Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 2395 I
RESOLUTION NO.- 2395
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING FACTS SUPPORTING THE COlflUNI TY
FACILITIES' 'CiiARGE '
WHEREAS the City of Renton is a suburban city bordering on
the City of Seattle ; and
WHEREAS the City of Renton has been undergoing substantial
growth within the last several years ; and
WHEREAS such growth requires capital improvements by the
City of Penton, such as the extension of water and sewer mains ,
the construction of new roadways and expanded arterial roadways ,
the establishment of new and expanded park facilities , new fire
facilities , and new facilities for general city services ; and
WHEREAS such new capital facilities require .funding, through
one means or another ; and
WHEREAS future growth is expected to continue high within the
next -five- to ten years ; and
WHEREAS present residences and businesses have contributed
to capital improvements through either tap-in charges , systems
development charges , or general tax payments ; and
14HEREAS an equitable method must be established whereby
new growth can contribute to capital improvements required because
of such new growth; and
WHEREAS a community facilities charge as anticipated by the City
of Renton has previously been passed, adopted and held lawful in
the 'City of Palos Verdes , California; and
WHEREAS the City of Renton has previously adopted a six year
street plan, forecasting the need and desirability and priority of
improvement to city streets ; and
WHEREAS the City of Renton has previously adopted 'a six year
capital improvement program, likewise establishing the necessity
and priority of certain capital improvements within the City of
-1-
Renton; and
WHEREAS the City of Renton has previously adopted a
Comprehensive Utilities Plan forecasting the need and priority of
certain city utilities ; and
WHEREAS the City of Renton has previously adopted a
Comprehensive Parks Plan establishing the required number of acres
of park property measured by the number of citizens to be served
by each acre of park property; and
WHEREAS each of these Plans establishes the goals of the City
of Renton for capital improvements within the next six years ; and
WHhREAS the establishment and development of new construction
both residential and commercial and industrial , without the
construction of new capital improvements , presents an immediate and
present danger to the quality of living within the City of Renton ; and
WHEREAS such development threatens to contaminate and pollute
the air , water and living atmosphere in and about the City of Renton;
and
WHEREAS such development threatens to overtax and burden the
existing utilities , public services and facilities of the City of
Renton; and
WHEREAS the tax payers of the City of Penton already suffer a
substantial tax burden from federal , state and local taxes ; and
WHEREAS it would appear from experience and estimates that
the tax revenues available to the City of Renton, and other revenues
available to the City of Renton, must be dedicated , in whole or in
large part , to the maintenance of existing capital improvements ,
with little or no funding left over for the construction of new
capital improvements ; and
WHEREAS it will be necessary to establish a source of revenue
for capital improvements in the City of Renton before such major
steps , such as acquisition of lands for parks can be adequately
forecast , planned and undertaken; and
WHEREAS the density of construction and the increased
percentage of land covered by impervious st.irface has
-2-
led to an ever-increasing problem with surface water runoff and
retention; and
WHEREAS the surface water runoff problem is not being
adequately addressed, at the present time, and will substantially
increase as the few remaining acres of developable property are
developed and paved, or otherwise covered with impervious surface;
and
WHEREAS the number of bedrooms in residential construction
bears a reasonable relationship to the impact of that residential
dwelling on City utilities and needed capital improvements ; and
WHEREAS the number of square feet of industrial and commercial
construction bears a reasonable relationship on the impact of that
construction on city utilities and future capital improvements ; and
WHEREAS the City has calculated the needed capital improve-
ments due to growth in the methods described in Appendix A attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth , and that
same attachment , labeled " Systems Development Charge In the City
of Renton" describes the rationale for the various charges , and the
information considered by the Citizens Advisory Committee studying
community facilities charges , which resulted in a recommendation to
the City Council , also contained in Appendix A; and
WHEREAS those methods and means of calculating the impact
of rowth upon capital improvements are reasonable ; and
WHEREAS such calculations are not exact , and are estimates
based upon the best available information; and
WHEREAS such estimates do not cover all sections of City
services , for example , there is no calculation included for capital
investment for future capital expenditures for the Police Department ;
NOW THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REINTON,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS :
-3-
SECTION I ; The above recitals are found to be true and
correct in all respects .
SECTION II : The findings as made support the establishment
of a community facilities charge by the City of Renton to bear all or
a portion of the estimated capital improvement cost due to future
growth of the City of Renton.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4th day of May , 1981
Delores A. Mead , ty Clerk
Pro tem
APPROVED BY THE NI YORAthis 4th day of May 1961 .
i
Ric—hard M. S-tredicke, ,Mayor Pro tem
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J . WarTen, Ci Attorney
-4-
r�
a
•
•
• SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
IN THE CITY OF RENTON
•
•
A report to be considered by
• the Renton City Council
Community Services Committee
March 3, 1981
•
•
J
On November 17, 1980, the Renton City Council approved a report submitted by the
Council Community Services Committee which established a Citizens' Advisory Committee
for the purpose of studying systems development charges in Renton. The advisory
committee assumed the following charge:
1 . Study and assess the impact of growth and development on existing systems
. and the corresponding cost of expanding City services to accommodate new
growth.
a. Summarize the growth impact and advise.
2. Study the City staff recommendations regarding appropriate methods of assessment
• in each service category (i .e. , square footage, meter size, per dwelling unit,
etc.) .
a. Recommend preferred method of assessment.
3. Review proposed Systems Development Ordinance.
i a. Provide recommendations regarding content and policy guidelines.
The following report addresses these issues , provides a summary of the material
reviewed by the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and the findings and recommendations
are herewith submitted to the Renton City Council for consideration.
® Members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee Studying Systems Development Charges:
Kathy Keolker, Chair; Renton Hili Homeowners' Association
Del Bennett, Residential Developer and Officer of Seattle Master Builders '
Association
Dick Causey, Facilities Design and Property Development, Puget Sound Power
and Light Company (alternate)
Larry Dixon, Residential and Commercial Developer, Benton-McCarthy Real Estate
Glenn Garrett, Victoria Park Homeowners' Association (alternate)
• Vern Lockard, General Contractor, Vern Lockard Construction, Inc.
David Pierce, Past President of Rolling Hills Homeowners ' Association
Susan Ringwood, Former Member of Renton School Board
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
IN RENTON
This report has been prepared by the staff in an effort to summarize the input and
information provided to the Advisory Committee during its deliberations.
1 . OVERVIEW
People often mistakenly view government as an entity removed from the realities of
the private sector. The spiraling economy and the ravages of inflation are factors
that affect any organization, be it profit or service-oriented. One of the challenges
facing the City of Renton is that of dealing with growth. In varying degrees, almost
every city in the state shares this common problem which presents a multitude of
j � questions for city administrators and difficult policy decisions for elected officials.
I
The demand for continued growth is apparent; residential , commercial and industrial
activity has increased tremendously in recent years (see Exhibits 1 , 2, 3) . While
developers and some business interests might argue this point, new development is
no special blessing for a city. While the tax base is raised, the new tax dollars
are quickly absorbed providing the additional municipal services that attracted new
residents and businesses to the City in. the first place.
State-imposed limits on tax revenues (see Exhibit 4) have effectively widened the
gap between demand for services and the City's ability to meet that demand. .
Spiraling inflation of salaries and other costs have led to budgetary shortfalls
in capital outlay expenditures that are necessary to meet increased service demands
(see Exhibits 5-8) . For example, after providing for salary increases , contract
commitments, utility costs, debt service and other non-negotiable City expenses in
the 1981 municipal budget, more than 91% of the anticipated revenues had been ear-
marked, leaving $3.7 million from a $38 million budget to be allocated by the Mayor
and City Council for new personnel , equipment, operating supplies , etc. Obviously,
very little of that $3.7 million is available to expand capital facilities to meet
future needs.
Another source of revenue is necessary if the City wishes to continue its present
growth pattern. In previous years the federal and state governments were beneficent
providers of funding for projects in Renton ranging from park development to bridge
replacements. However, it has become painfully clear that competition for dwindling
federal aid will continue to increase. We are told that we must aim toward self
sufficiency. While it is doubtful that any city will achieve self sufficiency,
given the scope of our responsibilities it is imperative that the City of Renton
develop some long-range measures to provide for a reasonable level of growth and
the corresponding expansion of system facilities.
Some of the possibilities for raising capital at the local level include:
1 . Increasing existing local taxes or imposing new ones.
2. Increasing service rates.
3. Issuance of General Obligation or Revenue Bonds.
4. Expand and increase imposition of latecomers and connection charges fees.
5. Increased use of local improvement districts.
6. Expand and increase the imposition of system development charges.
-2- .
None of the above options provides a viable answer to the financial demands placed
upon the City due to expanding growth. Increasing rates or issuing revenue bonds
put an unfair burden on present ratepayers since the capacity of most systems would
have been adequatewere it not for new development. Increasing the utility tax rate
or instituting a city-wide business and occupations tax on existing taxpayers for
this purpose is politically infeasible and, again, assesses those who have already
paid for their "fair share" of existing systems. Increased use of L. I .D. 's and
General Obligation Bonds is doomed for similar reasons, since they depend on the
support of established residents. In addition, the City is required to maintain an
adequate reserve ratio when using these financing tools to satisfy state requirements.
It is difficult to explain why the City should resort to deficit financing and
increased service rates to provide funds for capital expansion. An option is to
place the burden on the persons requiring the expansion or the group of individuals
who plan to profit financially by the expansion.
Increasing connection or "tap" charges appears to be a reasonable approach. However,
the decision in Boe vs Seattle, 66 Wn. 2d. 152 (1965) stresses that "The fundamental
basis on which the fee is to be calculated. . . is not that of the benefit received but
merely an equitable sharing of the cost of the system." Thus collection of only
historical costs are authorized, and such costs are based upon assessable units of
applicable L. I .D. 's which expanded the system at particular points in time. Because
the City's historical costs are grossly disproportionate to present day expansion
costs, the revenue raised through increased tap charges would be inadequate to pay
for needed capital expansion projects.
Many Oregon and California cities use "system development charges" which involves the
payment of a fee before access is allowed to city services. Such a charge may be in
violation of Article VII , Section 9, of the State Constitution. That clause requires ,
that municipal corporations impose no taxes without express legislative authority.
Since the taxation of real property is a matter reserved for the State Legislature,
a city cannot lawfully impose a tax which duplicates that imposed under the state
property taxation laws. Therefore, if the systems development fee is effectively
deemed a property tax, it may be of questionable validity because there is no state
enabling law authorizing it. The same would be true if the charge is deemed to be
an assessment since it is likewise unauthorized by state law or permissible under
the State Constitution.
Another practical option that could be employed in Renton is the one recently
established in the cities of Kent and Issaquah. These cities have imposed an
excise tax on the privilege of constructing new residential , commercial and
industrial structures in their' respective communities. The tax must be prepaid by
the contractor or owner before the issuance of a building permit. Revenues from
the tax are placed in a "facilities expansion fund" and used for acquisition,
development or expansion of city facilities. The vehicle used to assess the charge
is a B&0 tax ordinance limited strictly to the business of construction of residential ,
commercial or industrial structures. The objective of the tax is to provide funds
with which the city may meet the necessary increased demands resulting from new
construction. This tax could effectively shift to the users of new development
expenses incurred by the city on their account to provide public services.
Authorization for the tax is found under RCW 35A.82.020 which allows a noncharter
code city, such as Renton, to impose a B&O tax. The statute provides that such a
city may impose "excises for regulation or revenue in regard to all places and
kinds of business, production, commerce. . .and upon all occupations, trades and
professions and any other lawful activity."
i
• 73-
In addition, RCW 18.27. 130, relating to the registration and licensing of state
contractors, provides that no pol;i;tical :subdiv,isi,on. shall require a license fee
for the purposes described under that statute, 'but -specifically provides that
` nothing "shall limit or abridge the authority of any city or town to levy a tax
based upon gross business conducted by any firm within said city. . .". The excise
tax in Kent and Issaquah is specifically a tax upon "gross business" and is measured
by the amount of construction made by a person in the business of construction.
(NOTE: Portions of the preceding discussion were taken from a speech delivered by
John A. Hackett, City Attorney of Issaquah, to the members of the Association of
• Washington Cities legal division at their annual conference in 1980.)
Because the structure of the excise taxes and system development charges used in
other cities varies tremendously, the following list has been prepared to illustrate
how neighboring communities have addressed this issue:
• COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
WASHINGTON CITIES WITH
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
City Amount of Charge Revenues Used For
Auburn Utility - based on meter size: All revenue is segregated into
separate funds for installation,
Meter Water Sewer construction and extension of
Size Cost/Meter Cost/Meter extra capacity water and sewer
3/4" $ 400 $ 200 facilities. The rates of
• 1" 1 ,000 500 charges are revised annually
]1111 ,800 900 to reflect changes in con-
]" 7,800 1 ,400 struction costs (Council
4" 8 600 300 review) .
6" 15,800 7,900
•
(proposed) Parks: A proposed Park, Recrea-
tion and Open Space ordinance
is currently being developed.
Further information is- not
available at this time.
•
Bellevue Parks & Recreation: Used for neighborhood community
Park dedication : 5 acres/
parks, recreation sites or
1 ,000 population open spaces.
Fee in lieu: $510/single
• family dwelling unit;
$710/multi-family dwelling
unit
Street Impact Fee: $12 Street impact fee used for
per vehicle trip generated improvements to street system.
•
•
-4- •
City Amount of Charge Revenues Used For
Bothell Utility Charge: All charges All revenue is placed in separate
are computed based on the gross funds for use in providing capital r
area of the property improvements for parks, sewers,
water - $.0125/s.f. water, drainage. The Council is
sewer - $.0125/s.f. presently considering the option
Storm Drainage - $.Ol/s.f. to revise the charges as well as
Parks: $300 per dwelling adding another charge for
unit transportation.
Kent Environmental Excise Tax: Revenues are to be placed in the
Single family and condos: "Environmental Excise Fund" to
$300/bedroom to a $750 acquire and develop park and
maximum
open space and environmental •
Multi-family• $500/bedroom capital facilities. Purchase
to a maximum of $1 ,000 of equipment and machinery is
Commercial/Industrial :, $.22
also allowed.
per sq. ft.
i
(proposed) Utility: The staff and a
committee are currently
working on a utility charge.
Details are not available
at this time.
