF fee will have a significant impact on the feasibility of building MF units, and
consequently, on the owners, potential purchasers and renters of multifamily
property. For example, if you use the assessed value assumptions as a proxy
for the cost to build a SF or MF unit, then the proposed fees would be 3.2% of
the cost of a SF home, but 9.7% for a MF unit. This is not equitable, and we
believe the market will not bear it.
Finally, the CFP applies a 2S% reduction to the single-family and multifamily
fees to "minimize the impacts on new development and ensure new
development is not paying its fair share." A 2S% reduction is not sufficient.
Many similar districts apply a 50% reduction, and we believe the deduction
should be even higher in a City like Pasco, when school impact fees are being
introduced for the first time, and Franklin County and other neighboring cities
have not adopted school impact fees. The impact fee should be introduced,
monitored and phased in over time, so that it does not have a devastating
impact on the community and its housing and tax base.
Procedural Comments
Again, the analysis in the CFP is based on data and materials that have not been
provided to the City or the public. It is impossible to evaluate the District's
calculations and determine whether they are reasonable. The City cannot adopt
the CFP without having this information. The City needs to request all
documentation and support of the calculations in the CFP and make that
Information publicly available.
• The Pasco School Board did not adopt the updated UP until December 13, and
we did not receive a copy until December 15. We have conducted a preliminary
review of the CFP, but one month is not sufficient to allow for comprehensive
review and analysis. We ask the Planning Commission to continue this hearing
at least once (and ideally for several months) so that the City, the public and all
interested parties have an opportunity to provide meaningful review and
comment. This is a significant decision for the City, and it cannot adopt an
impact fee ordinance without thoroughly evaluating all the available
information.
• The City should hire an independent fee consultant to evaluate the District's
data (after it is disclosed) and advise the City.
Conclusion
• The Planning Commission cannot adopt the CFP in its current form. The
District needs to disclose the information it used to develop the CFP, and
that information should be made available to the public and reviewed by an
independent, third-party consultant to the City. As it stands, the MF impact
fee in the CFP is completely unreasonable, and the 25% overall reduction is
not sufficient. Please require the District to disclose its data and leave the
record open for further review and comment.
Dave McDonald
F Preston K Ramsey III <pkriii @msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20114:53 PM
To: Dave McDonald
Cc: Preston K Ramsey III
Subject: Impact Fee Ordinance
Mr. McDonald,
Please accept these additional comments for tonight`s record:
As demonstrated below, we are very concerned about the potential impacts of any new fee on the housing
market and regional economy and are monitoring this process closely. Our expectation is that the City will
conduct a comprehensive review of the School Districts Revised Capital Facilities Plan once it is made
available,preferrably with independent third-party peer review of the Districts assumptions and conclusions.
We will also be conducting a thorough review of the updated CFP to ensure that it is legally defensible, and we
hope and expect that the City will work with us to ensure that review is complete and all our questions are
answered before it adopts any new fee ordinance.
Sincerely,
Preston Ramsey
on behalf of FBA Land Holdings LLC
Begin forwarded message:
From: Preston K Ramsey III <PkriiiArnsn.com>
Subject: Planning Commission Comments (Tonight's agenda item VIII-A)
Date: October 20, 20114:59:03 PM PDT
To: mcdonaldd asco-wa. ov
Cc: Maggie Lyons <maggiel(d) q.com>
Mr. McDonald,
Please accept the following as FBA Land Holdings comments for the record at tonight's meeting:
FBA Land Holdings, LL (a subsidiary of the MetropolitanlSummit Creditors Trust) owns approximately 32
acres of undeveloped multifamily-zoned residential land in Pasco (please see attached aerial overlay). The
Trust is in the process ofselling these lands in order to repay it's creditors (approximately 300 of which live in
the Tri-Cities area).
The School District is proposing an impact or mitigagtion fee of$5,272 per unit for multifamily housing
construction. The affect such a fee would have on land values (and ability to sell)are significant. A fact already
demonstrated by the slowing of development since the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan was released and
voluntary mitigation agreements have been imposed as a condition ofplat approval by the PC
For the numbers, R-4 zoned land can accommodate up to 25 units per acre (although design/configuration
usually dictates a density closer to 21 units per acre). Using the realist figure, the impact or mitigation fee
1
would be $110,7131acre (or$2.54/ft). Using the full density allowance, the fee is$131,800 ($3.031sj). Under
either scenario, the impact fee alone meets or exceeds the lands market value.
Therefore, the fee amount proposed by the School District is economically not feasible, Our hope is that both
the facility requirments and a realist way in which revenue can be generated for school needs are closely
examined and discussed so that an equitable solution for all involved is ultimately reached
It's our understanding that tonight's record will remain open through the Nov 17 Planning Commission Heating,
so well have an additional opportunity to comment further.
Sincerely,
Preston Ramsey
on behalf of FBA Land Holdings LLC
2
Dave McDonald
From: Preston K Ramsey III <pkriii @msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 4:59 PM
To: Dave McDonald
Cc: Maggie Lyons
Subject: Planning Commission Comments (Tonight's agenda item VIII-A)
Attachments: FBA-Rd 68-aerial overlay copy.pdf; ATT75444.htm
Mr. McDonald,
Please accept the following as FBA Land Holdings comments for the record at tonight's meeting:
FBA Land Holdings, LLC (a subsidiary of the Metropolitan/Summit Creditors Trust) owns approximately 32
acres of undeveloped multifamily-zoned residential land in Pasco (please see attached aerial overlay). The
Trust is in the process ofselling these lands in order to repay it's creditors (approximately 300 of which live in
the Tri-Cities area).
The School District is proposing an impact or mitigagtion fee of$5,272 per unit for multifamily housing
construction. The affect such a fee would have on land values (and ability to sell) are significant. A fact already
demonstrated by the slowing of development since the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan was released and
voluntary mitigation agreements have been imposed as a condition ofplat approval by the PC.
For the numbers, R4 zoned land can accommodate up to 25 units per acre (although design/configuration
usually dictates a density closer to 21 units per acre). Using the realist figure, the impact or mitigation fee
would be $110,713 1acre (or$2.54/ft). Using the full density allowance, the fee is $131,800($3.03 1s)g. Under
either scenario, the impact fee alone meets or exceeds the lands market value.
Therefore, the fee amount proposed by the School District is economically not feasible. Our hope is that both
the facility requirments and a realist way in which revenue can be generated for school needs are closely
examined and discussed so that an equitable solution for all involved is ultimately reached.
It's our understanding that tonight's record will remain open through the Nov 17 Planning Commission Hearing,
so we'll have an additional opportunity to comment further.
Sincerely,
Preston Ramsey
on behalf of FBA Land Holdings LLC
r'
N
F
Ar
7
pop
m __Pm
rhd
Orr
dir
1�►�0
_'RT ��,�� � '' jw dam• .+���. � �
/t=
Ir # r
AL r
LOW
a � �
��� r
- b
\ '♦ `L.
1 y
If
IL
-Z r t+ti �� ♦ _tit a.,��• ••�� � nt•t � :c' i
t
' mss `- .- •'��. �..��.j-.:fs _-,�— _ - - �1 _ '- ti
w
,. �
t
OF
jr- rb
r � _
i
-7„' +
ale 46-
y jo
J��.. T
AW-
SNORT PLAT 98.05
N 1
EOELMAN^Z lPOWERUNE
111 1 11/ D
H1111
COLUMHEA PLACE PHASE 3
M A
M- 1
i"�T"'►T1 T
COLUMBIA PLACE PHASE 1
HERITAGE VIL LAGE PHASE 2 SNORT PLAT 20I?3.21 Till
COLUMBIA PLACE PHASE 2.
