Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Retreat Agenda for 03-09-2019
OEM---- enton O AGENDA City Council Retreat 10:00 AM - Saturday, March 9, 2019 Senior Activity Center, 211 Burnett Ave. S, Renton, WA 1. Long-term Financial Strategy a) Long Range Financial Projection 2. Financial Reserve Policy a) Policy on Stabilization Funds b) Reserves and Debt 3. Annexation Policy • Costing including building to city standards • PAA • Sewer hook-ups for non-residents • Sidewalks in annexed areas - city standards a) Annexation Policy-2019 b) Map - Potential Annexation Areas c) Map - Annexations since GMA d) Map - PAA and School Districts e) Map - PAA and Sewer Districts f) Sidewalk Funding 4. Planning for Long-term Growth • Density and potential code changes • Potential high-rises and fire code changes a) Planned Growth - 2019 b) Growth Targets vs Capacity c) Renton Buildable Lands d) Vision 2050 Flyer 5. Transit and Transportation Issues • Current and Future • TBDs 6. Perception of Public Safety in the Downtown • Vagrants and Panhandlers 7. Business Plan a) Current Plan 8. Emerging Issues $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 Long Range Financial Projection, Adopted 2019-2024 Operating Revenue Base Operating Expenditure Ending Fund Balance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Summary ($ in Million) Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Beginning Fund Balance $ 17.6 $ 20.0 $ 26.6 $ 33.3 $ 32.5 $ 30.6 $ 27.5 $ 22.4 $ 18.0 $ 12.7 Operating Revenue $ 115.5 $ 121.2 $ 108.3 $ 106.3 $ 103.1 $ 105.3 $ 104.6 $ 106.5 $ 108.5 $ 110.4 Base Operating Expenditure' (113.2) (109.5) (91.5) (94.3) (101.6) (107.3) (110.8) (111.8) (114.8) (118.7) Operating Surplus (Deficit) $ 2.3 $ 11.7 $ 16.7 $ 12.0 $ 1.6 1 $ (2.1) $ (6.2) $ (5.3) $ (6.2) $ (8.4) 1X Sources2 $ 17.7 $ 4.6 $ 1.3 $ 0.6 $ 2.0 $ 2.0 $ 1.7 $ 1.6 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 1X Uses3 (17.7) (9.7) (11.3) (3.1) (5.4) (3.0) (0.6) (0.6) (0.6) (0.7) Net Resources - Uses $ 2.4 $ 6.6 $ 6.7 $ 9.5 $ (1.9) $ (3.1) $ (5.1) $ (4.4) $ (5.4) $ (7.5) Ending Fund Balance $ 20.0 $ 26.6 $ 33.3 $ 42.8 $ 30.6 $ 27.5 $ 22.4 $ 18.0 $ 12.7 $ 5.1 Ending Bal as % of Opr Budget (Target=12%) 17.64% 24.25% 36.36% 45.37% 30.13 % 25.64% 20.20% 16.12% 11.03% 4.32% Key Revenue Assumptions: 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Sales Tax Growth 9.0% 12.1% 0.3% 2.7% -3.2% 3.5% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% Property Tax' 3.0% 1.9% -33.2% -34.0% 7.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% B&O/Business License 2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Overall Operating Revenue Growth 6.0% 4.9% -10.7% -1.8% -3.0% 2.1% -0.6% 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% Wage Increase 2.5% 2.0% 2.5% 2.5% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Medical Cost Growth Rate 10.0% 5.5% 0.0% 5.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% PERS (Pension) Contribution Rate 12.5% 12.5% 12.9% 12.9% 13.9% 13.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% 14.9% Overall Operating Expense Growth 5.2% -3.2% -16.4% 3.1% 7.7% 5.7% 3.3% 0.9% 2.6% 3.5% H:\Finance\Budget\1CY\3.Budget Document\I.lntroduction\ICY LRP scenario 1/1 3/1/201qp- AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Policy on Stabilization Funds: Sufficient fund balances and reserve levels are important in the long-term financial stability of the City. a. The City shall maintain reserves required by law, ordinance and/or bond covenants. In addition, the City of Renton has its own minimum requirements on reserve levels that are detailed below. i. General Government (a) The City shall maintain reserves in the General Government Funds at least 8% of total budgeted operating expenditures with a target of 12%. (b) In addition, the City shall maintain an additional reserve as a part of the City's Risk Management Funds in a minimum amount of at least 8% of General Fund operating expenditures. (c) In addition, the City shall maintain an "Anti -Recessionary Reserve" in an amount of at least 4% of General Government budgeted operating expenditures. Expenditures utilizing the "Anti Recessionary Reserve" require a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council and will be replenished within three (3) years. (d) In