•
King County Parks and Open Space: 5.25% Revenue would be set aside in
(proposed) of land for single family or a separate fund to be used for
multi-family for park use. acquisition, development and
2.5 acres of open space for maintenance of park and
each 1 ,000 persons to be recreation property.
served by a development or a
fee may be paid in lieu of
dedication totaling 150% of
the total assessed value of
the property that would other-
wise be set aside. •
Kirkland Parks and Recreation: Sub- Revenues are used for capital
division ordinance requires items. Charges are revised
developers to dedicate 5% of annually to reflect changes in
the total land area being the construction cost index.
developed to the city for parks,
recreation and open spaces. In
lieu of dedication, the appli-
cant must pay a fee not less
than 1 ) 2% of the assessed valuation
of the entire subdivision when lo-
cated in an RS zone, or 2) 10% of
the assessed valuation of the entire
subdivision when located in any other
zone, or 3) $200/dwelling unit,
whichever is greater. •
• -5-
Cit Amount of Char9 a Revenues Used For
i Renton Utilities: based on gross Revenue is presently placed
square footage of property in the Utility Fund. No
water: $.01/s.f. provisions in the ordinance
sewer: $.Ol s.f. prohibit the use of these
revenues for other than capital
expenditures.
III •
Selah Community Facilities Develop- Revenues to be placed in a
(adoption ment Charge: Community Facilities Develop-
pending) A. Building Value Fee: amount ment Fund. The money will be
equal to z of building used to provide additional
• permit fee current at capacity for streets, sewers,
time of computation. water, storm drainage and park
B. Building Area Fee: $150 facilities. The ordinance will
for first 1 ,800 s.f. of be revised annually to reflect
building area plus 12fi changes in fees as well as new
s. f. of building area in capital projects eligible for
excess of 1 ,800 s.f. (min. funding.
charge is $150) .
C. Land Area Fee: 1� s.f. of
land area. Parcels larger
than 10,000 s.f. with the
balance being charged when
• it is further partioned,
short-platted or developed.
Issaquah Utilities - Sewer & Water: Revenues are placed in a
$300/bathroom to $1 ,000 max. "Utilities Expansion Fund."
• per dwelling unit for single All proceeds are to be used
family. for expansion of water and
$.20/s.f. of gross floor area sewer utilities; proceeds are
for multi-family (more than not available for maintenance
two dwelling units) . and operations.
$.30/s. f. for new commercial
• or industrial .
Park & Recreation: All resi- All revenues derived from this
dential development is ordinance are maintained in a
required to dedicate 7.5 separate account and are used
acres of property for each to purchase park and open
1 ,000 new residents. space property. The fund shall
' • Office, commercial and not be used for capital improve-
industrial development must ments or maintenance and opera-
dedicate 1/12 of an acre of tions.
property for each one acre
of property developed.
' • The city has the option of
accepting a fee in lieu of
dedication.
•
-6-
As evidenced above, the practice of assessing development to finance capital
facilities in Washington is spreading rapidly. However, we must look to cities
in the State of California, where system development charges have been used for
years, to assess the long-term effect of these impact fees. The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) published a report in February of 1980 which listed
the development fees collected by 55 cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. The
Renton city staff contacted representatives from eleven of the California cities
that had listed a "growth impact" fee exceeding $1 ,400 for a standard three bedroom
single family home on a 5,500 square foot lot. We asked each of the following •
communities how the imposition of these fees had affected development in their
cities.
GROWTH IMPACT FEES
IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
Growth
Impact
County City Fee Type of Fee
Alameda Fremont $2,046 Park, School , Construction Tax
Livermore $2, 124 Park, School , Construction Tax •
Union City $1 ,400 Park, School
Contra Costa Pittsburg $4,500 Signalization
San Mateo Menlo Park $2,378 Park, Traffic Impact
San Bruno $1 ,403 Park, Residential Construction Tax, •
Valuation Tax
Santa Clara Los Altos $1 ,800 Park Fee
San Jose $2 ,835 Park, School , Residential Construction
Solano Vallejo $3,190 Park, School , Residential Construction, •
Bridge
Fairfield $2,645 Occupancy Tax, Park, School
Dixon $2,496 Park, School , Capital Improvement
While all of the cities questioned varied greatly in population size, demographics, •
and growth patterns, the responses to our questions were remarkably similar. None
of the cities surveyed indicated that "impact fees" had limited the demand for
building permits. Only four cities stated that their growth rate had slowed in
recent years, and each of these jurisdictions explained that their respective city
councils had established specific growth ceilings due to overburdened public services.
•
Seven of the contacts in the subject cities stated that increases in the existing
fees had no impact on the demand for building permits. Union City, for example,
doubled its fee in 1978 with no appreciable impact on the demand for permits. When
asked, "What factors could affect development in your community?" we received the
following input:
•
• I
l
-7-
Residential
• 1 . Limited ability of cities to provide services.
2. Scarcity of developable land due to sprawl and poor land use planning
in the 50's and 60's.
3. Political pressure from "no-growth" interests in the community.
t
Y•
4. Interest rates.
• Commercial/Industrial :
1 . Limited ability of cities to provide services.
2. Scarcity of land.
3. Availability of work force due to lack of adequate transportation systems
and limited housing for low and moderate income families.
• 4. Interest rates.
Each city stated that the growth impact fee surely increased housing costs to some
extent. However, it was felt that the impact these fees had on the final cost of a
home was minimal when compared to inflation and other influences.
• It is interesting to note that five cities stated they had the full support of the
development, real estate, and local business interests when the fees were imposed
or increased because the option was severely restricting development due to lack
of services.
Conclusion
Obviously, care must be taken when drawing comparisons between California and
Washington. The growth pains experienced in California in the early 70's resulting
from rapid and uncontrolled growth should serve as a lesson to all Washington cities.
In California, municipalities allowed growth until they were unable Lo provide adequate
public services. This led to severe remedial action; stringent restriction on all
• development; very high development fees and local taxes; and generally reducing the
level of public services provided. These are all factors leading to a reduction in
the quality of life affecting all residents.
If properly planned and controlled, future growth and development in Renton can
enhance this community socially and financially, transforming this city into a
• better place to live. No one is suggesting that Renton stand still or stagnate;
we cannot ignore the demand to expand. Growth and development are inevitable, but
with growth comes inherent pressures and challenges that we must be prepared to
address before it is too late.
II . DEPARTMENT REPORTS
•
The real impact that a Systems Development Charge {SDC} or a Facilities Tax will
have on development depends on the amount of the tax. The goal of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee throughout this process was to reach a reasonable compromise,
establishing a charge that will provide a viable fund to address capital expansion
needs while insuring that the charge is not excessive to the point where development
• interests could not afford to locate in Renton.
The following information represents a summary of the input received by the Advisory
Committee from each City department affected by growth. The reports provide estimates
•
-8-
of the impact growth will have on their respective departments over the next six
years based on growth projections developed by the Planning Department (see Exhibits
1 and 2) . Based on this input the Committee should have a better understanding of
the pressures and problems facing each department as well as the total dollars that
will be required to meet the demands concurrent with growth.
Each department assumed that the standards established by the City Council regarding
the provision of public services will remain constant. There was also a consistent
understanding that all capital improvements or facilities funded by a new tax would
be projects required because of new growth; no maintenance, operations or replacement
costs have been included.
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTME14T -- Unlike most City departments, the Parks and
Recreation Department can rely on standards approved by the Renton Park Board and
the City Council which clearly delineate the level of services that should be provided
for each resident of our community (see Exhibit 9) . The major problem facing the
Renton Parks Uepartment is securing the revenues that can be used now to purchase
park property before the available land is developed for residential or commercial
uses.
In the past, due to limited finances, the Parks Department has been forced to rely
on donation or dedication of property that can be developed as a park. This often
led to acquisition of park property that is not located ideally, is of poor quality
requiring additional costs to develop and/or maintain, and some that are not of
sufficient size to properly serve the neighborhood or community.
While the parks we have developed are quite active and well maintained, our inability
to purchase property that can be developed for future park use has placed us in a
position of falling further behind the standards established for the department. A
comparative review of park acreage in neighboring communities illustrates that
Renton has not been successful in providing for our future needs (see Exhibit 10,
2 pages) .
To properly serve the 6,570 new residents we anticipate absorbing into our community
over the next six years, we should acquire 60.5 acres of park property. Recent
surveys indicate that an average cost of $25,000 per acre would be a reasonable j
amount to pay in the present land market for park property. Based on estimates
submitted by the King County Architecture Division and six architectural firms that
are active in developing park property, we can anticipate spending $25,000-$40,000
per acre to develop future parks with .the standard facilities (see Exhibit 11) .
These figures are based on current construction costs with no inflation factor
built into the estimates.
In addition, the Parks Department has included, for possible SDC funding, the
proportionate cost attributable to new growth of two proposed capital projects:
the construction of a community center and the development of the Cedar River Trail
Natural Zone. These projects are both listed as priority items in the City's Six
Year Capital Improvement Program.
Per the information provided above, the total amount of Park funds required to
accommodate new growth over the next six years is $4,034,800-$6,454,800 (see
Exhibit 9 for details) . These figures appear even more formidable. when past
•
-9-
funding sources are reviewed (see Exhibit 12, 2 pages) . While Renton has done
very well in recent competition for federal and state grants (IAC, H&CD, EDA) ,
the level of competition is increasing due to serious reductions in the total
funding available. Obviously, even with a substantial Systems Development Charge,
every available source of funding will have to be exhausted to provide adequate
park services during this period of rapid growth.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING -- Many factors have combined to create serious problems for
our Traffic Engineering Division. Not all of the problems are generated by new
development within the City. For example, FAI 405 has been operating at consistent
levels far exceeding its capacity for many years. When congestion occurs at
bottlenecks like the "Renton S-curve," naturally, traffic exits the freeway using
• City roadways to circumvent the traffic jam. In addition, Renton's population
nearly doubles every workday as industrial and commercial employees enter the City
from communities throughout the Puget Sound area to report to work. Renton, with
a population of 30,000, therefore must provide the street and traffic services for
a city approaching a population of 60,000.
• Granted, the examples above represent impacts generated primarily from people outside
the community. However, with every additional residential , commercial and industrial
development in Renton, an already bad situation worsens. It is probable that many
future development projects will not be allowed strictly because adjacent roadways
exceed capacity (see Exhibit 13, 4 pages) .
• The major problem which has hampered the City's ability to update its system to
accommodate new growth is the astronomical cost to provide improvements. The City's
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is often described as a "wish
list." Unfortunately, that is an accurate description because, even though projects
included in the TIP are necessary, after the first two years there is never a
dependable source of revenue available to provide for the remaining projects.
•
The City relies almost entirely on federal grants, gas taxes, and local improvement
districts (LID'S) to fund improvement projects. An analysis of these sources shows
a tremendous shortfall of revenue at our disposal . In fact, the estimated cost to
provide the improvements listed in the 1980 TIP is $52,478,000. Conversely, the
revenue we project will be available to the City during that period amounts to only
• $3,477,000 (excluding L. I .D. 's) :
a) Federal Aid to Urban Systems (TAUS) - $ 788,000
b) Gas Tax - 1 ,617,000
c) It Gas Tax - 1 ,072,000
• Even if some of the other less dependable funding sources (UAB, FASP) provide
additional funds, it is obvious that the City will never be able to address all
of our transportation improvement needs.
As a result, the City's Traffic Engineering Division has been working on a number
of alternatives that can combine to alleviate some of the traffic congestion problems
• with little or no additional funding requirements. One example is the promotion of
flextime programs in local industrial and commercial organizations. This is an
effort to spread peak hour congestion beyond the two-hour period currently
experienced in the existing a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Also, by constructing
•
•
-10-
"High Occupancy Vehicle" lanes on our freeways (State project) and making ride- +
sharing and vanpooling cheaper and more convenient, we may be able to reduce the
number of vehicles on the road during commuter hours.
The other alternative is to assess new development a fee for a portion of the impact
they will have on the City's entire traffic system. It is true that new development
is currently required to provide on-site and off-site improvements to bring roadways
to City standards and lessen the additional impact on intersections within a close •
proximity. However, the real impact new development has on traffic congestion extends
throughout the City's system. New commercial and industrial operations attract more
commuters and new residential developments bring more people and more cars that use
City roadways. According to the growth projections we have been using throughout
this process, the City of Renton traffic system will absorb an additional 44,750 •
vehicle trips generated by new development over the next six years.
Land Use Units Trip Rate Total Trip Ends
Single Family 1 ,000 10.0 trips/unit 10,000 trip ends
Multi-Family 2,000 6. 1 trips/unit 12,200 trip ends •
Commercial 1 .0x106 sq. ft. 11 .69 trips/1 ,000 gfa 11 ,690 trip ends
Industrial 2.0x106 sq. ft. 5.43 trips/1 ,000 gfa 10,860 trip ends
TOTAL 44,750 trip ends
•
Another method to assess the impact growth will have on our traffic system over
the next six years is to look at the actual improvements that have been built into
the six-year TIP to accommodate new development. After listing all of the projects
that are growth-oriented and removing the costs that will be absorbed by L. I .D. 's,
we estimate that $21 ,497,500 will be required to fund these improvements (see
Exhibit 14, 2 pages, for details) . In addition to those roadway projects, other •
related costs will undoubtedly be heaped upon the City. For example, the capacity
of the City traffic signal computer must be expanded at an estimated cost of
$400,000; many intersections will require signalization at a present cost of
$100,000 each; and numerous intersection and roadway improvements will also be
required (see Exhibit 15, 2 pages, for details and costs) .
•
Without an additional source .of revenue, vehicular transportation in the City of
Renton will continue to increase as a major problem for City officials and a
tremendous inconvenience for local residents. The costs are staggering, and no
single source of revenue could provide for our needs. However, a "Capital Facilities
Fund" that could serve as a source of matching funds for federal grants or provide
for limited intersection or roadway improvements would at least allow the City to •
keep pace with the demand and address some of our •priority concerns.
PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES
A. Water Utility: A review of the impact growth has had on the City's Water
Utility indicates that numerous changes will have to be made if proper standards • i
are going to be maintained in the future. The primary sources of revenue for the
Water Utility are: customer rates established by the City Council and collected
on a monthly basis; a system development charge of if per square foot of property
developed (this charge has been in effect since 1976) ; latecomer, inspection and
•
� -11
connection fees which are also co N ected from new° development connecting to the
system.