M AGE PHASE 1
AM
-STUDEBAKER�
Maya Angelou Elemenlary'
INTAGE VIL L AGE PHASE 2
T I
NASH I RUSH CREEK
D IIIIII�
oe) C LUMRIA PI.ACF PwAfrF 5 Imo\-�LyJ-I{
OESOTOMw COLUMBIA PLACE PHASE 1
MINTAGE Vt _ILLAl E PHASE 1
COR DESCHUTES —
TTTI I 1�mj
BROA7MOORF PARK N6-1-y 'JATNDIFUR�T
ISLAND FSTATEE PHASE• ISLAND E1lTATES PHASE 81NDIN[3 SITE PLAN 2408-01 L J 13ROADMOOR PLACE PHASE t t^ISLAND ESTATES PHASE 5 R1M;OJNG SITE PLAN 21DM.03—�j
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council February 7, 2012
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 2/13/12
Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: Urban Growth Area, Base Maps
and Adoption of Subarea Plans by Reference (MF# CPA 2011-001 )
I. REFERENCES
1. Proposed Urban Growth Area Map*
2. Base Maps*
3. Comprehensive Plan Sections*
4. Staff Memo to the Planning Commission dated 1/19/12
5. Planning Commission Minutes
*(Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning Office, the
Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at http://www.Pasco-wa.j,ov/citycouncilreports.
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
2113: Discussion and direction for staff
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The Planning Commission concluded a series of public hearings in January dealing
with various amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Three of the proposed
amendments involve minor modifications to the Urban Growth Area boundary,
updating the base maps and incorporating the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and
the Broadmoor Concept Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference. The City
Council adopted the Broadmoor Concept Plan as a development guide in 2009 and
adopted the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan for the same purpose in 2010.
B. Following the hearing in January the Planning Commission recommended the Pasco
Urban Growth Area be modified as shown in Reference 1; the base maps be modified
as shown in Reference 2 and the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and Broadmoor
Concept Plan be included in the Comprehensive Plan as identified in Reference 3.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The Growth Management Act requires the establishment of Urban Growth Areas
(UGA) around all urban centers within Franklin County. The law does not permit
cities to establish UGA's. The City can suggest or identify the preferred UGA but
only the County can officially establish the boundary lines.
B. The proposed modifications to the UGA involve three minor additions on the eastern
edges of the community. A slight adjustment in the boundary is needed for the
Tidewater Terminal on the Snake River. A small portion of the Tidewater facility is
outside the current UGA boundary. Future annexations and the provision of
municipal services will be problematic if the Tidewater property continues to be
divided by the LTGA boundary. The other two areas proposed for LTGA boundary
modifications include the old Devries Dairy site which was previously within the
initial LTGA boundary but later excluded by the County Commissioners because the
dairy operations were at odds with the nature of the LTGA and a 120 acre parcel south
of Foster Wells Road along the east side of Capitol Ave. The City has spent several
million dollars in the past few years improving streets and utilities near these areas to
serve future industrial needs and to enhance system reliability. Some of the properties
that could now benefit from this public investment cannot be served by the utility
improvements because they are outside the LTGA. Modifying the LTGA will make it
possible for these properties to connect to the City's utility system.
C. The Growth Management Act requires consistency between the various planning
documents prepared by the City. The proposal to include the Marine Terminal/Boat
Basin Plan and the Broadmoor Concept Plan within the Comprehensive Plan
addresses the consistency requirement.
D. Staff will be available at the workshop to provide further explanation of the
modifications discussed above. Following any additional direction from the City
Council staff will prepare the necessary adoption ordinance for Council
consideration. A resolution will be need to be approved for the LTGA boundary
modifications by end of March to be available for the County's annual cycle for LTGA
boundary amendments.
z
a.
' N
W , E
S
r
0 -
Legend
m
m
0 Urban Growth Area �a
City Limits t
® Proposed UGA Changes - .
w
NO TIC F:NO wnRAreNTY OP nC C UFAC Y.The infortmnm ahoan m¢rr a¢aahcd may Qaa >•a
compiled forme hf lheCilp of Fasco,it¢emp•loyeeaandcmadtane TM City of4aco-0aa mt Urban Growth Area
n th•ae<arac y of aryth n;set foeW on thr tm p.nnf person or entity rcgaeetm;a<opa
ahoald eardacr inarpe^dert]Haan ngrdin;the Gdortnation aMcrn on Fr.nay.i tadrng
bat riot lirritrde o,rie location of any properg lines.ro alrcet;satdrrarwn,or other e--F
;ecjraphe f<atarca.SSch fra tnrermsy or may Hat erirt grid rvvy a may nct rxvat at the location
aher+n.Nrither the Crlp of Paxo na it rmploJ<ra a eft e<rs hall tr ua H<fa infart¢lien
shorn on lNs map norfor any Qal rc pnaenlation FmN&d lased¢pan acid—p. 1�
W
r - '
x �r4
I
F",
at 1
Legend
Low-Density Residential Commercial Prf m
�l
7
IT!
Mixed Residientiai Industrial t . :17
High-Density Residential Government/Public
_ Mixed Residential/Commercial Open Space/Parks I Ian
See Boat nn-fr il
Proposed UGA Changes Marine Terminal N
Plan
Land Use Map
Comprehensive Plan
�--- °-- =�-� 2011 Update
CITY OF
1 r
rill,
Nam
W,
5
a
� r
.■ _ a�� m
j
Legend � .e
_ Airport Reserve Airport Reserve
Urban Growth Boundary
Proposed UGA Changes
NOT F:NCl Wr.RRa NTYtIF..CCURrf.Y.The;nformLion.horn on lee Llueei-ay r11
mmpilyd rorwehr the Ci1r cr Fa w,i•emybfea and con.Wla-a The Cif r of Cvco dm ml
n IM1e accurlcJ of anflhine ea ronn on Ilse map wnf yn»n orenlilr rq.�,line a My
nheuld conau�1n mdeyrnden Inquiry,eea+dme the InformL bn shorn on Iee may.is Udine
M1ul nd Iimiled Io,Iha b�liyn of mJ pmpcnJ lino,ram,nlnxr n,1uAdirn..oln,or other
emenylric fm um loch Ra1u.d maJ sr ma f m1 eetfn and ma J or ma)na c�e1 L the loralon
shorn.Nei her IAe Cilf yf Coco nm iU emDloJea m office^•11111 Ae h4hle for inf-Lion
shorn on IM1 map.nor(cyan J onI iepi.�rnlLion prodded haed uyrn.aid map. \\\v\`J
r
Q y
u
I—
CITY OF
PASCOO '
ED
®des
cm
Legend
Parks
Schools ^�`
&
Urban Growth Boundary Parks Schools
Proposed UGA Changes
NETT M:F,:NO Wa RRa NTY OF NCCtPRACY.The;nlormaian.boon on the aired m ay xu
rnmyiled poruac�j the Ciy or Daam,d a emybym and conaullznh Tk Ch a or yzeco dm mi
mn the aeaaruJ of anjllrinp ad ponh on the mzy.A yeron.—H.,rgw_ainp a m"
abeuld eend4o m indeyrnden InquirT re�,dine the lnf aien alern en the maD.in bdinp
M1W nd limned io,she bCZlion of anJ propmJ fine,ram,awh auhdiraiom,or ocher
peaty nyhic fmueea ouch nnwm+mar sr maJml edr.landmajormzjnaa.6lalhe:.-
ahem.Nether the Cilr
Ar ehia map.norf r n,nl nor ie rnemybJea ro err d d b—d•hail he F>hle par inf maim /\
uyn said
h
f
t
y .
r\ I
1't
�O Y II
III
fJ
b
Y �
Legend
Resource Lands
Urban Growth Boundary
Resource Lands
Proposed UGA Changes a
NOT R:F.:NO W,RRANT Y OF IC.Ck)RM:Y.The i,fermLion.hero on the LixhSd m ay ru
mmyiled roruachy the CLy of P—i a emybym and cmaWianh Tlm Ciir of p..dm mi
ine xrurx)of anyihinp atl rodh on the may rnf peron eremiif tt9-vnp a myf
'heuld eend- independen 1-zW y meaWinp the lnf Lien'hewn on the may.;'l�dinp
hW nd fimiied ia,she b��ien of any p'°ye'^r fine,ram�,'Iree'h auhdi�+iem,or ocher
pmpnpt.fm urea iuch feaiurt'mar or ma)ml a AT and may or maf no L the IocLOn
'Tern.Nei her the Cil f or P—nor ie emy bred W Off—.hall be Table rae in1 mL ien
'tern en Ihia map.ner foram onI n:pmmiLion provided hued uyn said may.