addition, the City shall accumulate reserves of $5,400,000 for the Annexation Sales Tax Credit Expiration/Transition using year-end savings, until fully funded. Expenditures utilizing the "Annexation Sales Tax Credit Expiration/Transition Reserve" require a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. (e) In addition, the City shall reserve $2,500,000 for the Economic Development Revolving Fund using year-end savings until funded. Expenditures utilizing the "Economic Development Revolving Fund Reserve" require a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. ii. Debt Service (a) The City shall maintain one year payments in voted general obligation debt service funds and revenue bonds. (b) In addition, a one year payment reserve will be established for all councilmanic general obligation bonds issued after 2013. iii. Enterprise Funds (a) Water, Wastewater, and Surface Water Utility Fund shall each maintain reserves of 12% of total budgeted operating expenses or 30 to 45 days. (b) King County Wastewater Treatment Fund shall maintain reserves of $380,000 (approximately 3% of total operating expenses). (c) Solid Waste Fund shall maintain reserves of $400,000. (d) Golf Fund shall maintain reserves of 25% of total budgeted operating expenses. (e) All other Enterprise Funds shall maintain reserves of 10% - 20% of total budgeted operating expenses. iv. Reserve balances of other funds shall be set through the budget process in an amount consistent with the purpose and nature of the fund. b. Replacement reserves shall be established for equipment, and computer software should the need continue beyond the estimated initial useful life, regardless of whether the equipment is acquired via lease, gift or purchase. Service charges paid by City departments to the appropriate Internal Service funds should include an amount to provide for replacements. i. The City shall establish a Public Safety Small Equipment Reserve as a sub -fund to the Equipment Rental Fund. Beginning 2015, the City shall contribute $200,000 a year to accumulate reserves specifically for Public Safety small equipment items. LIQUIDITY AND FLEXIBILITY The City's has high liquidity and flexibility. The following table compares the financial results from the City's last general obligation bond issuance in 2015 to current results: General Fund $20.1 $46.8 Equipment Rental (Fund 501) $5.3 $6.6 Insurance Fund (Fund 502) $12.1 $21.3 Information Tech Services (Fund 503) $1.9 $4.3 Facilities (Fund 504) $1.1 $2.0 Healthcare (Fund 512) $6.7 $5.5 Retiree Healthcare (LEOFF I, Fund 522) $7.7 $11.6 Economic Development Reserves $1.0 $4.0 Total $55.9 $102.1 FINANCIAL POLICIES The City's financial management policies are strong and conservative. The following table compares the financial results from the City's last general obligation bond issuance in 2015 to current results: General Fund Balance (1) 12% 21% 49% Catastrophic Reserve (Fund 502) 8% 8% 8% Rainy-day/Anti recession Reserve (Fund 502) 4% 4% 4% Annexation Sales Tax transition (Fund 502) $5.4 million -- $5.4 million Economic Development Revolving Fund (Fund 326) $2.5 million $1 million $2.5 million 1 year and 10 months LTGO Bonds (new $ bonds issued after 2013) 1 year debt service -- debt service requirements (2) (1) Policy target represents General Fund balance as a percentage of total budgeted operating expenditures. (2) The City has estimated reserves on 12/31/2018 of $2.3 million; total debt service on bonds issued after 2013 is $2.5 m million for 2019 and 2020, combined. z v Financial and investment policies can be found at the following link: n https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/1/edoc/1250132/2019-2020%20Proposed/20Budget%20(Preliminary).pc j N OUTSTANDING DEBT Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds 2010 LTGO: Downtown Parking Refunding 05/11/2010 12/01/2021 $ 6,170,000 $ 4,585,000 2011 LTGO: Library 08/02/2011 12/01/2022 16,715,000 6,160,000 2013 LTGO: QECB 07/01/2013 07/01/2028 3,200,000 2,150,000 2015A LTGO: South Lake Washington Improvements 05/13/2015 12/01/2028 8,825,000 8,825,000 2015E LTGO (Taxable): South Lake Washington Improvements 05/13/2015 12/01/2020 3,695,000 1,525,000 The Bonds (1) 04/09/2019 12/01/2043 22,000,000 22,000,000 Total LTGO Bonds $60,605,000 $45,245,000 Other General