In recent years all of the proceeds from these charges have been placed in the Water
Works Utility Fund and have been used to operate, maintain and expand the City's
water facilities. A recent study shows that unless rates are increased and other
sources of revenue provided, the Utility will be operating in the "red" as of 1981
(see Exhibit 16) . For the• purpose of this report, we wi 1 1 assume
that the City
Council will
increase the service rates to a level sufficient to meet the annual
maintenance and operations and other ongoing costs , leaving Systems Development
Charges to provide for necessary capital improvements required to serve new
development.
• It is difficult to trace the revenues collected from the existing SDC since they
have been intermingled with other revenues in the Utility Fund. However, we do
know that $222,493 has been collected from SDC since 1976 (see Exhibit 17) . A
review of the capital projects funded by the Utility since that time shows that
$115,943, or the equivalent of 52% of the SDC revenues collected, has been
expended to oversize various watermains to meet the comprehensive plan and to
accommodate new development (see Exhibit 18 for details) .
I •
In addition, the City provided $2,093,079 to construct capital improvement projects
that would benefit the entire water system. Approximately $1 ,173,019 of that amount
was construction to accommodate new growth (see Exhibit 19 for details) . With
these historical figures as our foundation, we can conclude that the Ic/sq. .ft.
• charge was not sufficient to meet the demand for capital projects related to
growth. Other revenue sources were utilized (i .e. , revenue bonds, utility rates ,
connection fees, etc.) to subsidize capital improvement projects.
Based on the projections provided by the Planning Department concerning the rate
and location of growth for the next six years, we can reasonably suggest some of
the capital improvements and corresponding costs that will be necessary to meet
new service demands. It appears that $4,240,000.wil1 be required to provide the
necessary improvements to the water system between 1981 and 1987. From that total
we can identify $2, 127,500 that directly relates to improvements that are
attributable to new growth (see Exhibit 20 for details) .
If we assume that the City will be successful in obtaining the Department of Social
and Health Services (DSHS) grants, which will provide 40% funding for eligible
projects, a reduction of $212,000 will apply. This will leave the City with $1 ,915,500
required to acquire and/or develop the capital facilities needed to meet the six-year
demand for growth. If we were to convert the dollars required to a square footage
charge to conform to the existing method of assessment on new development, the fee
• would be raised to 8.3c per square foot.
B. Sanitary Sewers: The financial status of the sanitary sewer system in Renton
is even more serious than that of the water system. The water and sewer rate study
recently submitted to the City Council shows that the sanitary sewers are already
operating with a deficit (see Exhibit 22) .
• It is apparent after a review of the sanitary sewer expenditures that the Sewer Systems
Development Charge (it/sq. ft. of property) which has been in effect since 1976 has
not been used for capital facility expansion. Most of the available revenue has been
used to provide for maintenance and operations of existing facilities.
•
-12-
During the four-year period 1976-1980, the Utility realized $321 ,596 in revenues •
generated by the SDC. Projects that were funded with this money include:
1 ) Burnett Avenue South Oversizing - $ 10,000
2) Edwards Avenue - 5,000
3) Heather Downs - 90,474
TOTAL $105,474
The remaining $216,122 has actually been used to subsidize the customers by allow-
ing the Utility to continue without raising rates. If these funds were available
for facility expansion purposes, the City could have participated in the following •
projects that have already been constructed: Northeast 4th Street to King County
Trunk By-pass; Windsor Hills By-pass; Higate Pump Station; Azalea Lane East;
Weathered Wood Sewer Extension.
For the purpose of this report we will assume that the City Council will increase
the customer sewer rates in order to provide for all maintenance and operations and •
other ongoing costs, leaving SDC to fund future capital expansion due to new
development. The following short term improvements would provide a system upgrade
by replacing existing facilities with 10" lines to accommodate growth:
Attributable to
Cost New Growth •
a) N. 6th St. to N. 3rd St. , Burnett $ 600,000 $ 120,000
Ave. N. to Garden Ave. N.
b) N. 3rd St. to Bronson Way, Burnett 700,000 140,000
Ave. N. to Houser Way
c) Main Ave. S. to Shattuck Ave. S. 600,000 120,000 •
RR Tracks to Grady Way
d) Mill Ave. S. to Shattuck Ave. S. 700,000 140,000
Houser Way to Cedar River
TOTAL $2,600,000 $ 520,000 •
In addition, the following projects could also be funded with SDC revenues to
facilitate orderly growth:
e) Puget Dr. S.* 15,000 15,000
f) S.W. 43rd St.* 50,000 50,000 •
g) Pump Station, N.E. 4th & Union 100,000 100,000
Ave. N.E.
h) Misc. Oversizing (Main Lines, Wet 200,000 200,000
Wells, Pump Stations) •
i) May Creek Trunk* 2,000,000 800,000 (40o)
TOTAL $2,365,000 $1 ,165,000
Latecomers agreements could apply to items e, f, g, and i , which would
allow revenue expended from the SDC fund to be reimbursed as development ,
occurs.
• -13-
There appears to be little or no•_,chance of receiving any grant subsidies for sewer
• projects from federal or state agencies. Therefore, 'the City will be required to
provide $1 ,685,000 for the construction of sanitary sewer facilities required
because of growth. In order to raise that sum, the existing 1C/sq. ft. charge
would have to be raised to 7fi/sq. ft. If it is determined that SDC will not be .used to
provide funds for the facilities listed as items a-i above, then the existing fee
need only be increased to 2t/sq. ft. which will provide $500,000 over a six-year
• period.
C. Storm Sewers: The storm sewer system in the City of Renton is undoubtedly the
most difficult service to assess in terms of facilities which will be required due
to new development. It should be noted from the outset that no ongoing funding
mechanism exists to provide for the maintenance, operations and expansion of
existing storm sewer facilities. The absence of a storm sewer utility means that
• there is no comprehensive plan, no consistent maintenance program, and no real
understanding of what impact future development will have on our storm drainage
system.
The only feasible method of approaching this service category is to address current
• problems that are known to exist, with the understanding that the problems are
exacerbated by new development upstream. Current problem areas are all too easy
to identify:
Location Cost to Improve
• S.W. Grady Way $ 500,000
South 7th Street 250,000
SR 515 500,000
Wetlands 500,000
N.E. 12th Street 200,000
Garden Avenue North 300,000
. Monroe Avenue North 600,000
TOTAL $2,850,000
Information which leads to the conclusion that these areas comprise the most
critical "problem spots" in the City can be found in seven lawsuits which are
• pending against the City due to property damage caused by storm sewer facilities
that could not handle drainage flows during recent storms.
Whether or not the City is legally liable for damage caused by failures . in the
drainage system, it is clear that the problem can only get worse. With the .
development of new roads and new buildings , the square footage of impervious
• surfaces increases and the City experiences a corresponding increase in drainage
flows. A development may provide adequate facilities on site; however, the full
impact is not realized until inadequate storm sewers downstream begin flooding.
To correct this situation, the City will probably have to approach the problem
from a number of directions: 1) form a Storm Drainage Utility or an alternative
• mechanism to provide for continuing storm drainage maintenance, operations and
capital improvements; 2) use system development funds and any FADS or JC gas tax
revenues available to correct existing problems with the storm sewer system;
3) provide funding for a comprehensive plan which would analyze the long-term
needs of the City's storm drainage system.
•
0
-14-
FIRE DEPARTMENT. — The primary guidelines used by the Renton Fire Department when •
trying to assess the need for new facilities are response times to potential fire
locations within the City limits and emergency fire-flow (water) that is available
to the department at those locations. According to the National Board of Fire
Underwriters and the Fire Rating Bureau, a fire company should be able to respond
to the scene of any emergency in the City within four minutes. After that initial
four-minute period, the chances of saving the life of someone who has stopped •
breathing or of extinguishing a small fire before it spreads to life-threatening
proportions is severely limited.
As growth and development increase, both response times and fire-flows are adversely
affected. Increased traffic due to new growth causes congestion and lengthens response
times. As development becomes more dense the potential threat to property and personal
security increases lending even more credence to the four-minute response goal .
The American Insurance Association has set up requirements for the adequacy of the
City's water system. If the City cannot meet these standards of protection, we
are risking higher insurance costs and lower standards of protection for all
citizens. We have already discussed the need to increase water storage capacity
and the size of water mains to accommodate.growth. Fire-flow requirements are an
added element of that discussion which certainly add to the gravity of our water
system deficiencies.
Using the growth projections that have been established for this report, we have
analyzed the impact growth will have on the City's ability to meet fire service
requirements. In order to maintain existing standards, the following facilities
will have to be built (see Exhibit 23 for map showing location and service areas
for existing and proposed stations) :
Estimated
Cost
1 . Additional office space will have to be provided $120,000
for fire prevention and investigative personnel
who will be required to accommodate new growth.
2. Existing Station #2 should be relocated eastward $500,000
to protect the rapidly growing area in the vicinity
of Union Avenue N.E. and N.E. Sunset Boulevard.
3. With additional development in the Kennydale area, $500,000
a new station should be provided near the N. 30th
Street interchange. To maintain response time 0
standards, this project should be accomplished
concurrently with the relocation of Station #2.
4. If development occurs in the industrial area. in $300,000
southwest Renton before the primarily residential
development above, then a new station should be 0
built on the City-owned property in the Green
River Valley.
5. When the permanent station serving the commercial/ $300,000
industrial park is constructed , the existing temporary
facility (Station #3) should be moved east to cover 0i
the additional residential properties which are
expected to Ilocate i.n ..th.at area K
• -15-
Since it is not feasible to expeGta,ll, .of these projects to be required within the
next six years, we anticipate that $1 ,120,000 will be sufficient to meet our fire
• facility needs during the period 1981-87.
GENERAL SERVICES -- Perhaps the appropriate heading for this section of the report
should be "All Others." This category would include capital improvement projects
in City departments other than those listed previously in this report. , All - projects
proposed for funding would be required to meet the same criteria imposed on'other
•
departments. In other words demand for the facility ty m ust be the result.•of growth.
Replacement of existing structures or facilities which are required for reasons
other than growth would not qualify for SDC subsidies.
The only project that has been identified in the City's Six-Year Capital Improvement
Program that could qualify for SDC funding under this category is the proposed
addition to the Renton Main Library. The architect designed this structure with
the understanding that the City could expand the facility when growth and demand
for services made the expenditure feasible. With the increase in population we
project for the next six years, the Renton Library will surely reach maximum service
capacity, which will lead the Library Board and the City Council to seek funding for
this expansion project. The estimated construction cost is $360,000.
•
Examples of future capital projects that could be subsidized by system development
funds would include the construction of police precinct facilities if the City grew
to a point where continued operations from a central headquarters were not efficient;
or perhaps an expansion of City Hall to provide office space for additional employees
that were hired in response to increased service demands brought on by growth.
•
SUMMARY
According to the information contained in this report, the various City departments
face capital improvement costs totaling $34,672,800 over the next six years. The
figures only relate to improvements required due to growth and they represent the
• best estimates of the professionals responsible for the provision of public services
in Renton:
Park Department $ 5,244,800
Traffic 21 ,497,500
Water 1 ,915,500
Sanitary Sewer 1 ,685,000
Storm Sewer 2,850,000
Fire Department 1 ,120,000
General Services 360,000
• TOTAL $34,672,800
Obviously, the City will not be able to secure the resources necessary to meet this
demand. We must also recognize that the burden cannot fall entirely on the con-
struction contractor doing business in Renton. After months of serious study and
constructive discussion, the Citizens Advisory Committee studying systems development
• charges reached an important compromise (see Addendum A) . The Committee has
recommended that a "Community Facilities Tax" should be assessed on all new
development within the City. The fee structure would charge all residential units
•
-16-
$350 per bedroom with a $1 ,000 maximum limit, and commercial/industrial would pay •
$.25 per square foot of gross building floor area.
This recommendation, if enacted by the City Council , will establish a viable fund
that can provide for a portion of the impact growth will have on the City's service
systems. The Committee's action has also addressed the concerns expressed by
development interests regarding the impact this fee will have on the community. •
The members of the City staff applaud the efforts of the Advisory Committee and
concur in their recommendations. However, we offer the following advice which
may help with the administration of the process :
1 . Recommendation No. 4 (see page 3 of Advisory Committee Report, Addendum A) •
should be changed to allow collection of the Community Facilities Tax upon
issuance of the water meter required for completion of the development
project. This recommendation is necessary to avoid the certain enforcement
difficulties that will occur if the fee is collected upon occupancy.
According to the Uniform Building Code, certificates of occupancy are not
required for any single family dwelling unit. Final inspections are
required; however, the contractor must call the Building Department to
request that inspection. This creates obvious enforcement difficulties
for the Building Department.
Contractors could pay the fee when they pick up their water meter during the
final stages of construction. This minor alteration to the Committee
recommendation will help avoid potential administrative problems while
recognizing the contractors' concern with having to pay the fee at the
early stages of development.
2. It is further recommended that all expenditures from this "Facilities Fund"
become an additional feature in the annual budget document prepared by the
Mayor. The various City departments should make recommendations to the Mayor
supporting projects that could qualify for SDC funding. The Mayor should
submit a prioritized list to the Council or a .single recommendation to the
Council for discussion and final action. This process should insure proper
disposition of Community Facilities Tax revenues.
EXHIBIT 1
Wig
Who
r°GOo 1 �
[10f] i
14
6a
o • ,
°(5843) ,)
rOJ��T OkWI�
5000
l o2�j - 51LO 75 ehn, 7y /f
• ! 9'(0l� -_.__� - [657�J� "12j8a ���hd o0 Z� 198G
— 9000
•J, �C�Zf� , s76�r
•/ 3�-�j X532 �Olm A91) -- boo
.,80$
6AL�
/ 7¢40
2000 ,� �f8(o BUJ 1o� - 100O
111go -/q bra t "M4
1r2 ?( 77 1b 19 to 61 k P 0 81�
• EXHIBIT 2
COt C1AL �rJ Q�`�T � NOW, AMA
•
c3o�61
•
• 1
ca,
I 'o-00,
lei
Vii, / '• �•
Igo 75 60krU 00U r6, 1A6
--C2j,,?)a - 12I io iJ thry
2�--
� l2 9�d11
• EXHIBIT 3 Assessed Value in 1,000's
CITY OF RENTON
ASSESSED VALUATIONS
• FOR YEARS 1976 - 1981
1 ,800,000
0 1 ,700,000 1 ,710,240,038
1 ,600,000
•
1 ,500,000
• 1 ,400,000
1 ,300,000
•
1 ,200,000
• 11100,000
1 ,000,000
•
900,000
• 800,000
700,000
1 1
0 1976 1977 1978 '1979 1980 1981
•
Property Taxes in 1,,000's . EXH 1 B 1 T 4 Full Levy
•
6% Lid ----------------
CITY OF RENTON
PROPERTY TAXES AT FULL LEVY VS. 6% LID
FOR YEARS 1976 - 1981
6,200
6,100 6,160
5 000
4 900
• 4,800
4,700
4,600
4,500
• 4,400
4,300
4,200
4,100
• 4,000 3,938
3,900
3,800
3,700
i
3,600 ,
3,500
3,400
3,300
f 3,200
3,100
3,000
2,900
• 2,800 _
2,700
2,600 -- '
2,500 •� y I
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
•
•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r tD r rl t Lt) N r.