i
CITY OF
LPASCO
U-
I
Legend
Aquatic
Wetlands/Riparian Areas
Steep Slope
Q Liquefaction Susceptibility
Urban Growth Boundary Critical Areas
Proposed UGA Changes
NO TTCF:NOwnRMNTY OF nCCUMCY.Thrinf--h—m u.r a a aohrdmapwas
ompilydfarnar tyth.city of
rtaK th•acavncy mTh Cayof3acd-1
If arythn;a ad on the e n
perms or enlily rc......S a c.PY
ahwld crndaa an inarpmdeK Inge rT rcgrding the Ldamation shown on Pr map,imlvdm�
W na Inrilyd co,mr locavon of any prop—j IinK.ro rcet;svia. ,or olhrr
gra3raphc fratarca.Sack fee rarer may oramyro and rnyor may"at.,al the location
A2..Nrithrr the Ctly of Pasco—it rmployrra a ofl c<n hall br haNrf.,information any Qal rc prcaenlaYon FmNdrd board a pan said rm p.
CITY OF
PASCO
Olson
rommom I
III
r tCC�� ►tt�:. ii ` ��R'i(�/IIr7��i7 � �l
_t . ROME ME I id
--WWII
wimmm
ml MM �� ♦ 1� f it ■■■
ag bid
• • • ' • • -
b`°
13,5
13601
PASCO'6.
1 139
1 80
40
138
14
13804
13903 1iQ1
\. 14701 3 0
144
145
141 1
173 7- \
1
0* 1 1
18
�..y
- 15 176
11
1
Legend - ��� _ _ .-
168
Traffic Analysis Zones 282
Streets
Urban Growth Boundary Traffic Analysis Zones
�
Proposed UGA Changes a
N[TT M'F.:NC!Wr.RRRNTY QF�C.CURf1f.Y.Tbe;nlormaion.boon on the LlxhSd may xu
rnmyiled forwc�Yl*eme,Or yam,iaemybree andcon•Wizm•Tlm C.il of➢acodm mi
n the xaarxr of anrlhirq atl Wnh on the may.wn�yeron orcmdi rgw_,liny a coyl
abeuld ennd4:,m indeyendem Inquiry+e�mline Ih<lnf Wien shorn an the may.is baine \'\UJ\r
M1W nd limned�o,she brzliyn of am pmpmr fine,ram,mmfh aubdira•o�n,or aher
Y�*a➢MC fmuin such rmwm mar sr ma�ml c.hl and maa or mzf nor c.ala the loaon
ahyrn.Nether the Cnr of➢xco nor im emyloran a aRa++•hall Ae naAle�x inlbrmaion ,/�
Ahern en Ibis may.War foram oral n:yryenlaliyn yrorided bored uyn said map. ,\1V\\/
� — N —
�o
CITY 0
- PASCO
AMLN
o
Legend `
• Signalized Intersection
Non-City Signal /
Proposed Signal
Traffic Control Devices
Urban Growth Boundary
® r
Proposed UGA Changes �
NO iICF:NO ltwAAnN[Y OP wt C UFnC Y.the infomonm thovn m e.r arca<Fed map vas
rompilyd for o.e bJ IM[ily of F..w,it.ernptoyer.acrd coxdrann Lk City opPoco data ma
man th•acearacy of a.ryahng as htW on the trap.rant perms or enaiey rcgaenm;.copy
.herald epndxe an indrpmdrrt in9d7 regarding tM Mamation shoran en the map•imiadm;
W—grriaed re,dre tac.don of my property line..wnr,. trc .ehd�l.iorn,or other
geo;nphe fnaerc..$Vch feat m may or may rapt em a and trey a may na naat at the location
Merv.Nehher thr Cray of?a raw in employer.a eM.—roll b h.hle fa info ion
A—wr M,m.p,norfnr any Q.I 1p—l—kon prodded dosed I"-id rm p. \\V``
p,—d p—q p+,.-d jA-Aoj—q—.q
�7
1q
. .11
,N. 77—pj 41 S,Ndn L,bq mp.,4 -1 11 11-Pwl PIW4-
696ueqo venpasodoid
9961 01 CV61
41LUA)d jo jueA Aq BuisnOH kepunog qlAAOJ!D Lleqjn CV61 01 K61
90N 016961- 17C61 01 ZZ61
696 L 01 L961 ZZ6[ 01 t7[61
L96 G 01996 V b 6[ 010681
puaba-j
Alb
�j
51
jal
T-4
IM
1me 1i imw
if L UI M
-1 - _ _ n. 1..
,rLiL�e-rf i:e A `fG' �Aw
Una P,
Hit,
ME SU-
qm - M ... i I I :s.........I NNIN.14 52•
917-V=0 C=mw ,.
W,=s Im
.=Mr
iw
III H I r u LNO 'L I , I I , ,
•
4 0
011
look
wN=
i M21
Run I•
CC SUM
IN 1101-
. T X,: IN 113"!
4 FUND IN,
0 4 -gill 1:2 -.111111415 RINI
gm@&L IN
111 1• Ill mwd rr. ur-.I!I Ip I R!'!
Mole I..........
E"87
sib
0�om INK M—. in=
'No – -..
larill
S!!ivn":
IN
sp
oil
wo
k6
MOVE
... .......
. ..........
. ... ... ...
ia.
.......
le. W -j .-4
Tt"i
rs
.............. .........
�ji�IL U it
Iljjw 1p
Ill
1111004
sidel,11=
112–
REFERENCE #3 Comprehensive Plan
Sections
Volume I id
Goals & Policies '
4�omgrehensive Plan
City of Pasco, Washington
2007 to 2027
This comprehensive plan and thepreparatory work which created it were
paid for in part by a grant from the State of Washington, administered by the
Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.
mom
I =
A concurrency management system is a regulatory process that establishes
procedures to determine if public facilities have adequate capacity to
accommodate a proposed development. The process uses criteria adopted and
implemented in the municipal code. Under the GMA, concurrency must be
established for transportation facilities; however jurisdictions may establish
concurrency for any public facility or service. The City of Pasco adopted
Ordinance # 3821 establishing concurrency procedures for transportation
facilities in conjunction with new development.
Six Year Capital Improyement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan (GIP) sets out the capital projects the city
plans to undertake within the next six years to support implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan. The six year schedule is up-dated annually, with
the first year of the schedule acting as the capital budget for the current fiscal
year. During the annual updating of the six-year schedule, cost estimates, and
funding sources are updated and revised to reflect changed conditions or new
information available to the city. The CIP and the twenty-year Capital Facility
Plan should be revised to include additional projects that may be needed to
maintain adopted levels of service.
Pasco School District 41 Capital Facilities Plan
The School District Coital Facilities Plan sets forth the Districts educational
program standards (Level of Service) classroom sizes, core programs and
services necessary for the education of children within the District. The olan
also identifies the Caoital Facilities needs to accommodate project student
enrollment over the next six years. The financing plan within the Capital
Facilities Plan includes bonds, State matching funds and school impact fees
as methods of raising capital for construction of school facilities. The District
Capital Facilities Plan is included as a part of this Comprehensive Plan in the
Capital Facilities Element in Volume II.