Obligation Debt 2009 Fire District#40 Asset Transfer 03/01/2009 09/01/2028 $ 6,798,085 $ 4,026,764 2009A LTGO: SCORE Izl 11/04/2009 01/01/2022 2,953,800 991,800 2009E BABs: SCORE IZI 11/04/2009 01/01/2039 28,090,800 24,791,400 Xerox Capital Leases 12/26/2014 12/01/2019 169,245 35,849 Total Other General Obligation Debt $ 38,011,930 $ 29,845,814 Total General Obligation Debt $ 98,616,930 $ 75,090,814 n (1) Preliminary, subject to change. Z (2) The South Correctional Entity Facility Public Development Authority issued special obligation bonds on November 4, 2009, n for a new correctional facility (the "SCORE Bonds") in the total aggregate principal amount of $86,235,000. Pursuant to an interlocal agreement, the City is obligated to pay 36 percent of the debt service on the SCORE Bonds. y IV �+ a DEBT CAPACITY AND DEBT RATIOS DEBT CAPACITY DEBT RATIOS NONVOTED DEBT CAPACITY 1.5% of Regular Assessed Value Less: Outstanding Nonvoted Debt(l) Less: The Bonds (2) Remaining Nonvoted DebtCapacity Percentof Nonvoted Debt Capacity Used VOTED AND NONVOTED DEBT CAPACITY FOR GENERAL PURPOSES 2.5% of Regular Assessed Value Less: Outstanding Nonvoted Debt(i) Less: Outstanding Voted Debt Less: The Bonds (2) Remaining Voted and Nonvoted Debt Capacity for General Purposes Percentof Total DebtCapacity Used (1) Includes outstanding limited tax general obligation bonds, the SCORE Bonds. (2) Preliminary, subject to change. $ 285,916,559 (53,090,814) (22,000,000) $ 210,825,745 26.26% $ 476,527,598 (53,090,814) (22,000,000) $ 401,436,784 15.76% Direct Debt to Assessed Value 0.39% 0.58% Directand Estimated Overlapping Debt to Assessed Value 1.55% 2.54% Per Capita Assessed Value $183,104 $132,571 Per Capita Direct Debt $721 $769 Per Capita Total Directand Estimated Overlapping Debt $2,844 $3,367 (1) Estimated; after the issuance of the Bonds. (2) After the issuance of the 2015 Bonds. t PROJECTED LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE 15,000,000 14,000,000 13,000,000 12,000,000 11,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 ' 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 m z 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 204® ■ 2009 SCORE ■ 2010 2011A 2013 (QECB) (1) ■ 2015A ■ 2015B The Bonds (2) n m (1) Represents gross debt service; excludes federal subsidy. (2) Preliminary; subject to change. N �+ a AGENDA ITEM #3. a) ANNEXATION POLICY Background: • The City of Renton approved three large Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs) incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and King County Countywide Planning Policies. The three PAAs are divided between three large geographical areas: East Renton (approx. 6,500 pop.), West Hill (approx. 14,000 pop.), and Fairwood (approx. 23,000 pop.) (PAA map attached) • Since 1990, the City has completed 66 annexations totaling 4,886 acres and these annexations have significantly changed the size and character of the City. (Map attached) • Also during that same period of time, population in the City has gone from 41,688 to 104,100 today. • In 2016, the City resumed charging a fee for annexations; $2,500 for annexations larger than 10 acres and $5,000 for annexations smaller than 10 acres. Currently: • All annexations currently in process are small annexations using the property owner driven 60% Assessed Value method. These annexations range in size from 8-acres with an estimated 8 residents to 20-acres with an estimated 118 residents. • The City uses a fiscal analysis model that was developed by an interdepartmental group and includes costs that increase at a faster rate than revenue. The analysis evaluates current conditions and anticipated conditions in 10 years. o Since the model was developed in 2011, all proposed annexations are evaluated with this fiscal analysis and the vast majority have been either revenue neutral or a slight revenue gain to the City. o However, much of the gain is based on new housing development which over time declines, depending on the assessed valuation of the improvements, in regards to positive fiscal contributions and fiscal implications still merit consideration given changes in the economy in general and the long term impacts new residents have on City resources. • Many County annexed areas have presented challenges for the City in terms of