M tb CO tD O N LO r� �@
r r Ln M d' t to to
CD w w w w w w w
CA M tD — C) r r M N
r d' 4m to m m N r
Cl r Lri N M N t0
w
n N O O
64 r r
b9 b4 b4
Lf�
r tD to O M OO r
Ln 1.
0 M O L9 Cp d'
Ze
m d r W r 1 Lc) N co N r Ln
M M O LO LO O CO
X O h c r O I co O is C3 LO M
W t� w w w n w w
D1 d d• O M N r C p
r r- d' N M ^ O
O r LL') r pp O CO t
w w w w w w
tD N r Cry r p
b'y iF? tf} r
-K tf3
Ln n cn m 0) Cl O cn ko
AO N m O .7- tp a O r�
r. O N N d ^ r CI1 p�
LO N M m tD t0 Ln r LO m CO
Cil M r O d r r O N h
w w C6 w �
t31 N O rl% r% d tD
N r O Ol r, ct M LO r m
W r M r ^ d M
N
LON w w w
C]
Z
M W
a x rn = to C) C)
L- W
z Q op U) Lo � r Ln
Lo ae
co
W F-
(� w w w w
CL' O Dl tD r M U') 0 LA
CO. r-I O to M LO N h
r' M Ol r In M w
V O W w w
1- 0% d' r lD lD
{¢} icy yam.
O J
r" O O r r
W O cn M O LA r*- O to d Co
W r
LL z ko tOn t\ i� LoOM) � W
O i- M r N W r r\ Ln M
� O
H w w w w
Ow tD O d O r Cl r
I- Q r N tp m N d M d p0
U- d r
O 4.�
F—
Z
W
U CO r-- N r CO r
tY t� M ^ LOuj
M r
• CL C3 tD O M 1 CO ^ UA
fl- to LO M O M Cl d' ,Q
cD r w 0 M n 1 M N Ln M
w
dLO
tpD N eNY co co t^O M
Q N r
w
d r" LO Ln
N r�
t v O cu S_ 4-3
U r O
to >
N o2f S_ iii..J CSO
•r• to to >) r� t11 tH
O O
• S- U r t� r U CL
to > +J r
4- W i-)
S- C > r O O C Z
to S_ ro r Rf
rtf N to E O 4-+ r -N tc3 S- +J
C •r- O N O «'S C4-3 C'3 C
(n CL t!) N 4J- I-' ""1 a) O N
S- CL = > .0 .Q CL H S. � 1= Ste.
�N N O t3 m N V
C) ti � !t ty
I '
� C3 o a o 0 0
0
r 1� to o © OI N LO h
co ei M M N t0 Cb O
r R M 117 to m Lt')
N r N t0 r Oo
n w n
r r r
6F} 6A 6. t!-?
F O O O O d O
Cb ^ O •a• 1 1 r
= LO r-. to O O 0 Q p d.
X 00 Ln O O 1 1 N d n
W m Nrl N M O M
r 11) r O I*- MC-)
O r
Nm N to
r r r
6r+ 6F? EA 64
eN- M 00
ko N Ctrl
LO � O d too LOf1 r- d.
m cY I d N 1-1 O N
Cl w w w w
tom. O N M N O1
O1 O Ol N r N ct
N r 01 r r r
W w
O r r-
t- 6f} 6A 4.4* tsq
� Z
uj O1 et t0
O C71
d Ol r t\ co O N O
Z W 01 r 01 1 1
O O1 O LO
CD w O J O lOQ 01 Ot N O O r
W G[ co w w w w r
Y Cl 01 O r-. O OM1 cn
N tp
i (= F- r
CL
0 c
Z Q t
O J
F-• F- to
Z O h r d N LO
W O O1 m ON d' M t0 01
1 r M O N 1 I ^ Ln N p
� W Q
O ^ X10` t0 �t Oi OI et OCL.
w
1 Q t0 t0 N
ko )LfC\l
U
W
O 69• t!} ty4
F-
z
CW.) 1`-. O ^ ct O ct
tY M M M Nuj
Ct t0
t1 4 ': 4 06 N tp
Co to r 0 0 co M N
to 1-_ to f\ t I O Ooll LO r O
t\ w w w Sw
Ol l00 OO Icf LC)
to 00 pp
6� 64 4b? 61q•
N �
CU r i
O
.s= U O i
N > (0 4J
O otS L +J•r
V CU •r`C7
•> N N (C RS 0)
Z. U r N r U t1
N Rf U 4-t X
N > a-) k- Gd
L C > r O O
r N U N S_ to e•-
rd N N E CU 41 r � R5
C •r C N O (a C +-
O r i S- !— 4J . ! N O
tn Q .G > -0 .0Q Fes-- L
5- ❑..
W
N O CD m N U M 40-J
1
C 0 0 0 0 0
C; p rn I I a; 4 M
Ln U) N O O N C) ^ M
'- h td M t 1 h
00cl�w w n w
to N a) r" ^ LO
O
d Ol LO r �
w w
h
~ O O O O O O Ili p
=
Cl LO LO I d00 rte- N M O c) co LO t0
X O to h M 1 1 UD Clr1 .t
41 tD h C w
r lD r- CO
-
h
b4 ~ r
tfY b4 *01'r 140+
x
M N CA Op � to
h N r
Ln M O t1) t0 ^ M
N t to to rte- I`•
C11 O CIl w w Ch
N 00 00 tT tt lD r-• h
r
r�--
� w w
� r
W
Z X r` h h
O w LO U-) I ) j � r-
0
U- ct - rn I h �
J
M OH M CO
Q
00 Lr) �1 N O m LOto MD Ct1
t.l)
W h w w n w MD C? r r
LAJ O w w
r- N IT N
i- ,- to tD O IMc') ^ r �
co LO Ce)
ON
I r 64 L$ -4 {,y
Z Q 1
O J
H L- tD
W OCA 00 t1 f 00 r
LO lD
r w tD ct O Gt
-I tT r tt7 1 1M
N o\°
O h M r O O � lOD m
h O u-) ^ I I :D 00 LO
!- tT O N h p� t!7 ^ O
�- tD CO hr LO h O
U-
p b4 4R b*R 64 60*
H
Z
ti
00 tlf 00 r-- Ln tD
W r N M 00 M r
t1 • Zo
tD N M M O O d' p LOh h N h 1 1 I\ LO N r
Cl w w w w
r ch CO M tD 00 Llw
)
Gi' cliN r
O 00
S !!} 00
co
y
(vCA r D
t0 N = N J
V O N d-1
N V ,j r- O C C
tv ea S- CC ^ O t0
v
J
'> N V) >s ti. c 4- a. 4-
s_ c� - U .1
n- -) O
-) V
V> > i-,) •r- 4- L LI to tL 4-) N
> r p O $_ Z S- Z
rtf Q1 N N s- c S r (D tu
C .r N +� tCf i-) t1. 4-3
_ N O tCt C4.) m C C
V) 0. (D N 41 ~ r Cc- a) 0 U N ?*' cu
O O 4-3, O N O (a O O O k O U N
a. N O (D O N t) 1- 44-) -x n. x
i
Cl 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
C C
Jo ^ rn
N u)
H 400r
ed
= CS O
X C) O
W
C� O
w
M Ln
to N
� N
b4 n
r
00
N
O
O LO
U-
F-
N to
T C Lt7
h
LO
3
O N to
LL
.T 00
W N N
W
Is
n
Zh N LA
O N _ r .-
• Z O00 tf?
W Z Cn
W Q #--
O Q LO N
LO
r
H tD
hW M N6-4 h r N M
< ton
to cn
tet'
O 64
LL
N
h
Z t0 00
W r l0
W C 1 a;
M fl
C> J r
a. row
ts}
h
W
W
fY
h
N
4J
N
L
4J
N
L �
N
O
r U-
tCf
�- 4J
Z N
O N
Q N
RENTON PARKS, AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 9
e SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WORKSHEET
CURRENT RECOMMENDED PARK STANDARDS
FACILITY *CITY OF RENTON **NATIONAL PARKS & RECREATION
Land 10 Acres /1 ,000 10 Acres/1 ,000
Tennis Courts 14 Courts 1/2,500
Baseball Fields 5 Fields 1/6,000
Softball Fields 9 Fields 1/3,000
Soccer Fields 1/3,000
S Basketball Gyms 54 Courts 1/500
Swimming Pools 2 Pools 1/101000
Community Centers 2 Centers 1/10,000
Senior Centers 1 Center 1/25,000
Performing Arts Centers I Center 1/50,000
* Adopted recommended standards/City of Renton Comprehensive Parks S Recreation Plan (City
Council Adopted Plan 3/78) .
National Parks & Recreation Recommended Standards.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED STANDARDS - 1980 STATUS
1980 City of Renton Population - 29,855 as of 11/21/80
i
FACILITIES NEEDS ACTUAL INVENTORY STATUS
Land 290 acres 227.50 (includes 20 acres - 62.5
of Wetlands)
Innis Courts 14.25 17 + 2.75
-aaseball Fields 5 = 14 Combination
Softball Fields 9 Fields = 10 - 4
Soccer/Football 10 4 - 6
Basketball Gyms 54 12 City
24 School Dist. - 18
Swimming Pools 2 1 City -0-
I School Dist.
Community Centers 2 1 City (Inadequate) - 1
Senior Centers 1 i City -0-
Performing Arts Centers .6 1 City + .4
NEEDS BASED ON POPULATION GROWTH FORECAST 1981 - 87
- Projected growth (Renton Planning Department data) 6,570
- Projected City wide cost of implementing six year park Capital
Improvement Program (excluding Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park/
$9,000,000 and all Capital Improvements under $100,000) $8,,260,000
• - Acreage requirements (minimum) per projected growth based on
10 acres/1 ,000 60.5 acres
- Estimated cost of acquisition based on $25,000 per acre $1 ,512,500
- Estimated development costs based on current construction costs $1 ,512,500 - $2,420,000
($25,000 - $40,000 per acre)
- Estimated cost of new community center attributable to projected
• new growth (6,570 people would represent 22% of 1987 projected r
City population of 36,425) $880,000
- Estimated cost of new development of Cedar River Trail Natural
Zone attributable to projected new growth $129,800
TOTAL $4,034,800 - $6,454,800
•
_ I
EXHIBIT 10
RENTON PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE WORKSHEET
PARK ACREAGE COMPARISONS - KING COUNTY SUBURBAN CITIES
RENTON POPULATION 29,855
Total Park acreage - 227.50
includes the following s ep cial . facilities not normally counted toward satisfying
park acreage requirements:
Cedar River Trail - 24. 15 acres
- Wetlands - 20 acres
Recommended Park acreage standard 10 acres/1 ,000 people
KENT POPULATION 23,000
Total park acreage - 437.5 acres
Includes the followi-ng special facilities:
- Golf Course - 28 acres
- Utility property - 45 acres (not special use)
- Permissive Use Property - 14-1/2 acres (not special use)
Recommended park acreage standard 10 acres/1 ,000 people
i
MERCER ISLAND POPULATION 21 ,267
Total park acreage - 293 acres.
Recommended park acreage standard 10 acres/1 ,000 people
ISSAQUAH POPULATION 5,000
Total park acreage - 426 acres
Includes the following. special facilities:
- Old Watershed Wilderness area - 361 acres
Recommended park acreage standards 7-1/2 acres/1 ,000 people
REDMOND POPULATION 23,200
Total park acreage - 220 acres
Recommended park acreage standards.
- Neighborhood park - 2-5 acres/1 ,000 (dependent on demographics of neighborhood)
10 acre minimum size desirable
- Community Park - 4 acres/1 ,000 (30 acre minimum size desirable)
BELLEVUE POPULATION 80,000
Total park acreage - 800 acres
Includes the following special facilities:
- Golf Course = 118 acres
Page Two
Systems Development fee Worksheet •
Park Acreage Comparisons - King County Suburban Cities
TUKWILA POPULATION 3,440
Total park acreage - 104 acres
Includes the following special facilities:
Golf Course - 70 acres
Recommended park acreage standard 10 acres/1 ,000 people
KIRKLAND POPULATION 17,990
Total park acreage 150 acres .
No recommended park standards.
AUBURN POPULATION 28,000
Total park acreage - 330 acres
Includes the following special facilities:
- Golf Course - 200 acres
- Leased Park Land -, 30 acres
Recommended park standards 7.25 acres/1 ,000 people
•
•
•
•
•
. :EXHIBIT 11
•
PARK DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES
WORKSHEET
Park Development Cost Estimates for a typical 8-10 acre neighborhood park containing
the majority of the following work elements and facilities.
- Grading - Utilities
0 - Drainage - Park Lighting
- Irrigation (automatic) - Rec. Bldg. (1600 s.f.) w/restrooms
- Fencing - Play Equipment
- Parking - Pathways
- Tennis Courts - Landscaping
- Park Furniture - Asphalt Play Court
- Ballfield
Architectural Firm's Estimates
- ORB . .$40,000 per acre minimum
! - Jongejan r; Geraard . . $50,000 per acre minimum
- Carothers Associates . . $70,000 per acre
- Wilsey & Ham . . $76,000 per acre;
- Jones & Jones . . $50,000 per acre minimum
- McLeod & Associates . . $76,000 per acre
Park Development Cost Estimate by King County Architecture Division $25;000 per acre
minimum (construction costs only) NOTE: * additional costs of project.
- This figure provides a passive neighborhood park with minimum improvements.
! Scenario of work elements and facilities:
- Grading - Park Furniture
Minimum Fencing - Minimum Drainage
Pathways - Minimum Irrigation
Play Equipment %Y Design (add 10%)
Minimum Landscaping * Taxes (add .053)
! - Minimum Utilities Art (add 1%)
Lawn Seeding Project Management (add 8-10 )
- Total 24-26% (6,000-6,500)
Total cost per acre for minimal county passive neighborhood park - $31 ,000 to $31 ,500
!