Administrative Actions
The Comprehensive Plan includes policies that should be carried out through
administrative actions. These actions include development review,development
permitting, preparation of reports, making information available to the public,
and review for concurrency. Development review practices must be continually
monitored to ensure administrative function are consistent with and support the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Introduction 5
The source documents primarily used as functional comprehensive plans for
infrastructure and the six-year capital improvement plans are prepared routinely
and updated annually as required for obtaining funding from the State. The
individual capital improvement plans define projects and proposed funding for
those projects required, first to rehabilitate existing facilities and secondly to
provide level of service (LOS) capacity to accommodate new growth.
Generally, the proposed new capacity,replacement and rehabilitation of capital
facilities, and financing for the next six years reflects the general planning
goals and policies, as well as land use infrastructure requirements, identified in
Pasco's longer-range planning documents. These documents include:
• The Transportation Element, and related regional and county
transportation plans;
• The Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan and Trails Plan;
• Water, Sewer, and Storrriwater Comprehensive Plans; and
• Specific facility= plans for infrastructure improvements and city-
owned buildings.
• Pasco School District No. 1 Cavital Facilities Plan
Other source documents include, plans for �chooit, the irrigation district, the
Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan, the
Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area Plan, and other service
providers.
Supplemental Plans
The Broadmoor Concept Plan s 20091
The Broadmoor Concept Plan covers approximately 1,100 acres oflandnorth and
west of the Broadmoor/I-182 Interchange. The goal of the Broadmoor Concetat
Plan is to provide a more detailed level of P_aidance for future development
in the Broadmoor area than is provided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The
Broadmoor Concept Plan (2000 and any subsequent amendments thereto is
made wart of this Comprehensive Plan by reference.
Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan (2010)
Thg Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan covers that portion of the City located
Capital facilities Element 22
south of Ainsworth Avenue between the Cable Bridge and Osorev Pointe in
the Big Port of Pasco. The goal of the Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan is to
provide a m ore detailed level of guidance for future redevelopment of the Marine
Terminal and Boat Basin area than is provided for in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Boat Basin Marine Terminal Plan (?010) and anv subsequent amendments
thereto is made part of this Comprehensive Plan by reference.
Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan
The Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan applies city-wide. The kev goal
of the Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan is to provide a prioritized action
plan for improving identified travel routes with bicycle lanes and pathways. The
Pasco Bicvcle & Pedestrian Master Plan replaces the Bikewav Plan previously
included in the Comorehensive Plan.The Pasco Bicvcle&Pedestrian Master Plan
(2011 ) and susequent amendments thereto is made part of this Comprehensive
Plan by reference.
Capital fa,-ilities Element 23
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 19, 2012
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update IMF# CPA2011-0011
The City is required by the Growth Management Act to develop and adopt a
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan must be reviewed and if necessary updated every
seven years. The Plan can also be updated on a more frequent basis as conditions
change within the community. However, Plan updates cannot be more frequent than
once a year. The last major Comprehensive Plan update began in 2007 and was
completed in 2008.
As a result of community growth over the past four years, industrial infrastructure
improvements, adoption of the Pasco Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan, the Broadmoor
Concept Plan, the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin Plan, and a request for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment from the Pasco School District there is a need to
consider revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
revisions are explained under the following headings:
Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary Update
The following points represent changing conditions which warrant modification to
the Land Use Map and Growth Area Boundary:
• hi 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The
Broadmoor Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the
Road 100/Broadmoor Interchange area by expanding both the
Mixed Residential and Commercial areas to the west.
• The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall
of 2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a sub area
plan that provides a more detailed view of future land uses
between the Cable Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth
Street.
• During the last couple of years the City has invested two million
dollars in improvements to the north end of Capital Avenue.
Capital Avenue was extended one mile north to provide a
connection with East Foster Wells Road. The road was
constructed to industrial standards (additional base and asphalt)
with curb and gutter to provide access to the industrial lands on
1
the east side of SR-395 south of East Foster Wells Road. A mile of
sewer line was also installed along with 1.25 miles of water line.
Every 600 feet, 8 inch lateral sewer lines were stubbed out east
and west of Capital Avenue to provide sewer service to future
industrial users. The water line was also stubbed out to both
sides of Capital Avenue. Finally, the water line was extended west
in Foster Wells and connected under SR-395 to a main line on the
west side of SR-395. A spare 12 inch lime was placed under SR-
395 for future needs.
• hi 2010 the City bored under SR-12 and placed a large casing
with four pipes of varying sizes under the freeway. This $600,000
plus project was the first phase of a multi-phase infrastructure
project to provide utilities to current and future industrial users in
and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Two
million dollars of sewer improvements will be connected to the SR-
12 casing in the next few years and an additional $800,000 will be
devoted to water system improvements. The water system will aid
in the future expansion of industrial processing and will provide
fire protection that is currently lacking in the County east of SR-
12.
• Section lines or portions thereof are often used to delineate the
Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundaries. The east line of Section 35,
Township 9 North Range 20 East along the Snake River northerly
of the SR-12 Bridge dissects part of the Tidewater Barge Terminal.
A small portion of the Tidewater Terminal is located outside of the
current UGA boundaries. Future annexation and provisions of
municipal services will be problematic if the Tidewater property
continues to be divided by the UGA boundary.
Under the provisions of the Growth Management Act, urban growth is to be confined
within Urban Growth Areas (UGA). The UGA should include areas that will provide
for a broad range of land uses including nonresidential uses (RCW 36.70A.110). The
broad range of land uses should include a reasonable "land market supply factor" to
provide for a range of commercial and industrial land (RCW 36.70A.110). County-
wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include lands already characterized by
urban growth and as having existing public facilities and services (water and sewer)
to serve existing and future growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The City has recently
completed $2.6 million of utility improvements to serve the lands suggested for
inclusion in the UGA (see UGA Map attached). Another 2.8 million dollars is
planned to be spent installing utilities to serve properties near the Kahlotus/Lewis
Street Interchange.
Although not a changing condition the fact that the State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) owns 640 acres of land east of SR-395 has a significant impact on
the availability of industrial land for development purposes. The DNR property is
essentially unavailable for future industrial development because the DNR will not
sell property. The DNR's mandate for generating funding for schools requires the
agency to perpetually lease their land rather than sell it for development. The DNR
2
property is basically unavailable for future development as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan until the property is sold.
Map Updates
Over one thousand seven hundred (1,700) residential lots have been developed with
homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update was initiated in 2007. As a
result, the base maps within the Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer
reflect the street layout of the City.
Capital Facilities Update
Capital Facilities planning is a mandatory requirement of the Growth Management
Act [RCW 36.70A.070(3)]. Capital facilities include city streets, parks, public
buildings, water and sewer infrastructure and facilities of other public subdivisions
of government such as the School District the Irrigation District and the PUD.
Information related to these special services districts are contained in either the
Capital Facilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan or the Non-City Utilities
Chapter of the Plan.
hi January of 2011 the Pasco School District submitted a letter to the City (attached)
explaining the District had outgrown its ability to provide schools for new
development without new development contributing to the cost of providing the
schools. The District further explained in their letter that the City could not approve
residential subdivisions unless the city finds adequate provisions are made for
schools (RCW 17. 110).
The School District placed the City on notice that without impact fees or SEPA
mitigation for new residential development there will not be adequate provisions
made for schools. The imposition of impact fees requires the City to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by incorporating the Pasco School District's Capital Facilities
Plan into the City's Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. By
Resolution (attached) the School District has requested the City amend the
Comprehensive Plan and adopt an impact fee ordinance.
The Goals and Policies section of the Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive
Plan contains a policy (CF-S-A) that states the City is to work with the School
District to coordinate District facility plans with the Comprehensive Plan and
encourage the appropriate location of schools throughout the community. While the
current Plan (Volume II page 45) makes reference to the School District Facilities
Plan but the District Plan it is not part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does however call for the City to work with the School District
during the development review process to insure impacts of development on the
School District are minimized. In the past this was accomplished by forwarding
copies of proposed plats to the School District for review and comment. During this
process the city had developers set aside land the School District could purchase
adjacent to sites dedicated for parks, thereby reducing the overall cost for school site
acquisition. Due to the pace of growth this is no longer adequate to meet school
needs; hence the January 2011 letter from the District requesting the imposition of
school impact fees on new development.