•
• RENTON PARKS 6 RECREATION DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT 12
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEE WORKSHEET
SIX YEAR PROGRAM
PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
1974 - 1979
• 1974
Acquisition
- Budgeted - 0 -
- Cumulative Reserve $1 ,360
Development
• - Budgeted $24,425 ($5,707 from FRS)
- Cumulative Reserve Beautification $2,330
1975
Acquisition
- Budgeted $15,000
- Cumulative Reserve $1 ,660
Development
- Budgeted $13,200 ($8,714 FRS)
- Cumulative Reserve Beautification $2,330
• 1976
Acquisition
- Budgeted $7,500
- Cumulative Reserve $1 ,360
Development
• - Budgeted $10,000
- Cumulative Reserve $2,430
1977
Acquisition
• - Budgeted - 0 -
- Cumulative Reserve $1 ,724
Development
- Budgeted $20,300 ($20,000. FRS)
- Cumulative Reserve Beautification $1 ,315
• 1978
Acquisition
- Budgeted $840
- Cumulative Reserve $3, 167
Development
• - Budgeted $52,324 ($30,000 from King County)
- Cumulative Reserve Beautification $1 ,375
•
" Page Two
S i x Year P'rog ram
Park Acquisition S Development Funds
1979
Acquisition
- Budgeted $1 ,500
- Cumulative Reserve $1 ,700
Development •
- Budgeted $2,500
- Cumulative Reserve .Beautification $1 ,435
1974-1979
Acquisition Total. Funding Budgeted $24,840
Development Total Funding Budgeted $122,749
$34,421 FRS
* $30,000 King County Forward Thrust
Senior Center •
Councilmanic Bonds $900,000 + $8;9,893' interest
Referendum 29 $94,142
H&CD $231 ,360
i
Cedar River Trail
EDA $1 ,943,584 (Development)
IAC $192,700 (Acquisition)
HSCD $607,100 (Acquisition & Development)
•
i
•
•
EXHIBIT 13
•
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE : January 21 , 1981
TO: Citizen's Development Advisory Committee
• FROM: Traffic Engineering Division
SUBJECT: Requested Data
• Pursuant to your request the following is a capacity analysis for the ten most
congested locations in the City during peak and non-peak periods. A cost
estimate of what the proposed system development fee assessment would be if
Southcenter were to locate in Renton is also supplied.
•
Roadway Capacity Analysis
1 . NE 3rd St. - Sunset Blvd. N to Monroe Ave. NE
This section of roadway is 50' curb to curb and is typically 4 lanes
• with a left turn lane. The p.m. peak traffic period is between 4:00
to 5:00 and has total of 2, 139 vehicles for that time period. The
off-peak period is between. 10:00 to 11 :00 a.m. and has an average of
1 , 167 vehicles.
• 2. Rainier Ave. - SR 167 to S 7th St.
This section of roadway is 78' curb to curb and is 6 lanes with a left
turn lane. The p.m. peak traffic period falls between 3:30 to 4:30 and
has a total of 3,093 vehicles. The off-peak time is from 10:00 to
11 :00 a.m. with an average of 2,054 vehicles.
• 3. Rainier Ave. - S 4th PI . -to S 3rd St.
This section of roadway has a width of 78' curb to curb and has 6 lanes
with a left turn lane. The p.m. peak period is from 3:00 to 4:00 and
has a total of 2,918 vehicles. The off-peak time is 10:00 to 11 :00 a.m.
• and has an average of 1 ,863 vehicles.
4. S Grady Way - Talbot Road S to Rainier Ave
This section of roadway is 66' curb to curb and has 4 lanes with a left
turn lane. The p.m. peak is from 4:00 to 5:00 and has 2, 192 vehicles in
that time period. The off-peak time of 10:00 to 11 :00 a.m. has an
0 average of 1 ,249 vehicles.
Citizen' s Development Advisory Committee
•
Page 2
January 21 , 1981
5. SW Grady Way - Lind Ave. SW to Grady Way Bridge
•
This section of roadway is 20' wide and has 2 lanes. The p.m. peak
period is from 4:00 to 5:00 and has 1 ,449 vehicles. The off-peak
period of 10:00 to 11 :00 has an average .of 683 vehicles.
6. SW 43rd St. - E Valley Road to Valley Parkway
This section of roadway has a width of 36' and has 2 lanes with a left
turn lane. The p.m. peak is from 4:00 to 5:00 and has 1 ,348 vehicles.
The off-peak time from 10:00 to 11ff:0/,0 a.m. has 851 vehicles.
4�NU1 AVL •
7. SW 7th St. - Rainier Ave. to
This section of roadway has a width of 56' and has 4 lanes with a left
turn lane. The p.m. peak is between 4:00 to 5:00 and has 1 ,260 vehicles.
The off-peak time is from 10:00 to 11 :00. a.m. and has 669 vehicles.
8. Benson -Road S - Main Ave. S to South City Limits
This section of roadway is 20' wide and has 2 lanes. The p.m. peak
falls between 4:00 to 5:00 and has 1 , 110 vehicles. The off-peak period
is from 10:00 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m, and has 475 vehicles.
9. Puget Drive - Benson Road S to Edmonds Ave. SE
This section of roadway is 22' in width and has 2 lanes. The p.m. peak
is from 4: 15 to 5: 15 and has a total of 1 ,022 vehicles. The off-peak
time is from 10:00 to 11 :00 a.m. and has a total of 440 vehicles.
10. Talbot Road S - S Grady Way to S Puget Drive
This section of roadway is 56' in width curb to curb is has 4 lanes with
a left turn lane. The p.m. peak falls between 4:00 to 5:00 and has a
traffic flow of 1 ,395 vehicles. The off-peak period is from 10:00 to
11 :00 a.m. and has a total of 685 vehicles.
•
•
•
•
Levels of Service & Service Volumes
• �. Location P.M. Peak Non-Peak
1 . NE 3rd St. - Sunset Blvd. to Monroe Ave. NE LOS D LOS C
2, 139 AWDT 1 ,167 AWDT
• 2. Rainier Ave. - SR 167 to S 7th St. LOS F LOS E
3,093 AWDT 2,054 .AWDT
3. Rainier Ave. - S 4th Pl . to S 3rd St. LOS F LOS E
2,918 AWDT 1 ,863 AWDT
• 4. Grady Way - Talbot Rd. S to Rainier Ave. LOS F LOS D
2,192 AWDT 1 ,249 AWDT
5. Grady Way - Lind Ave. SW to Grady Way Bridge LOS F LOS D
' 1 ,449 AWDT 683 AWDT
•
6. SW 43rd St. - East Valley Road to Valley Parkway LOS F LOS E
1 ,348 AWDT 851 AWDT
7. SW 7th St. - Rainier Ave. to Lind Ave. SW LOS C LOS B
1 ,260 AWDT 669 AWDT
8. Benson Road S - Main Ave. S to South City Limits LOS F LOS C
1 , 110 AWDT 475 AWDT
9. Puget Dr. - Benson Road S to Edmonds Ave. SE LOS F LOS C
1 ,022 AWDT 440 AWDT
10. Talbot Road S - S Grady Way to S Puget Drive LOS D LOS B
1 ,395 AWDT 685 AWDT
•
LOS A - A condition of free flow, accompanied by low volumes and high speeds. Traffic
density will be low, with uninterrupted flow speeds controlled by driver desires, speed
limits, and physical roadway conditions. There is little or no restriction• in maneuver-
ability due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers can maintain their desired
speeds with little or no delay.
LOS B - In the zone of stable flow, with operating speeds beginning to be restricted
somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their
speed and lane of operation. Reductions in speed are not unreasonable, with a low
probability of traffic flow being restricted. The lower limit (lowest speed, highest
volume) of this level of service has been associated with service volumes used in the
design of rural highways.
LOS C - Still in the zone of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely
controlled by the higher volumes. Most of the drivers are restricted in their freedom
'"to select their own speed, change lanes, or pass. A relatively satisfactory operating
speed is still obtained, with service volumes perhaps suitable for urban design •
practice.
LOS D - Approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds being maintained,
though considerably affected by changes in operating conditions. Fluctuations in
volume and temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in operating
speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and comfort and convenience are low.
These conditions can be tolerated, however, for short periods of time.
LOS E - Cannot be described by speed alone, but represents operations at even lower
operating speeds typically, but not always, in the neighborhood of 30 mph, with volumes
at or near the capacity of the highway. Flow is unstable, and there may be stoppages
of momentary duration.
LOS F - Describes a forced flow operation at low speeds, where volumes are below
capacity. In the extreme, both speed and volume can drop to zero. These conditions
usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. The
section under study will be serving as a storage area during parts or all of the peak
hour. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods
of time because of the downstream congestion.
AWDT - Average Weekday Traffic
•
•
•
4-) O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
v O O O O O O O O O
O 1 O O O O O O.�N O O O
•-) %D O O Ln O O Q O Ln O
• +� Ln N O n 00 00 v O U1
V) N M
O
v yr
0
o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o
_J O O O O O O O Un O O
• o\� O N co N Ln •- N Ln 00
no
X O O O O o O O O O O
W O O O O O O o O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
AO O O O O O O O O O
Ln O O O O O O O O O
• N n O O Lr% O O O Lr% Ln
%9 Ln Ln N N N
i!?
Ln
Lr% - 1 W 1 C
7 LLJ O _Ln %D LA .�'-T �-T to � O O _r
O x ++ a+ fu
Of L 04- N 4- 4- 4- 4- N4- c- H 1+ •� N 4-
a O i-+ O C U O O J O O L- tp c — O
3 _
C- - - 4- C C C C N C •D •C O D d - C
�-+ 4- N T OO +� .- O O O 0 0 O c L E �.+ L- c%D O
F- O Ln r0 %D t0 "d T T T L .- 7 :3 m N 7 C Ln •-
Of N 0 3 O N E U 3 U 3 U 3 U m V � U •- N U .0 O U
W O .- L r0 L r0 L 19 L N L CC • L N
>- v c 3 c c ro +1 O 41 O 'I�j O .w LT 41 c C 41
• 1 N O O C N C C to L N L 0) L (A 'O N N - -L C - -L N Ln M
X •p : L 'p t0 0) C C C C •- C '0 1> ••- M •> V C r6
N 3 m +-+ 3 U •v) v p L-) o u o u -0 v •3 a 3u a 3 .3 v
p
W
F-
Z T
W �
C)
iJ L
Of C OOLn a.C+ -per+ T Q) N
CD - to O (o :3 4J c
C 1 L L O •- O 10
O - N O t' U) U J
T T
El3 s L-
0 41
m
S c M -C t -T a. (o
LL N O L 4.1 i-j
O NM �O T -10 t t
m N N C7 N (A Z J W
+� m to ro
a�
4-) 4) zi °°
U L > L L L
(U m ro ry .c T
N m CL 0- to cu
OS t 4-) T T T Q � 3 3 41
N N N N +-1 T r-_
to M 41 N •L7 N
C C r0 Y r0
W 7 r0 tp tp •- tt0 L
Z N J N J C7 N
i
N >>
O O p p
U O O O tr O O O Lr%
O O c O ^ C t t O C t�
4j O O O to O �p
� �. co
N
O N
v yr �r
*NO 0110
O
J O O 1 LA O O O O lfl
N ^ O O 6(1 N
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
O C O O O C O O O O
4,1I Cl O O O O O O O O O
N O O O U1 O O O N N
O O OD N O O O M
ON
N N N ,-
M
N N
_ •
Y J
L 4-
O O C c C C C c C c
O O O O O O _ O L O_ H
O (o Lr\ (9 (o co T co_:r (o td 41 m
O u •N O .N O :V O .N O •- O N O ,N O N N
O L m a� a� d a� tv to a� •
u 4J 3 L L c c L c C L c c C C c c tt} L
N to 'a C O L O c N c N L N c N c 4) c L
c (o (0 'a co 'a t0 "a (o 'a (o 'a (o M co 'a rn (o
OO .L •_ t •_ L •_ .c •_ -C •_ -a .- .0 •_ .c
t� L v 3 v 3 3 3 3 3 3 to u
to u
o = m4J
F-I (o d to cep ++ L t
+-J N O M to 1-0 N
W c [ L L
O O 'a O W O w W
3 w z (n g N z
to
3
to u
O I a w (0
L a -:r
LL. c 3 ,�
N O to .c >• �p N •
to +-) -a 41
C c L (p N L
(o tU O O L to 3 4-J
m Z f7 W N
tL
'a -
w a
L
v > > w ami s
>
ta
•'-, 'L ',
O L O to
L ++ c c 4-+ > tD c
CL t� 4J ++ O O O +-+
N O N 'a N it L
al a] L C to C
Nd Q- (0 m N W M: to
EXHIBIT 15
PROJECTS
• 1 . Traffic Signal Computer Expansion
The existing computer supervised traffic signal system has need for
expansion to keep pace with increases in future traffic flows and changes
in traffic patterns (10 years).
$ 400,000.00
•
2. New Signalized Intersections
0 years
a) NE 7th Street & Edmonds Ave. NE $ 100,000.00
b) NE 3rd Street & Edmonds Ave. NE 100,000.00
c) North 6th Street & Garden Ave. North 100,000.00
d) South 7th Street & Talbot Road South 100,000.00
e) South 4th Street & Wells Ave. South 100,000.00
f) South 4th Street & Williams Ave. South 100,000.00
g) South 4th Street & Shattuck Ave. South 100,000.00
h) South 2nd Street & Burnett Ave. South 100,000.00
i ) South 7th Street & Shattuck-Ave. South 100,000.00
A SW Sunset Blvd. & Stevens Ave. SW 100,000.00
Q SW 7th Street & Hardie Ave. SW 100,000.00
1) SW 7th Street & Lind Ave. SW 100,000.00
m) SW Grady Way & Valley Parkway 100,000.00
n) SW Grady Way & Longacres Drive 100,000.00
o) SW 16th Street & Valley Parkway 100,000.00
p) SW 27th Street & Lind Ave. SW 100,000.00
q) SW 27th Street & Valley Parkway 100,000.00
r) SW 27th Street & East Valley Road 100,000.00
s) SW 34th Street & East Valley Road 100,000.00
t) SW 34th Street & Lind Ave. SW 100,000.00
u) SW 34th Street & Valley Parkway 100,000.00
v) SW 41th Street & Lind Ave. SW 100,000.00
w) SW 41st Street & Valley Parkway 100,000.00
x) Talbot Road South & South Renton Village Place 100,000.00
A Benson Road South & SE 31st Street 100,000.00
TOTAL - $2,500,000.00
•
i
3 . Intersection Improvements $1 ,000,000.00
Estimate 20 @ $50,000 each (10 years)
4 . Roadway Improvements $1 ,000,000.00
Estimate 10 @ $100,000 each (10 years)
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
EXHIBIT 16
• WATER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, 1980-83
$ thousands
2,500
TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
WITH NEW DEBT
2,000. New Debt Service
COST OF SERVICE -
• >< NO NEW DEBT
Capital Improvements
1,500
�i'L�'�NE`�3s.'`'Y'}°t''Y.�}y^.�. q. .., t 2� ��?" �t7,�,s:b2�r;:?::y:v:y,.•`.��+
..,a:.•s,�7'„r,.}`�� ;�'�•ys s`": �.,.��'"°stu. z;+.3;,r`"�;.. .:}s.::tt�::sh�n
gid.�v% ''+"•Y' i} y. + f �•, ... � `.
:F,.,j.T✓..:,::%,i 1, ...s::`:.:
s�+: •'$>L>ti:,*fig<m�n'.. .7,..
�i!�`',.h ^ I,'; .�.z:'..�errs,��'<,gr:s..:
i. ... na.3.�5.ys .....
;< :.a5<: ?q y :c,�. .�. ?r €< z . Taxes
I'M
}`'''"?' r:,X.:;�:'a"`•VSs},)js`}}'Cy'+:. rC�i, ::ylf:;;ti x¢:.;a a4.y�;.{,.;
REV F
n +: «.• „�. a.:« x+ +' '" E�TIJE BEFORE NEW RATES
1,000
f.
7ar.`•:
• }
FE.
.�:$.::.........::.....:::L:..
Operating g d Ma
tin an Maintenance
ena
f
nt nce
Costs
500
• �!�?i`}:ii:i?�:':��isi::>}is?�i�::>'Yi:::Gif::l:} i}�:ti:::i}i::':j: :i+:•:^$:�}
1980.:::,.. 1981.}:;.::.}} 483
•
•
1
• EXHIBIT 17
GENERAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FEES
1976-NOVEMBER 1980
Year water Sewer Total
1976 $ 16,756.36 8,167.81 24,924.17
1977 47,504.58 53,192.93 100,697.51
1978 51,504.65 68,095.08 119,599.73
1979 69,529.41 1439654.29 213.183.70
• 1980 (through November) 37,198.44 48,486.70 85,685.14
Total $ 2229493.44 3219596.81 544,090.25
•
• EXHIBIT 18
PROJECTS CITY PARTICIPATED IN
(OR COMMITTED TO PARTICIPATE IN)
WITH DEVELOPERS DURING THEIR CONSTRUCTION
FROM 1976 THRU 1980
•
During the above period the City participated in the cost of oversizing smaller
watermains to sizes that would meet the comprehensive plan for development and
where it was determined that the proposed installation served a substantial
area other than that required by their development.
• This participation occurred either by direct cash participation or in lieu of
the assessing of the .01/sq. ft. system development charge. The amounts for
this period are as follows:
DATE PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CASH PARTICIPATION
• Oct. 77 W-480 The Jim Davis Development. The City $ 7,089.79
participated in the oversizing of an 8"
to a 12" watermain in Duvall Ave. N.E.
at approximately S.E. 104th St. - NOTE:
City held latecomers on this main
• Oct. 78 W-483 The plat of Victoria Park #4. The City $ 2,259.79
oversized some 4" mains to 8" and 8" mains
to 12" mains. ($10,226.70 in lieu of
assessement)
July 79 W-481 Victoria Hills Development. The City $ 23,652.07
• participated in oversizing some watermains.
1/2 the cost of dual pressure reducing $ 16,000.00
station.
Contractor installed additional crossings $ 13,914.58
of future SR 515 per comp. plan.
• Dec. 79 W-474 Burlington Northern Industrial Park #1 and
W-500 Benaroya Industrial Park installed a 20"
and 16" transmission water main in S.W.
19th St. from Talbot Road to Lind Ave. S.W.
The value of this main was $278,707.88.
The City participated in this installation
in lieu of assessment of $59,179.73 to
Burlington Northern and $25,560.69 to Benaroya.
It should be noted that the City holds a city-
held latecomers for the main in S.W. 19th St.
Lind Ave. L.I.D. installed a tie-in to the
• Talbot reservoir and installed a 24" main in
Talbot Road at a valve of $254,045.98. The
City participated .in cash with $ 181,948.99
•
1 of 2
i
DATE PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CASH PARTICIPATION
•
June 80 W-563 Stirskey Holdings 4 plex's on Smithers $ 5,828.89
Ave. S. between S. 5th and S. 6th St.
required a new 8" watermain. The City
participated in 25% of the installation
cost because of the existing 4" main
requirement •
Oct. 80 W-610 Renton School Dist. at the stadium installed $ 10,524.74
an 8" water main. The City oversized it to
a 12" water main.
Dec. 80 W-621 The Boeing Co. installed an 8" watermain in $ 7,000.00 •
Logan Ave. N. from N. 4th to N. 6th St. The
City oversized the main to a 12" from N. 5th
to N. 4th St. and across parking lot at N. 5th
St. to Burnett Ave. N.
Dec. 80 W-622 Stirskey Holdings Development required $ 10,725.00 •
system improvements in the Renton Hill area.
The City participated in oversizing and
system overall improvement.
TOTAL PARTICIPATION $115,943.85
•
2of2
•
•
= h In
i 3
-. .aW w a a o o a o 0
Q w h z o 0 0 o a o 0
J a OC :, O ON N r 110
Z C. h 3 a .4* [`� M (\ �D Ln Ln
W F- O O 14 M L11 M N
h J
v h
ua u C� 3
-> w W W
owI.—=
m -- a aP as ONO &10 INO
a o m n a C o Lan Lan 000 ra. Lon
LL. h m Q a
ONh3t9
00 dP U Q h
Ol
h
L
an %0 2
t\ O
x tT
x h
w Q
E a
O - N
LL U Z O O O
h Q
O Q CD O a %D O N O O
t1. 00 Ln M
w W CO M to to
0::
LL.
LM
L N
O h
>- O
h
U
W O O O Co O O O
O O O O O O O
>- N O ^ Ln -' O �O M
m O -' z %.O Ln 00 N .-
""• Cl U M M f� M M Ol
W .7 -T 00 %0 � M
Q vs Olt -
h
Z
N N V +� C
U � � C C
C c IV O C C O C 41 O
LU to m W r ._ ._
O� N IA L.
U 41 OC C� L C TJ 3 C m
o• O •- L C C > +.L •> ((0 •O O to c E c C •a,c
L- m O c O_ •- m m 3 > 4- > O c O +- •- O
Z h E CL E in 4J 4A m O C. •tn O t1 >� W C j -•L 4 = •O C u
W U - m 4) m 010 to •- C] m to N > - C
X: w L >
m C _ 44 t m Q) m 41 to L •(p ._
LU •- 0. .c 4) J •E L. W E +60 (n •- W 2: Q
• O C> 4) N N -W N � C t o N E E to
a `O
3 m X C C - C '- C a) CL to O N C a) 4-+
cc a. to w N 3 w •- m O 4.1 E 0 3 E C L a o - 4.J
N C 01 4) C C h C •3 O S •tn C. L 4- to •VL m C
'- > N N .Y •- O 00 •m 4- to O s.+ W .-- to " L-
0
O C m m •- ' :*u E C tll 4j .- 4 •
_ N - N 3
rnO -Lx 41 %-0O • > O E E cm
x C C 44 .� L fl. .^. .- y i.+ � +L - C L.
•- cV • x VL •_
m o, to •- Zr tv O 4-+ U o m m O s M rn (t) • s
C. C "V «- 41 N s•+ U c 3 > m C 44 }- L > 4..t -0 C L N +J
Q 0 3 m to aC (U •- m L 3 3 0 4J h L O C 4j
U cis vis 0) o 34-J E 0 ":o to ccs 0 .a m to •-- h • -C .x
O to - C M X: = to o•- 0 +-+ L-
o C C c -• w m L- 4) O m 3 -7' to m%D 3 0 > •- to
+- •- •- J Z C1. N 4- Cr- N U h C. Ln N 0C }- .-• C. CC N Q 3 C.
• U
w a O C1 N
O 4 .:' N Ln
33LLI %0 00
3
o m m m m m m m
LLJ
-i U W w 01 O O •
< LLJ
O m0 LA O
J tY — oa Co td% O
QdtrQa
c-0 %D M
- U- t�
La. O Q F-
F-
L.)
- M
} to
LL.) F- n3
LLt L) w w sF- 010 0110
o a Z 3 o m
oc —
mno
n o — 0c
U- F- F�- 3O i
O 00 QFO-
o ONO U •
t
n O
F-
X: d O
O — N O
cl� U F-
`` F- ¢ 0000 •
o ¢ 0a o O %0
z E 00
w w O td%
o:: n or
-� U- i?
tL N
O F-
H O •
U
O O O
w O O O
2
F- t71 O Q;
7- N its O O
m O
in CYN CrN
w M O •
F-
< to N
V>
F-
Z O L
M O
N •L) •- •t0 C •-7'
L) Nx CLn— Z •
00 ++
O +-+ •--' (o O
N O to +.t +J
Q� L V) CC Vt
7 N
F- N N •E
Z F- to F- to 4- C N
w U N C O •-
W L S (0 LJ -C
w '7 0- +J L iT 4-)
O L ++ C % •
O w 4- O - O N
LC a. O z • •Vf L-
0-
0- Z U1
E C N O NZ N
O s . L L J
a.+ N 0 3 E Q
++ > V1 O F-
Q tO C < = N L O
F- •- •_ �.-o 4) 4- F-
3 i-
o.. M N O t1 Vt
4-+ > N 'O ..0 C •
U V) N
C M i- N •- N (0 +t
=ta .
F-
U
w N •
L11 Lf\
O L!\
Q 1 t
CL 3 3
w O o
F-- 00 0o
Q m
p o 0 0 0 0 o O
• � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>- x
J O O O O O O O O
�- O O O O O O O O
w w O O O O Lt1 O O O
Q m 3 M -Lr%T M ♦D CO ^ _:r
.s Lu
V Q
• C)
V OD tj W No o\o o\o o\o o\o o\o ov ov
O W CG w LLJ O Q1 tJl O O N N 00
N o t- - 3 •--
�- ae d
0 z
CO
s
x >.
w w
ON w o 0 0
� CC o 0
zz o 0 0
a,% cg co 0 0
7 ¢ M O O O O O O O O
w W n. 44 N -T -�
• O J —
W tl0 V r, v v
N
to N H NO ov
O O O
V O Q -S
LaW t1 fl-
a.
LLI
• � O O O O O O O O O
> O V O O O O O O O O
O O W O O O O O O O p
H O" O O O O O O O O
E w O O O O O C O O
4 O O Lr% O U1 O O O
Q t~A M O tV
h Lu vs
CS.
Q
V
C
w
O + .O -C
1
OCO O •� N
a M
C .S 01% to L •U1 4.J C +J
°- 0- O Fm 3 c to N (n :3 �. L s
V M y to '- •m E N —
N N {-J
am.+ •a •E 0 - Q O cr C E -id3 z
44 to O c 4- .� ++ O L. O C
• W O) (d ~ to N — L N N N C •(n O
co
O 0 cV Cit O 01% O c m C N cx •� LLJ CD
4j I- Z-T
w C +J s m m Y c a N C •••
a. '- 0 sJ L C O
s t9 Tf O L. CL O � +J •-
O1n+ O >
_ _ N O4-14J T
�D• Fm- N � 3 Wm •L %.0•-p �tp)NaC
tV JJ 4J 4J (- N-(a Cd > > m 3> E O cO J
a L L. O L. � u •- L- > CI
.0 L. iJ N yJ JJ .- :1 O iJ G. (0 M L. m .A W
M (n ut t1 O +J V) C-T O 41 Q Z
N • . C C E L- C 'G ex.- N VI
O C -T M •- 4j O O O .0 41 O C N (0 3 (D C C O
N N 2: = to tj U t.J JJ N tj (0 Q� N W — 4-+
• N M Uf vD t� Op
• A •
h 3 O O O O
(„) W ''O O
2 V 0 O C> Cl
m O O
0 3 C
cl: W r. Un Ln r"
hhZ %D M N
F-
u Q h N •
N F-—J •
O O h O o\o o\o o\o
v m tj CC O u% O
— W G7 O Ol Lr%
W CC CC r-
o h — 3
F- o W
3P Q Z
}
W -
Z
O V-
N E W
F- OC
v h
W Z Z co
O M
C) O F- w O O O
a Q
W a, r` •
h J N
Z m V
W
E N F-
� r` O Q
O CO jL d
oc O1
JL •-
J ^ h O O O O
Q 00 N O O O O
h oli V O O O O
Q D O O O O
LLJ
In
W r` N
O h -�
d N
O W to <n
a
L 4-J O �D L
N 000 ^ 4-
�-+ c
M LL . +r N
ch 4-+ z N -j
c m z O •3 t FQ--
O a� . c 3.x F--
.tA L N 'A ^
tn 4- > (L) •ro L
.E Q O E 4) Z •
V1 .F+ c c L = O
C N N r O O O +�
(p '� -• N 4-' 2
v F- 4-Jo v 3 c z
-� - .-
0 —
CN -
z -
4-) — m C14 c 3
A
^ cz 1- 10 u E c
fp L = (0 L to
4J N C
c c0 > 4- O LA N m "
— Q ^ N M or- 3 m
a1 O ^
EXHIBIT 21
41
I` 1
Oak,
is 1 z
t
:1• `,.�.L� ��. /ASCTt� •n 1� _ ' ;�����.� �-J'r`
h' t••- I
,.�. .-�w�'- •• .r•`\; !r{1 '}" _ � •R , `.aa. }� L J/IY—L'� I I; f.-. �.� �... .. �� ♦T.. I t
• \ ,•`� 1 J �t� ,f.w \`•.`t-i-t-». _.l. ,.-,i..••'1 1- , I-`:" r 4i.�.� ..._ .) 1 rlr..... ', ... .r ,._ 1
� 1� �{I: ,_.'1(jr� t.- I t �� J�,/ 1•�".�t I 11, J 11f
� f , l -�' ^ �. �I+ f 'F•_• f rl ��� I 1 I � ���,'7� /'•� � f { "f .l �I tl }
, \ � }'Ir�h...�.-•� {^I3•;, I I'>••F" r •,r_._I.,_._• x.�;.::_.j•-��••1"-��--t»}...r._.r. ..1...:
' \�.i: •la.-�:...I. ���^,�` v�';,�}�.!t'�}Q� { l-+1-•t.}-jl:•T'"/ ih � '{ •f i � i � � I ;
1 r.•, 1
ri
`��/!•4.1':7.,...^ •` `� ) "i I ' Ij'�) ,'`1 �' •�`I \l.._{fr��/� 1.�• ti / ''1 1 �
IlH4
• 1 .� r,• l- �' � i •�4�Iiit'l��J-tI V f —t' t _
1 1 t y l' r 1' .• »}a.ti.j. .��f— w rr
pro...,•. ��� .� ` } :} ..� E—�1 �� � 5
e �
EXHIBIT 22
•
SEWER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, 1980-83
•
• $ thousands
800
1
TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
• ! WITH NEW DEBT
700' New Debt Service
-COST OF SERVICE -
'' s
• ' >;_:',:�js"'`< NO NEW DEBT
600
Capital Improvements
• `r7u.S<;C t �l::Y, :r.,%{: �;$i:x.:r 3. u:ii'>:;:
�.;?3:iE•N^ y,.,,!a.;: `eY 4�'Z;'t��s:.:r}^:wtL:
�.z.,4nv:'.,`'y��;.s:sfi%' .R?r;,F`;�>t''}f•i''":.g5�<<:j
500 ,
r..:s,'�i >' .?��'•�'�+L.°iry, :��, 3:v? ,�r%I�" tji i{Jt:;'i'�i
j: v�,t'�'vf '�'
.;;; s<:sr r.$.:•:c;.:aK�<ry.K<>..w:d�s,k: ..-0�.�'rk3' .g.;<;..r::
�s}'�.. ;fit. ,>�'>t :�6,'' . a ,�4.< 4:Y•S4€f���l��< Taxes
..�'rtl,�a�f�`�p'<, 0"�.9..x�,r,Zy"X••%Y°4'° ' t�:�t�'.y:5�:?ai::fi�%3f�::bb:}:�t:;':;•tc`
:C ,�Y� ryrd°f 'Y��! 3 Y;��:�tv.:.� niyr�,.r;�<} 'l,}'r'}'f.•::`1.rY:.}}�p':•.','�'.S,•y��:i'S:;% i
• ,:.E r<:}r .i .w 4�rt°q.}:..:}<,tj,} k� ':'c5};�E`5:� i?t>":`: •}:y::,.>..