3
Incorporating the School District Capital Facilities Plait within the City's
Comprehensive Plan will require amendments to both Volumes I and 11 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Pasco School District adopted their Capital Facilities Plan for 2011-2017 on
December 13, 2011. The Capital Facilities Plan along with a brief memorandum to
the Planning Commission dated January 4, 2012 providing an explanation of the
plan is attached. A representative of the School District will be present at the
hearing to provide an in-depth explanation of the plan and will be available to
answer Planning Commission questions.
Findings of Fact
The following are findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff
report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the public hearing.
1. The Growth Management Act requires the development of local
Comprehensive Plans.
2. The Comprehensive Plan can be updated no more than once a year.
3. The Growth Management Act mandates specific elements to be included
within comprehensive plans including an element for capital facilities.
4. Over One thousand seven hundred residential lots have been developed
with homes since the last major Comprehensive Plan update was
initiated in 2007. As a result, the base maps used for the various maps
within the Comprehensive Plan are out of date and no longer reflect the
street layout of the City.
5. hi 2009 the Broadmoor Concept Plan was completed. The Broadmoor
Concept Plan altered the Land Use Designations in the Road
100/Broadmoor hiterchange area by expanding both the Mixed
Residential and Commercial areas to the west.
6. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan was adopted in the fall of
2010. The Marine Terminal and Boat Basin Plan is a sub-area plan that
provides a more detailed overview of future land uses between the Cable
Bridge and Osprey Pointe south of Ainsworth Street.
7. The City has invested $800,000 in the past two years to improve the
Capital Avenue connection with East Foster Wells Road. Capital Avenue
was improved to industrial standards with curb, gutter, storm drainage
and a thickened road base and asphalt.
8. The City has invested $1,200,000 in water and sewer line improvements
during the past two years to extend water and sewer lines in Capital
Avenue and connect the water line to the west side of SR-395.
9. The water and sewer utilities have been stubbed with lateral lines to
serve properties on both the east and west side of Capital Avenue.
10. In 2010 the bored a casing under SR-12 and placed four pipe lines in the
casing for a cost of $600,000. This is the first phase of a multi-phase
infrastructure project to provide utilities to current and future industrial
users in and around the Lewis Street/Kahlotus Highway Innterchange.
Two million dollars of sewer improvements will be connected to the SR-
4
12 casing in the next few years and all additional $800,000 will be
devoted to water system improvements. The water system will aid in the
future expansion of industrial processing and will provide fire protection
that is currently lacking in the County east of SR-12.
11. Section lines are often used to identify the extent of the Urban Growth
Area around the City of Pasco. hi one case the use of section lines cause
the Urban Growth Boundary to inadvertently dissect the Tide Water
Marine Terminal facilities causing a portion of the Tide Water Marine
Terminal be inside the UGA and a portion of the Terminal to be outside
the UGA.
12. RCW 36.70A. 110 encourages Urban Growth Areas to include a broad
range of land uses including a reasonable "land market factor" to ensure
there is a wide range of land available for all uses including commercial
and industrial uses.
13. County-wide Planning Policies suggest UGA's should include land
already characterized by urban growth and having existing public
facilities and services (water and sewer) to serve existing and future
growth [Policy No. 2 (Q. The city has spent $2.6 million on water sewer
for industrial development needs east of SR 395 and SR-12. Another
$2.8 million of utility improvements will occur over the next few years.
14. A portion of the land proposed to be included in the UGA was previously
located within the UGA but was removed from the UGA because the land
was developed with a large commercial dairy. The dairy has been
relocated.
15. Comprehensive Plan Policy CF-S-A explains the City should work with
the School District to coordinate facility plans with the Comprehensive
Plan and encourage appropriate location and design of schools
throughout the community.
16. The "Schools" section of the Capital Facilities Element (page 45 Vol. II)
states the City will continue to work with the School District during the
development review process to ensure that the impacts of development
on the school district are minimized.
17. In the past the School District and the City have worked together to
ensure park sites were located adjacent to elementary schools to reduce
the cost of land acquisition for the School District. McGee Elementary,
Robinson Elementary, Maya Angelou and the future Rd 60 Elementary
schools are examples of where schools and parks have been co-located to
reduce costs.
18. On January 11, 2011 the Pasco School District informed the City by
letter that the School District had outgrown its ability to continue
providing schools without requiring development served by the schools to
contribute to the cost of providing the schools.
19. By letter dated January 11, 2011 the Pasco School District notified the
City and County that without impact fees or mitigation under SEPA there
are not adequate provisions for schools.
20. RCW 58. 17. 110 (1) requires the City to determine if adequate provisions
have been made for parks playgrounds schools and school grounds and
other public facilities during the plat (subdivision) review process.
5
2 1. RCW 58.17.110 (2) prohibits the City from approving a preliminary plat
unless written findings indicate that adequate provisions have been
made for public facilities including schools and school grounds.
22. The Pasco School District No. 1 Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2017 was
adopted by the Pasco School Board on December 13, 2011.
23. The School District Capital Facilities Plan identifies school facilities that
are necessary to meet the educational needs of the growing student
population within the Pasco School District.
24. The Pasco School District enrollment is projected by the Office of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction to increase by 5,384 students in the
next six years.
25. Based on enrollment projections, space needs and measures, the School
District Capital Facilities Plan outlines the needs for new capital facilities
for the next G years.
26. The District Plan outlines the issues facing the District and identifies
measures the District has taken to deal with burgeoning school
enrollments.
27. RCW 58.17.110 (2) is currently creating a moratorium on new residential
development in Pasco unless developers/builders reach an agreement
with the School District to make provisions for additional classroom
capacity.
28. All new residential dwelling units have an impact on classroom space not
just those dwellings built in subdivisions approved after April, 2011.
29. Without a school impact fee in place market inequities are created
between builders of dwellings in subdivisions approved after April 2011
and builders in subdivisions approved prior to April 2011.
30. Incorporating the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan within the
Comprehensive Plan would allow the city to implement a school impact
fee ordinance for new development impacting the School District.
31. Implementation of a school impact fee ordinance would enable the
community to address the statutory requirements of RCW 58. 17. 110
prohibiting the approval of new preliminary plats unless provisions are
made for schools and school grounds.
Recommendations
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo dealing with
Comprehensive Plan Updates.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
amend the Comprehensive Plan by updating the base maps,
modifying the Urban Growth Area, adopting by reference the
Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Marine Terminal/Boat Basin
Plan and including the Pasco School District Capital Facilities
Plan in the City's Capital Facilities Element.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt a school impact fee.
6
REFERENCE #5 Figarming Comniissiv-n
M irmtes
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
10/20/2011
A. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# 2011-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner summed up the 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update by
reviewing the memorandum and related materials the Planning Commission received in
their packet. The proposal for the amendment was divided into two sections; one dealt
with the land use maps and the growth boundary and the other dealt with the Capital
Facilities Element. The City has grown since the last review in 2007 creating the need
to update the maps accordingly.
Mr. McDonald explained the City has invested considerable funding for infrastructure
east of Highway 395 to serve future industrial development. The Urban Growth Area
needs to be modified slightly to allow the community to realize the benefits for the new
infrastructure.
Mr. McDonald briefly reviewed the Capital Facilities Element and discussed the School
Districts request for modification of the Plan to include the District's Capital Facilities
Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The School Districts request for the imposition
of impact fees was also briefly discussed. It was further explained that the City is
waiting on the School District to complete their capital facilities plan and as a result the
hearing will need to be continued to November 17, 2011.