400/�
•'zY.!1 .": ♦0.0 }':s' ".< :;Y.,•.r.:<:,:n;i<.j 'r:s aji^..ay3
n ? � sLzi ::{..+<}rr< fkT::,"r`•;"ii''tf:`.ar:i<s.'^}>.; G;<i::<;:
..' t?F!€?n'
-+'4'k<.> ;«::>:<:>}:<:::>:<>.> REVENUES BEFORE NEW RATES
Zs., hk. 'k�': i.a•: «'}ii1;:A!:!*;+;• :i•i;: �'�::%�?:3
:a'�y{zQ y,•<. i�:,:•iff•: Y;:::. ::<:::b,'•K:•iw..�.}}i..a::.j,j} ::;:s:e:::a::::
fa :{,S,<:,.E:�':�i�.!•uyR4�•;•}�;54;:��;:}.r f•/.: } ;::j:;}`•}:•}}:<L::j<j;
S ¢��• . ::r.:. 'ski::#•'<ik'ij.`r
ffl:dr,.'• L+{+e �{:j:..;Y.v.}/.J.k�t••.:•i;Jr{'.;}rq
rs}?M .c: :Li<�%:.%2;::..:u.�::}•}:.a/,.: :;;•„:j;�?i.}j.5:> ';''�'s;
:.r..
lily.
•
if...
ill
0
3 0
Operating and Maintenance
.:r.:
Costs
•
200
1980 1981 1982 1983
t �
,Iww� w
�w
wwr�■
�,. oil. , rvJ
sw. ..�► i um f Ems "
HE
X11 ■
.. . ��..'�-�`!�:�:� �it���►� ����; Ali
�►"„� �r�-� Hrr ``Vie.. � .!1
64l�
•�� ���sirs ` •�+�
J
W�
ME If=
• ADDENDUM A
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
•
COMMITTEE REPORT
MARCH 3, 1981
• The Systems Development Citizens' Advisory Committee was formed by the Renton City
Council Community Services Committee in November 1980 and was charged by the Council
committee with making recommendations regarding systems development charges. Since
the committee was formed, we have had ten meetings for a total of 21 hours, in
addition to many hours of individual study and research time. We have heard compre-
hensive reports about the past, present, and future impact of growth on the City of
Renton, including impacts on parks, storm drains, sanitary sewers, water, traffic,
fire, and general services. Growth forecasts have been provided by the Planning
Department, revenue information by the Finance Department, and legal issues presented
by the City Attorney. In addition to hearing from the City staff, we invited eight
guests to express their interests and concerns. These people included:
• Bill Mangan, Vice-President, South King County Chapter of the Master
Builders Association,
Mary Bundy, King County Planning,
• Kay Johnson, Executive Director of the Greater Renton Chamber of Commerce,
Versie Vaupel , member of the Renton Planning Commission,
Bob Yakas, representing The Boeing Company,
• James Warjone, Eddy Investment Company,
Lori Johnson, Green River Study Committee,
Ed Heavey, Land Use Attorney.
• Because we have invested heavily of our time and energies, our deliberations have
been filled with meaningful discussion and exchanges of ideas and concepts. No
person on the committee has taken our charge lightly. We sincerely hope that you,
the Community Services Committee, will recognize the depths of our concerns about
the issue of systems development charges and will be responsive to and supportive
of our recommendations.
• The staff report contains the supporting pporting documents for our report as well as the
minutes of our meetings. However, some basic figures are repeated here for ease
of presentation.
After lengthy discussion and thoughtful compromise, we recommend the following:
•
•
i
•
-2-
1 . That a Community Facilities Tax be established with the following fee •
structure:
Residential -- $350.00 per bedroom with a $1 ,000.00 maximum.
Commercial/Industrial -- $0.25 per square foot of gross building
floor area. !
Based on the City's growth projections, these charges will generate revenue
as shown below:
Est. No. Total Average
Permits Total No. Revenue Annual •
81-86 Bedrooms 81-86 Revenue
Single Family 891 2,673 $ 891 ,000 $148,500
(ay. 3/d.u.) ($1 ,000 x 891)
Multi Family 1 ,891 2,835.5 992,775 165,462
(ay. 1 .5/d.u.) •
Commercial/ 6 million s.f. x $0.25/s.f. = 1 ,500,000 250,000
Industrial
TOTALS $3,383,775 $563,962
•
Five of the six committee members voted to support the charge for residential
as did both of the alternates. All members and alternates voted to support
the charges for commercial/industrial .
RATIONALE: The number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit tends to be reasonably ,
proportionate to the impact that the occupation of said unit will have on the
city services and systems. Likewise, the gross square footage of commercial
and industrial buildings is a reasonable gauge of the impact of such buildings
on the environment and quality of life in the city. We feel that the charges
recommended are reasonable, fair and affordable, not excessive, and are in
line with what other communities in the area are proposing and/or have adopted.
We also feel that the name "Community Facilities Tax" is more descriptive of
the tax and will be more easily understood by the general public.
2. That the Community Facilities Tax Ordinance will supersede all charges presently
being levied or charged for the purposes of systems development, such as the 2t
per square foot charges city-wide and the 3� per square foot charges in the May
Creek-Honey Creek Basin.
RATIONALE: We feel that one charge is sufficient and there should be no "tax
upon a tax" situation.
3. That the Community Facilities Tax will not be applied retroactively but only
to new permit applications after the ordinance is adopted into law.
• II
• -3-
RATIONALE: State law does not allow a retroactive tax, and the dictates
of fairness indicate that the builder should know what fees are required
! at the beginning of a project.
4. That the Community Facilities Tax be collected at the time of application
for an occupancy permit, whether temporary or permanent.
! RATIONALE: Although some municipalities require payment at the time of
application for a building permit, we feel our approach is more reasonable
for the following reasons:
a. The builder is not required to carry the fee at a high rate of
interest while the project is under construction, which reduces
the impact of the fee on the purchaser of the property.
b. The main impact on existing facilities is not felt until the building
is occupied, so the tax would be applied at the proper time.
c. The City will be required to stringently enforce the City's code
• requirements and approve the buildings for occupancy in order to
collect the tax. There will be no occupancy until the fee is paid.
This provision would protect the City, the builder and the purchaser.
That there be a review of the ordinance and the charges every three years
! and that the process include a well advertised public hearing and a report
of how fees previously collected have been spent. There should also be a
reassessment of the need for capital improvements and the projects that
qualify.
RATIONALE: We feel that if the public is informed, aware, and can see the
results of the dollars collected, they will be supportive of the charges.
6. That a reasonable procedure be established in the ordinance to allow for
exceptions and appeals which would go before the Council and/or the Hearing
Examiner with an opportunity for input from the appropriate departments.
RATIONALE: There may be situations where the City would like to negotiate
with the developer for a parcel of property to be used for parks in lieu of
the fee. There may also be instances, such as in the case of essential
public services like electricity, where strict application of the fee would
not be reasonable and appropriate. The City should have the option of allowing
! exceptions if they are in the best interests of the citizens of the City.
7. That a definition of terms be included in the ordinance which covers the
following terms and any others that might be appropriate. The list of terms
should include: bedroom, hotel , motel , mobile homes, residential , single
• family, multiple family, condominiums, industrial , commercial .
RATIONALE: The ordinance should be as clear as possible so that all parties
understand what the purpose is and what is applicable to their own situation.
•
i
-4-
8. That certain remodeling activity be exempted from the charges if there is
no change in use of the property or additional impacts.
RATIONALE: If a single family homeowner wants to add a bedroom to his
property, he should be allowed to do so without charge. But , if the property
will experience a change of use as a result of the addition (i .e. , conversion
to a duplex) , then an additional impact is the result and the tax should apply.
Likewise, a business that wishes to re-design the interior of its property, a
such as adding additional office space, should not be taxed unless the
addition changes the impacts to the community.
9. That a cumulative reserve fund be established for these funds. The funds
collected should not be used for maintenance and operations but for capital
improvements as required by growth.
RATIONALE: Our entire report is based on the need for capital improvements
because of growth. Our financial computations include capital improvement
projects only. Maintenance and operation costs should be absorbed by the
City into its general operating budget. The existing systems development
charges have been used to subsidize maintenance and operation costs, and we
feel this is an inappropriate use of the funds.
During our period of study, certain truths have become apparent. The revenues
received by the City have not been sufficient to fund the needed capital improve-
ments to date, and there is no indication that this situation will change. This
is why we need a tax of this type in the first place. However, there are several
other things the City must do in order to make the Community Facilities Tax
function at its most efficient level .
1 . We recommend that the City increase water and sewer rates to reflect their
trlu
costs to the residents. The City should NOT use this tax or any other
tobsidize ratepayers. Although this is an unpopular position, the need
is very clear. Those who use the services must pay for them.
2. We recommend that the City create a storm drainage utility. In the past, the •
problem of storm drainage has not been adequately addressed. It is time to
work on the problem in a comprehensive way in order to provide maximum benefit
to all the residents of the City.
3. We recommend that the City formulate a capital improvements revenue package
that will outline the City's needs over the next six years and identify and .
pursue all possible methods of financing needed projects. The City should
examine all other revenue sources and/or funding mechanisms such as fees ,
L. I .D. ' s, general obligation bonds , revenue bonds, and any other lawful means
of raising funds for public improvements. The proposed tax does not replace
these other funding sources, but only supplements them. The proposed tax
should also be used as matching money where appropriate to generate additional •
funding for capital improvements.
In addition to our specific recommendations, the committee has set a list of
priorities, based on degree of need , for the City departments who presented
• _5_
information to us. We feel these priorities should be used as a guideline for
dispersal of the funds as they are collected:
1 . Storm Sewers -- need would be reduced by about 85% if the City
adopts a storm drainage utility,
2. Water,
• 3. Sanitary Sewers,
4. Traffic,
5. Parks,
6. Fire and General Services.
The committee feels strongly that a combination of funding methods for capital
improvements is the only reasonable approach to solution of the problem. If we
are to maintain the present quality of life which is what attracts residential
• and commercial/industrial growth to Renton in the first place, we must move
quickly and diligently to adopt the Community Facilities Tax.
Respectfully submitted,
SYSTEMS DEVELOPME14T ADVISORY COMMITTEE
•
Kathy Keolker, Chairperson
Del Bennett
Larry Dixon
• Vern Locka rd
David Pierce
Susan Ringwood
Dick Causey (alternate)
Glenn Garrett (alternate)
•
•
•
I
• ADDENDUM 8
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meetings February 17, 18, 1981
• SUMMARY REPORT
The Committee met on Tuesday, February 17, and again on Wednesday, February 18, at
the Renton City Hall . After considerable discussion, the following recommendations
were made:
•
1 . The method of assessment for all charges should be based on the number of
bedrooms for all residential units and gross square footage of building for
commercial/industrial development.
2. It was established that the following ratios should apply when assessing
• residential and commercial/industrial development:
Commercial/
Residential Industrial
a) Parks 80% 20%
•
b) Fire 65% 35%
c) General Services 100% --
d) Water 50% 50%
e) Storm Sewer 87% 13%
•
f) Sanitary Sewer 80% 20%
g) Traffic 50% 50%
3. According to staff reports, the revenue required over a six-year period to
accommodate new growth is $37.6 million. The Committee concluded that 10%
of that amount should be collected through Systems Development Charges to
establish a viable capital facilities fund.
To accomplish this end, the Committee recommends that a charge be established
with the following fee structure:
• Residential -- $350 per bedroom with a $1 ,000 maximum..
Commercial/Industrial -- $0.25 per square foot of gross building floor area.