Mr. White add that the Planning Commission will be reviewing the School Districts
Capital Facilities Plan in November and they might want to wait to make a decision
until the December meeting rather than November's due to the extent of the plan.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to continue the
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan updates until November 17, 2011. The motion
passed unanimously.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
11/ 17/2011
B. Comprehensive Platt 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (M F# 2011-00 1)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments froiu staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner reminded the Commission that the 2011 Comprehensive Plan
Update was reviewed in a Public Hearing at the October 20, 2011 meeting. The hearing was
continued to allow time for the Pasco School District to complete the District Capital
Facilities Plan. The Pasco School District request for the City to consider an impact fee
ordinance related to schools was a major reason for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The
central part of the District involves the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan, which would
be included by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The School District is still
working on their Capital Facilities Plan making it unavailable for consideration. As a result,
staff requested the continuation of the Public Hearing for another month to the December
15, 2011 meeting.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing for comments. No one was present to make
comments.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Ha_y to continue the hearing on
the Comprehensive Plan updates until the December 15, 2011 Planning Commission
Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
12/ 15/2011
B. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# 2011-
001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Community & Economic Development Director, Rick White, explained the status of the
Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan, as it pertained to the 2011 Comprehensive
Plan Update. The School District provided the Capital Facilities Plan to staff on December
14, 2011. Due to the short notice staff recommended the hearing be continued until the
January 19, 2012 meeting.
Mr. White provided a brief synopsis of the School District's Capital Facilities Plan which
outlines the District's needs for the next six _years and identifies enrollment projections and
matches the projections with facility needs. The Plan outlines measures the School District
has already taken or is considering to alleviate the space needs, including multi-track
scheduling, the re-organization of elementary schools to include sixth-graders to postpone
the need to build another middle school for five or six_years.
The School District also made adjustments in their plan to consider portables as a certain
percentage of permanent classroom capacity. In terms of space, Pasco School District is
over capacity. The School District has a problem with portables because they can't
continue to install them due to capacity problems with cafeterias and gym space.
The School District is now seeking mitigation for development impacts and the City is left
with a system that is essentially producing great inequities for development on new lots
versus existing lots because Pasco does not have an impact fee ordinance. Development on
new lots requires mitigation while development on existing lots can occur without necessary
mitigation. The current situation is the worst of both worlds because it does not help the
School District and confuses the development process creating uncertainty and more or less
becomes a moratorium on new development.
Rick White addressed impact fees briefly by indicating that Capital Facility Plans for School
Districts must be reviewed every two _years to determine whether or not the enrollment
projections justify impact fees. It's not necessarily the case that once an impact fee is in
place that it lasts forever. Some Districts on the west side of the State have actually seen a
reduction in growth, a population loss, and they have not been able to justify continuation
of impact fees so they are no longer in effect. If the City gets to the point where the voters
determine that growth has or will pay its fair share for facilities and/or we have an
industrial tax base that lessens the burden on residential properties, Pasco might also be in
a position someday to exempt new homes from impact fees because the formula would not
call for their continuation.
Rick White explained that at the January 19, 2012 meeting, a representative of the School
District will speak to explain the Capital Facilities Plan and any questions the Commission
might have.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway to continue the
hearing on the Comprehensive Plan updates until the January 19, 2012 Planning
Commission Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
01/25/2012
C. Comprehensive Plan 2011 Comprehensive Plan Update (MF# CPA 2011-
001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White explained that the Planning Commission has seen this item several times. The
Comprehensive Plan was last amended in 2005 and since then there have been a number of
changes that warrant the consideration of an update. One of those changes is the adoption
of the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Boat Basin Concept Plan which were both
considered by the Planning Commission in 2009 and 2010. There have been considerable
City street and utility improvements on Capital Avenue and at SR-12 adjacent the Lewis
Street Kahlotus Highway Interchange. Those suggest minor amendments to the urban
growth boundary and this area will be requested to add into the urban growth boundary.
There are also a couple of changes occurring for a similar reason in regards to the Tidewater
Barge Terminal.
Since the update occurred last in 2007 the City has developed more than 1,700 single-
family lots creating a need to update the base map in the Comprehensive Plan with the new
subdivisions and developed streets.
The Capital Facilities Plan is proposed for updating to specifically include a number of
utility and infrastructure improvements that have occurred from a City basis and also to
include the Pasco School District's Capital Facility Plan as a base for establishing an impact
fee ordinance.
The District's Capital Plan identifies existing and future enrollment needs that the School
District will encounter for the next six _years and matches those needs with space and
facility needs. It also identifies the service standards that the District uses to establish
classroom size and educational parameters and takes that inventory of existing facilities,
the future enrollment, service standards, and develops a list of needed capital facilities. It
also discusses a funding mechanism for those capital facilities. A portion of that funding
mechanism includes an impact fee.
The impact fee calculation provides for a number of factors that are used in order to get to
an impact. A number of those factors take the fee from the very high amount to a figure
much more manageable after those factors are applied. The Capital Plan itself does not
contain a fee, it provides the calculation and in the calculation there is a "TBD" acronym,
meaning the impact fee will be determined after the impact fee ordinance has gone through
the political process and a decision is made.
The Pasco School District is at its physical and funding capacity for new school facilities.
The City, County, School District and Development Industry are in a situation of having no
capacity for additional school children and an inventory of approximately 1,500 single-
family lots in some form of approval that are being developed at a rate of about 400-500 per
_year, which impacts the School District to a great extent but there has been no mitigation
from the new development. At the same time, we can't provide new capacity for developers
of new subdivisions or multi-family projects unless they enter into an agreement with the
School District to specifically mitigate on a case by case basis impacts to the School
District. This creates a great deal of uncertainty and inequity.
-1-
Mr. White further went on in detail about the impact fee calculation, moving sixth graders
back to elementary school which postpones the need for another middle school which would
be significantly more expensive than an elementary school. The District has also factored in
the use of portables as a portion of the permanent capacity for students which did not occur
in the first Capital Plan. In the end, the District's proposed fees are: $4,653.34 for single-
family and $4,525.56 for multi-family. Mitigation fees would most likely be much higher
than the proposed impact fee because of the factors that reduce the impact fee probably
aren't going to be applied in a case by case negotiation.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission make motion to recommend the City Council
adopt a school impact fee. The actual amount of the fee will be set at a later date.
John Morgan, 425 Road 37, with the Assistant Superintendent of the Pasco School District
explained that the Pasco School Board initially adopted the Capital Facilities Plan in
December of 2010. This was sent to both the City and Franklin County and they have met
with the City on numerous occasions. They have also met with the Home Builder's's
Association, realtors and School District stakeholders to discuss impact fees and the need
for them within the School District as well as the impact it has on the community. In
October 2011 the School Board adopted the recommendations of the multi-track year round
task force, another alternative to look at how the District can work on alleviating the great
amount of growth there is in the School District. Reconfiguration of the elementary schools
was done to place sixth graders back into the elementary schools. It is a common concept
that many people have already done before that saves money and delayed the need for
building a new middle school but increased the need for elementary schools. Portables
becoming permanent also caused a need for the revision in the Capital Facilities Plan.
Marnie Allen, 2500 NE 65th Ave, Vancouver, WA, employed with the Educational Service
District, provides legal services and calculations for school impact fees and capital facility
plans. She explained that State law states that you can't approve new development unless
there are adequate provisions for schools. Since there has been so much growth in the
Pasco School District consistently for 10 _years, there is no longer any room in the schools to
continue to serve kids that come from new houses. New development can't go forward
unless one of two things happen: 1) That developer has to mitigate the impacts they directly
cause on the schools, meaning they build classrooms to serve the students coming out of
new development or they enter into an agreement and make voluntary payments to the
School District equal to what it would cost to build those classrooms, 2) School impact fees.
Option 1 is not dependable and the amount could change depending on where the
development is and what the capacity of the school is at that particular time. The builders
she has spoken to prefer the impact fees over mitigation fees. It is a more equitable way to
share the costs across all housing, it's reliable, and produces a lower amount and defined
amount.
Ms. Allen showed the Planning Commission, Staff, and citizens a brief school impact fee
calculation and demonstration, with the formula as:
SIP= (CS X SF) - SM - TC - A
SIF= School Impact Fee
CS= Cost per Student (cost to build schools for students coming from new houses)
SF= Student Factor (student demand that new houses place on the schools)
SM= State Match Credit (money awarded by the State)
TC= Tax Credit (money back from property taxes)
-2-
IA= Reduction Set by City Council (ensures developers don't pay mare than their fair I
share)
This is a standard formula used by cities and counties around the state. The impact fee
has three deductions, which is something mitigation fees do not do. Deduction "A" is a
reduction percentage set by City Council at what they feel is fair. Some jurisdictions set it
at Oq'O' and some 50q,-O' . The Pasco School District is recommending 2590.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to clarify the definition of a multi-family impact fee. He
wanted to know if you have a multi-family duplex or apartment building, if developers paid
an impact fee was for the whole building or for just one unit. Ms. Allen answered that it
was for just one unit, so impact fees would have to be paid for each unit.
Commissioner Levin asked a question in regards to the tax credit and as to how the
developers receive it. Ms. Allen answered that it is built into the formula as a "tax
reduction", not actual money coming back like a rebate.
Commissioner Levin asked Ms. Allen what the comments and opinions have been from
developers in other districts where impact fees have been adopted. Ms. Allen responded
that the comments have varied. When starting out implementing the impact fees there is a
huge push from both the Realtor's Association and the Developers saying it is an aggressive
tax, it's going to cause the cost of housing to increase, it will slow development and stop
growth but then when they have to deal with SEPA mitigations they realize the impact fees
are much more fair and equitable.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Allen if she could give a number of school districts
throughout the State that are imposing an impact fee. Ms. Allen responded that she did not
have an exact answer but she thinks there are about 80-86 school districts receiving impact
fees, which is probably less than a majority. A number of school districts are also receiving
SEPA mitigations.
Chairman Cruz asked Ms. Allen to discuss the timing of impact fees or when they are to be
collected. Ms. Allen and the School District recommend the fees are collected when the
building permits are issued to give the School District time to prepare. If money isn't
collected until the time of occupancy then the District doesn't have the funds to even buy a
portable on time for the kids that are coming from the house.
Rick White added to Ms. Allen's response that when the City and School District met with
the Home Builder's Association this past month, there was discussion about moving the
point of collection from the building permits stage to the portion of the transaction where
the fee would be paid through escrow, essentially when the sale occurred. Nothing was
decided since that is a separate process.
Marnie Allen responded to Mr. White's response. The primary reason for the School District
tying the payment with the time of impact fees through escrow is then the entire fee gets
passed on to the buyer of the home, who then when they are asked to vote on a
maintenance and operation levy that's not even tied to school facility construction feel
they've already paid it. It can be confusing and misleading to the home buyer when the cost
is wrapped into closing costs.
Jamie Southworth, 4521 Laredo Drive, stated she had three kids in the district ages 6, 9,
and 11. Her family moved to Pasco 12 _years ago and when they bought a house they were
surprised at the low price of homes. All of her children are crammed into the schools. The
elementary school her children attend was built for 500 students and there are currently
-3-
almost 900. To have an assembly they have to have two sessions. Her kindergartener is in
a portable so when it rains it takes a lot of time to bundle them all up to get them out the
door, time that could be used for education.
Miranda Bollman, 4811 Lucena Drive, moved to Pasco four _years ago from Clark County.
She is in support of the impact fee because she argues it does not stop homebu_yers from
purchasing a home. It becomes part of buying a home.
Renee Dahlgren, 1201 W. 14th Avenue, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of the Home
Builder's Association. They are a member based trade association similar to a chamber of
commerce with over 800 members representing over 10,000 employees and citizens of the
Tri-Cities. They are fundamentally opposed to the impact fee. Ms. Dahlgren gave the
following reasons for their opposition: 1) They artificially increase the price of a home, 2)
They reduce the amount of growth, and 3) They price people out of the market. She has
received calls from citizens since the impact fee came up. While builders do initially pay the
fees it is passed along to the consumer. Consumers usually finance those fees so they are
paying sales tax and excise tax so the $4,700 fee in the end is much greater. She discussed
a letter from an appraiser stating how difficult it is for the appraisal market to absorb the
costs. If a home one day is $130,000 and the next day it is $134,000 increased costs does
not necessarily mean increased value.
As for the costs of paying for the schools, Ms. Dahlgren said that the funds should come
from the whole community, not just one subset of the community. If the Planning
Commission does approve the impact fee, they ask that the fees be collected at the time of
closing instead of the time of building permit. When the building permit is issued, there is
no impact on the schools therefore the impact fee should not be paid until the impact is
made. They would also ask for a further reduction of the fee so that it doesn't go from $0 to
nearly $4,700 overnight. She feels the only "courtesy" deduction was the 2590 (or `A' in the
impact fee equation). The other deductions were just taxes that were already going to be
paid. She asked for at least a 509,-0' discount if imposed.
Commissioner Anderson asked Ms. Dahlgren if the homebuilders would prefer the SEPA fee
or the School Impact Fee. She answered that the majority of the builders would prefer to
see the impact fee but she feels that there are other things that can be done by the School
District, such as working with State Legislators because the School District has a lot of
mandates to meet. Commissioner Anderson addressed the mandates and working with
Legislature stating that we would be in a long line to be addressed since the priority is not
very high.
Paul Roy, 2097 Hanson Loop, Burbank, WA represented the Association of Realtors.
Fundamentally they are opposed to impact fees because he feels many people will be
unfairly taxed since only a small portion of the community will have to pay the fee when the
schools are important to the whole community. Mr. Roy does realize that the situation the
Pasco School District is in really doesn't have any other options. He also addressed the fact
that not all new home owners will be impacting the School District; some will be retiree's
and some who've had kids already grown. In the future he wants to find other ways to fund
the School District so that the small minority doesn't have to unfairly pay. He would like to
see the City find ways to widen the tax base by bringing in new enterprise that is industrial
or commercial.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Roy about the time of collection of the impact fee. He stated that
if the fee is collected late at the time the house is purchased rather than when the building
permits are acquired, the School District will have to get money elsewhere in the meantime.
-4-
The School District needs the time to build and prepare for the impact of ne«- students—at
least 6 months or longer to get something started.
Mr. Roy answered that if it is an impact fee then he feels that it should be paid when the
impact itself occurs.
Chairman Cruz responded again that it is not realistic to collect the fees when the impact
occurs because the School District has to provide the facilities by the time the students are
ready, and they can't become ready the day those homes become occupied.
Mr. Roy responded that they are just trying to minimize the actual cost of the fee on the
home buyer. For example, if it's a $4,700 impact fee, then it's $4,700 at the time of closing
but if the builder's pay in the beginning, it will be a greater fee passed on to the consumer
for no services recognized due to interest. The earlier the fee is paid, the higher the fee will
be to the consumer.
Chairman Cruz did understand what Mr. Roy was stating in regards to a higher fee due to
interest if the fees are paid at the time of the permits. It could take _years from the time
something is platted until the home is sold which is an extended period of interest however
the schools still need advance time for their construction.
Heidi Redfield, 4007 Meadowview Drive, stated that she has three children in the Pasco
School District all elementary age. The school her children attend was built for 500 and
now there are almost 900. Portable after portable has been added. There are so many
students that the children have to do art/physical education activities during transitioning
from classes just to ensure they get the learning they are supposed to have. The PTO is
working on raising money to build a new playground since there are so many kids in such a
small area to play. She wants the community to think of the impact new construction has
on the children, not the money for the sake of their education. Ms. Redfield would like to
see more business come to the area. Without good schools she feels that businesses won't
want to come.
Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret, he is an employee at Pasco High School and wanted to
address the idea of "fairness" of new homes having to pay an impact fee. Currently, all of
the schools are overcrowded and there isn't room for adequate learning to happen. If
concerned about growth in the community there won't be growth without adequate schools
as well. The lack of school facilities proposes a greater risk than a modest impact fee. Also,
the fee needs to be collected as soon as possible for the schools to plan ahead.