Based on the City's growth projections, these charges will generate revenue as
shown below:
•
•
•
•
Systems Development Advisory Committee
Summary Report - Page 2
Est. No. Total Average
Permits Total No. Revenue Annual
81-86 Bedrooms 81-86 Revenue
Single Family 891 2,673 $ 891 ,000 $148,500
(ay. 3/d.u.) ($1 ,000 x 891 )
Multi Family 1,891 2,835.5 992,775 165,462
(ay. 1 .5/d.u.)
Commercial/ 6 million s.f. x $0.25/s.f. = 1 ,500,000 250,000 •
Industrial
TOTALS $3,383,775 $563,962
4. Five of the six voting members and both of the alternates stated that they would
be willing to support the Advisory Committee's recommendation to the City Council
regarding the charge on residential development. The commercial/industrial
charge met with unanimous support.
5. The Advisory Committee decided that additional input of a more general nature
should be transmitted to the City Council . All members of the Committee agreed
to meet on Monday, February 23, at 6:00 p.m. in the third floor conference room
to discuss these policy and procedural recommendations. Another meeting will
be held Wednesday, February 25, at 6:30 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room
to review and approve the Committee's final report to the Council Community
Services Committee. The report will be formally submitted to the Council on
Tuesday, March 3. •
NOTE: Monday's meeting will be held in the third floor conference room at 6:00 p.m.
Please bring your policy and procedure ideas in writing so that language and
terminology can be recorded accurately. Examples of policy and procedure
•
recommendations already discussed are: a) segregation of revenue into
cumulative reserve funds to insure proper use (acquisition and development
of capital facilities) ; b) periodic review of ordinance and charges (i .e. ,
annual , three-year, five-year) or an automatic escalator clause based on
inflation rate, construction cost index or consumer price index; c) establish
a Storm Sewer Utility to meet City-wide need for drainage services; d) existing i
systems development charges should be replaced by this new fee.
i
•
• SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting February ll , 1981
MINUTES
•
1 . Meeting called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the
Renton Municipal Building.
2. Roll Call : Kathy Keolker, Chairperson; Susan Ringwood; Dick Causey; Del Bennett;
• Larry Dixon; Vern Lockard. Absent: David Pierce, Glenn Garrett. Staff: Larry
Warren, City Attorney; Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor.
Visitor: Peggy Cummins.
3. Approval of Minutes: Due to the nature of the previous meeting, no minutes were
• prepared.
4. Copies of a letter outlining the SCOPI Project (Scientists/Citizens Organized on
Policy Issues) were distributed.
5. Larry Warren. made a presentation outlining the various methods used by municipalities
• to raise revenue. He then discussed his approach to assessing a systems development
charge. Larry indicated that a BSO Tax similar to the excise tax presently used in
Issaquah and Kent is the legal method easiest to defend. Questions followed.
Susan Ringwood asked that the staff provide some information showing the level of
subsidized housing in Renton and comparing the average cost of housing to neighbor-
ing communities.
6. Kathy Keolker led a discussion concerning the committee's schedule, pointing out
that only two meetings are planned between now and the March 3rd deadline. The
committee decided to schedule an additional meeting for February 17. This meeting
will last approximately three hours. Each department report will be discussed in
• the order in which it was presented.
7. The meeting adjourned at 8: 10 p.m.
• NOTE: The meeting scheduled for February 17 will be held in the 3rd floor conference
room at 6:30 p.m. The meeting scheduled for February 18 will be held in the
6th floor conference room.
•
•
I
•
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting January 28, 1981
MINUTES
•
1 . Meeting called to order at 6:05 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the
Renton Municipal Building.
2. Roll Call : Kathy Keolker, Chairperson; Susan Ringwood; Del Bennett; Glenn
• Garrett; Dick Causey; David Pierce. Absent: Vern Lockard, Larry Dixon.
Staff present: Dick Houghton, Acting Public Works Director; Don Monaghan; Ron
Olsen; Dave Clemens; Mike Parness.
3. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of January 21 were approved
• as written.
4. The committee directed the staff to invite the following people to the
February 4th meeting:
a. A representative of The Boeing Company,
• b. Kay Johnson, representing the Chamber of Commerce,
c. Versie Vaupel , a member of the Renton Planning Commission,
d. Lori Johnson, a member of the Green River Study Committee,
e. Jerry Hillis, land use attorney,
f. Bruce Laing, King County Councilman,
g. Jim Klauser or his designee, representing the Master Builders
• Association,
h. James Warjone, Eddy investment Co. , Seattle.
Each of the above individuals will be asked to make a 10-minute presentation.
Five minutes will be reserved for questions and answers.
5. Don Monaghan distributed a four-page report outlining the capital requirements
of the sanitary sewer system. He also responded to numerous questions and
discussed the proposed rate increase which will have an impact on the utility's
progress over the next few years.
6. Ron Olsen distributed an eleven-page report describing the general condition of
our water utility. Following the presentation, Mr. Olsen responded to questions.
7. Don Monaghan then discussed the storm sewer program in the City. He pointed out
that there is a need for a utility to address the growing problems concerning
inadequate storm drainage throughout the City. Problem areas were delineated
and the impact development has on drainage problems was discussed.
• 8. Meeting adjourned at 8: 10 p.m.
NOTE: Due to the number of guests at our February 4th meeting, we will meet at
the Main Fire Station's training room (lower level) at 6:30 p.m. The Fire
• Station is located diagonally across Mill Avenue from the Municipal Building.
•
• SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting January 21 , 1981
MINUTES
•
1 . Meeting called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the
Renton Municipal Building.
2. Roll call : Kathy Keolker, Chairperson; Dick Caus.ey; David Pierce; Vern Lockard;
Larry Dixon. Absent: Glenn Garrett, Susan Ringwood, Del Bennett.
Staff present: Dick Geissler, Fire Chief; Mike Parness, Administrative
Assistant to the Mayor.
3. Approval of minutes: Mrs. Keolker noted that the date on page 2, item 6,
• should read January 28th, not February 28th. The minutes were approved as
corrected.
4. The Committee reviewed the memo from Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer, which
addressed some specific questions .asked at the preceding meeting (January 14) .
5. Dick Geissler made a brief presentation outlining the projected capital
requirements facing the Fire Department in the next six years. Chief Geissler
distributed information including:
a. Recommendations from the Fire Rating Bureau concerning departmental
operations.
• b. Table showing the relationship between travel distance, fire flow and
fire equipment needed.
c. Maps and information concerning potential sites for future fire stations.
6. Mike Parness discussed the General Services portion of the Systems Development
• Charge. He indicated that the expansion of the main library facility is the
only present need under this category.
7. Mrs. Keolker reminded the Committee members that they should bring a list on
January 28 of who they would like to invite to the February 4th meeting.
• 8. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Representatives from the Public Works Department will be present at the January 28th
meeting to discuss the proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage charges.
•
•
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting January 14, 1981
MINUTES
• 1 . Meeting called to order at 6:35 P.M. in the sixth floor conference room of the
Renton Municipal Building.
2. Roll call : Kathy Keolker, Chairperson; Susan Ringwood; Del Bennett; Dick
Causey; Vern Lockard.; Larry Dixon; David Pierce. Absent: Glenn Garrett.
• Staff present: Gary Norris, Traffic Engineer; Paul Lumbert, Traffic Engineering;
Dave Clemens, Acting Planning Director; Dick Houghton, Acting Public Works
Director; Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor.
Visitors: Dave Hamlin, Versie Vaupel .
•
3. Approval of Minutes: David Pierce has discussed the methods of calculating
the population projections with Dave Clemens. The figures presented by
Planning appeared to be somewhat conservative; however, the discrepancy is
not critical .
• 4. Gary Norris, the City's Traffic Engineer, and Paul Lumbert presented information
and a brief slide show illustrating the need for street improvements in Renton
and the impact development has on our traffic systems. The materials provided
included:
a. System development charges for transportation improvements, 7 pp.
• b. Growth-oriented six-year TIP projects, 2 pp.
c. Growth-oriented projects and corresponding costs not on six-year TIP, 2 pp.
d. Estimates of six-year growth in Renton travel .
e. Example of fees based on recommended $20/trip generated.
Mr. Norris responded to numerous questions and. stated that he would provide
• the following information at the next meeting:
a. The top ten traffic flow streets in Renton or those arterials which
have reached maximum capacity.
b. The impact the recommended $20/trip generated charge would have on .a
shopping center project.
•
5. Mr. Bennett asked that the committee postpone any further discussion regarding
Public Works for one week so that he can be in attendance. The revised meeting
schedule is as follows:
Wednesday, January 21 - Fire Department, General Services, and
• discussion of material to date.
Wednesday, January 28 - Public Works (sewer, water, storm drainage) .
Wednesday, February 4 -- Input from invited guests.
Wednesday, February 11 -- Legal issues, ordinance review.
Wednesday, February 18 - Discussion, formalize recommendations.
•
Systems Development Advisory Committee
Meeting January 14, 1981
Minutes - Page 2
•
Wednesday, February 25 - Review and finalize recommendations.
Tuesday,;,March 3 - Submit recommendations to Council Community
Services Committee.
•
6. Mrs. Keolker requested that all committee members submit a list of people
they would like to have speak by January 28th.
7. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
•
•
•
•
•
•
• i
• I
•
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting December 17, 1980
• MINUTES
1 . Meeting called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the
Renton Municipal Building.
2. Roll call : Kathy Keolker, Chair; Susan Ringwood; Larry Dixon; Dick Causey;
David Pierce; Vern Lockard. Absent: Del Bennett; Glenn Garrett.
Staff present: Dave Clemens, Senior Planner; John Webley, Parks Director;
Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor.
3. Approval of Minutes: David Pierce questioned the figures presented December 10
• regarding population projections. He will meet with Dave Clemens to discuss
this matter and report back to the Committee.
4. Dave Clemens distributed his response to the Committee's request for information
concerning Renton's housing capacity. Dave explained that the figures indicating
the potential for residential housing development were based on present zoning.
•
5. Mike Parness provided a comparative analysis listing Washington cities that are
implementing Systems Development Charges. He stated that a review of policies
and charges in other cities will indicate 1 ) trends, 2) various methods or
alternatives to consider when considering assessment options, and 3) impacts
of charges on other communities.
•
6. John Webley presented the following materials and answered numerous questions:
a) Goals and objectives (adopted by Park Board) ,
b) National park and recreation standards,
c) Park acreage comparisons - King County suburban cities,
d) Current recommended park standards,
e) Park development cost estimates,
f) Park acquisition and development funds 1974-1979.
7. Mrs. Keolker advised the Committee that the next meeting will be held on
January 7, 1981 , at 6:30 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of the
Renton Municipal Building. Public Works Director Warren Gonnason and
Traffic Engineer Gary Norris will present material concerning the street
impact fee in the Systems Development Charge.
8. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
•
•
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting December 10, 1980
MINUTES
1 . Meeting called to order at 6:35 P.M. in the sixth floor conference room of
the Renton Municipal Building.
2. Roll call : Kathy Keolker, Chair; Glenn Garrett; Del Bennett; Larry Dixon;
Vern Lockard; Dick Causey; Susan Ringwood; David Pierce.
Staff present: Dave Clemens, Senior Planner; Ted Bennett, Deputy Finance
Director; Mike Parness, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor.
Visitors: Mary Ellen Hamlin; John Reed, Chairman, Council Community
Services Committee.
3. Councilman Reed provided some background information and discussed the
responsibilities of the Advisory Committee. He stated that the Committee
should work to develop a systems development fee which is fair, equitable,
and meets the needs of our community.
4. Dave Clemens presented the staff population projections and answered questions.
Dave distributed the following materials:
a. Renton Planning Area Household Projections 1978-1990,
b. Residential Housing Unit Projections,
c. Commercial/Industrial Building Area Projections,
d. Copies of page 276, Renton 1979 Annual Report, "12-Year Comparative
Statement,"
e. King County 1980 Preliminary Census Figures.
a The Advisory Committee requested information regarding the following:
a. Estimate based on present zoning and comprehensive plan, the peak
population (maximum absorption) and household figures for the City of
Renton,
b. Employment data in the City of Renton.
At the conclusion of Mr. Clemens' presentation, the Committee agreed to use the
509 households per year figure presented as the basis for future presentations.
5. Ted Bennett presented some information concerning the budget process and
financial situation facing the City of Renton. The following materials were
presented:
a. Property taxes at full levy vs 6% lid, 1976-1981 ,
b. City of Renton assessed valuations, 1976-1981 ,
c. Percent of capital outlay to total expenditures, 1976-1981 (Current Fund,
Street Fund) ,
d. Street improvements from Arterial and Street Forward Thrust Funds, 1976-1981 ,
e. Value of building permits issued, 1968-1979 (,page 276 of 1979 Annual Report) .
•
Systems Development Advisory Committee
Meeting December 10, 1980
Minutes - Page 2
•
6. The Committee decided to alter the topic of the meeting scheduled for
December 17 to include a review of systems development charges in other
cities and a report from Public Works. (The Public Works presentation will •
not be prepared until January; therefore, the Parks Director, John Webley,
will meet with the Advisory Committee on December 17.)
7. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Meeting December 2, 1980
MINUTES
•
1 . Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the sixth floor conference room of
the Renton Municipal Building.
• 2. Roll call : Kathy Keolker, Chair; Dick Causey; Larry Dixon; Vern Lockard;
Del Bennett; David Pierce; Susan Ringwood. Absent: Glenn Garrett.
Staff Present: Mike Parness.
Visitor: Mary Ellen Hamlin
3. All participants gave brief personal introductions.
4. After discussion, it was established that future meetings will be held each
Wednesday (except December 24 and 31 ) at 6:30 p.m. Meetings will adjourn
at 8:00 p.m. All meetings will be held in the sixth floor conference room
• of the Renton Municipal Building.
5. Organization of the committee:
A. The role of the committee is to advise the Council Community Services
Committee per report dated November 17, 1980 (see chronology provided) .
• B. The Chairperson of this committee will be an active, equal member and
will have the right to vote should the need arise.
C. The advisory committee will attempt to work by consensus; votes will
not be taken unless absolutely necessary.
D. The staff representative will prepare for the committee a monthly report
documenting the advisory committee's activities and progress. With the
concurrence of the advisory committee, the report will be forwarded to
the Council Community Services Committee as required.
• 6. A brief oral presentation was made by Mike Parness and a written chronology
of events pertaining to systems development was distributed.
7. Meeting dates and discussion topics were established (see attached) .
8. Meeting adjourned 9:30 p.m.
•
cc: Committee Members
• Council Community Services Committee
Mayor
Staff, Systems Development Committee
•