Lane Donaldson, 4008 Desert Plateau Drive, stated that with an impact fee, it is only
applied to new homes. Every other family that moves into that home after the impact fee
has been paid will not have to pay the fee. He also doesn't feel that it is fair that people who
don't have children and will not impact the schools have to pay the fee. Pasco has the most
developable land in the Tri-Cities which is why it has had consistent growth. Pasco didn't
have the housing flop that happened all over the country because housing prices stayed
low. He wishes that SEPA mitigations would have started 10 _years ago so that we wouldn't
be in the current situation. He also doesn't feel that the impact fee can be added in at the
time of escrow because then families do feel the fee. Mr. Donaldson feels that perhaps 509'.0'
of the fee could be paid by the builders at the time of the permits and 509"0' when the home
is sold. He believes the main problem in Pasco is the lack of businesses in comparison to
residencies.
Preston Ramsey, 311 S. Shoreline Drive, Liberty Lake, WA spoke on behalf of FBA Land
Holdings. He had submitted comments for the packets sent to the Planning Commission.
-5-
He requested that the public hearing be kept open until the February 16, 2012 Planning
Commission meeting due to the complicated matter. Mr. Ramsey is not sure where the
numbers in the School Impact Fee calculation came from. He would also like to look at
alternative forms of revenue. Most of his clients own multi-family land and feels that there
is an unfair difference between a single-family fee and a multi-family fee. The multi-family
fee is 97°.••0 of the single-family fee. Mr. Ramsey said that given the cost of construction for a
multi-family unit the make-up of a multi-family occupant is often transient, less likely to
have kids and they are less likely to be permanent residents. He believes that it is possible
to have an impact fee for single-family residences and not for multi-family residences or by
a lesser amount.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Ramsey if he knew the historical average rate is for mortgage
interest since it's been recorded. Chairman Cruz said that it is 9%'D, so you push a lot of
_young families into multi-family housing Multi-family housing is very common entry-level
housing for many families starting out until they can move into single-family homes.
Multi-family housing is not just for transient citizens or families without children.
Dennis Lukehart, 425 W. Quincy Street, Kennewick, WA addressed multi-family housing.
He is a managing broker with Windermere Group and they are looking to do a major
development in Pasco. They have already submitted their preliminary plat. He is concerned
about the time the fee is to be collected. With the 47 four-plexes they are planning to build,
at the time of permit they would have to come up with $546,000. The cost of carrying that
amount in interest is very high. To be able to carry the burden while getting them sold will
hurt the process. They would only be able to do four buildings at a time and there is a need
for multi-family housing. He argued they won't be able to afford to build no matter how
cheap they acquire the land.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Lukehart what the total cost of construction for the 47 four-
plexes would be. Mr. Lukehart answered that it would be roughly $13 million. Chairman
Cruz stated then that the impact fee would be adding 1/13 of the cost of the construction
loan.
Chairman Cruz also asked what adding the $546,000 would do to the cost of renting each
unit. Mr. Lukehart answered that it doesn't matter because the rent will be set at what the
market can hold. And with the costs being added on to the buyer they can still only price
them where they can sell.
Ana Ruiz-Peralta, 4304 Laredo Drive, stated that her family moved to Pasco from
Vancouver, WA and they love the City of Pasco. She wishes the Planning Commission to
make the decision that would make Pasco attractive, including helping the School District.
She feels the Pasco School District does a great job with what they have but it needs to
remain good education to keep families coming to Pasco.
John Morgan addressed the Planning Commission again to ask not to delay this issue any
longer. The Capital Facilities Plan came out over a year ago and only minor adjustments
have been made. It has been open to the public to look at and the costs have only been
lowered. A resolution needs to be made for the builders, realtors, community and School
District.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Morgan to go further into the multi-family calculation and the
School District's position. He answered that the School District just made a
recommendation. They will not decide the final cost. The final cost is left to the Planning
Commission and City Council to set.
-6-
Commissioner Levin asked Mr. Morgan in regards to the status of_year-round schools and if
it could work in alleviating some of the overcrowding issues. Mr. Morgan answered that the
Multi-track Task Force is not total _year-round school, just multi-track. Only one group of
students will be off during a period of time in order to have more students in the school.
The community has told the School District to do multi-track as the last of all other possible
options. They are currently in the planning stages however they will not do multi-track in
the next_year. After the levy, the Board will consider if they are going to run a bond as well.
The public comments were closed, and the Planning Commission began a quick discussion.
Commissioner Kahn asked staff if the impact fee in the School District's Capital Facilities
Plan will be implemented once the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan Updates are
recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council and approved by City
Council.
Rick White answered that the Planning Commission has two policy decisions: to incorporate
the School District's Capital Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan and provide a policy
recommendation to City Council to adopt an impact fee but not to calculate the fee at this
meeting. The Capital Facilities Plan has been out for almost a year and the only changes
have been to include portables as permanent capacity and the elimination of a middle
school as a needed facility within the next six _years, which has driven the costs down. The
impact fee calculation is going to occur through a process which could even end up different
than what is in the Capital Plan however it could also be the same.
Commissioner Kahn asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to consider Preston
Ramsey's request to extend the public hearing until the February 16, 2012 meeting. The
Commission decided that since the Capital Facilities Plan has been out for so long it is best
to move forward.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the January 19, 2012 staff memo dealing with Comprehensive Plan
Updates. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend the City
Council amen the Comprehensive Plan by updating the base maps, modifying the Urban
Growth Area, adopting by reference the Broadmoor Concept Plan and the Marine
Terminal/Boat Basin Plan and including the Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan in
the City's Capital Facilities. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kempf asked to clarify the third motion to make sure that they are just
agreeing to propose the impact fee, not set the actual fee amount. Rick White answered
that the Planning Commission is just setting a policy recommendation to City Council
including an impact fee as a portion of the funding necessary for the School District's
Capital Facilities Plan but no fee is being set by the Commission by doing so.
Commissioner Levin is opposed to the impact fee and sympathizes with the home builders.
He feels that it can be tweaked but for now will vote "no" on the impact fee.
Commissioner Anderson discussed that numerous times impact fees have been discussed
for the School District. He feels that this issue should have been addressed _years ago. He
doesn't like it but understands the need for an impact fee and will support it. The hallways
have been overcrowded in the schools for _years and if the community wants to grow, Pasco
must have good schools. Also, he recommended to Mr. Lukehart who was planning to build
47 four-plexes to build them four at a time if that is what is necessary. Mr. Anderson stated
-7-
that he works in public housing and realizes the need for multi-family housing in the
community but he cannot support what the home builder's state.
Commissioner Hay stated that this should have been addressed sooner and now that we're
out of options we need an impact fee.
Commisioner Kahn and Commissioner Kempf support the impact fee.
Chairman Cruz supported Commissioner Hay and Commissioner Anderson. This has been
a topic that has been remissed over the _years. He believes the future of Pasco is deeply
rooted in commercial development but a community needs good schools. He doesn't like
the way that the City of Pasco got to this situation with the either/or choice of SEPA versus
impact fees since it feels like pressure from the School District and the home builders and
home owners will feel some impact, especially going into a tough bond and levy climate,
however he is in support of the school impact fees due to there being no way around it.
Rick White noted that the Capital Plan is revised every two _years so the School District will
again go through the Plan and the need for facilities and the growth rate used in their
projections, essentially acting as a safety net to evaluate the need for fees. In regards to the
assessed values in the City of Pasco, Franklin County itself has a very low value per capita
in comparison to Kennewick and Richland. There are also many children in multi-family
housing structures. In fact, there are more kids in multi-family structures than in
comparable single-family homes.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf to recommend the City
Council adopt a school impact fee. The motion passed five to one with Commissioner Levin
dissenting.
-S-