vested residential development projects that the City must usher through the development process. The rural street standards also present challenges for the City. o In response to this, the Council adopted a Resolution asking King County to develop an Interlocal Agreement that ensures greater consistency between the County and the City within the PAA. ■ To date, the County has not acted on this request by the City. • Significant consideration is given to annexation requests that are within the Renton School District boundary (map attached). • When properties annex, the City benefits from ensuring new development occurs with Renton development regulations. If properties don't annex, new development will still occur, but using King County development regulations. In East Plateau, where the City is the sewer provider, new development is limited by requirements for septic systems. • Only areas within Renton's PAA's can be annexed. These areas were designated in 1994 and have not been reviewed or amended since. • Until January 1, 2015, state law supported annexations of populations over 10,000 by offering a "credit" against the state portion of the sales tax to offset transition costs and some of the deficits to serve the areas over 10 years. This funding helped cities close some of the gap between service costs and revenues. AGENDA ITEM #3. a) o Without this supportive funding from the state, the city faces financial challenges with annexing the PAA's. ■ In the absence of support from the State, it seems appropriate to no longer accept large annexations of Renton's PAA's. • Recently, the City has had some property owners not honor covenants to annex that were signed as part of extending sewer to their property. A sewer service area (map attached). Future: • The appropriateness and consistency with current goals and responsibilities of the City in maintaining all the three PAA's as areas that could be annexed to the City should be evaluated. o Small annexations that help make the City boundary more logical and balanced ("cleaned up") seem appropriate. • Should the City reconsider the extent of the City's future city limits as defined by the PAA? • Should the City review and consider revising the sewer service area boundary to be coterminous with existing City limits and amend the sewer service area boundary only after an area annexes? • Consider requesting, again, that King County develop a joint planning agreement to address consistency of developments with Renton's standards through an inter -local agreement. Seattle 51 6 ±j Tukwila 11 Mercer Island West Hill 0 Kent L405 ' • - DA ITEM 1 — Bellevue r I Ivry Newcastle ^\ I I L I I J 900 IID 900 I�Ill�ill NOR- m!IIIII ulllllll 1 III �`� Unincorporated King County 900 II. I Il21011 Fairwood b MP Unincorporkjnqy 0 0.5 1 Renton City Limits O I Renton Potential Miles 167 T Annexation Areas (PAA) Source: City of Renton, 2019 I � � I1� Mercer Island 1 \ 7 Seattle � I I t` 1 �� West Hill O C� 5484 4891 _i \ Tukwila ���///,� 1 L SeaTac _i 1 5041 5205 (ationsND Bellevue - Newcastle ^� I L I I 18 ��ortS o n = 5 506 30M Unincorporated King County r h 481 n 5147 4383 5161 a' 5459 5203 4924 4760 a h Sli 5074 140 5243 5327 V Fairwood Unincorporated King County East Plateau � 5301r�1r Kent O o o.s 1 1 files quisinwWW� Renton, 2019 City Limits 4642, 11/27/1996, Hughes 5074, 5/26/2004, Carlo M 5236, 5/24/2007, Hudson 5484, 10/14/2009, Earlington 4684, 11 /5/1997, Hoffman 5092, 9/22/2004, Tydico 5243, 1 /14/2007, Maplewood Addition 5488, 10/30/2009, Duvall South Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) . 4760, 4/21/1998, East Renton Plateau 5096, 11 /2/2004, Johnson 5261, 3 15 2007, Perkins / / � 5543, 8/1 /2010, Sierra Heights Elementary Annexation History (Since GMA Adoption) 4780, 5/19/1999, Davis 5138, 6/1 /2005, Honey Creek 5283, 6/11 /2007, Leitch 5545, 8/1 /2010, Maplewood Heights Elementary Ordinance Nbr, Effective Date, Annexation 4819, 12/15/1999, Smith 5140, 6/1 /2005, Maplewood East 5293, 7/30/2007, Aster Park 5552, 1 1 /7/2010, Kendall 3163, 10/24/1997, 1&F Investment 4829, 2/16/2000, Morrison 5142, 6/1 /2005, Merritt 1 5301, 10/22/2007, Anthone 5631, 1 1 /13/201 1, Tess 4275, 7/29/1990, Duncan 4876, 12/13/2000, Knight 5147, 7/4/2005, Wedgewood Lane E 5315, 12/24/2007, Marshall 5632, 1 1 /20/201 1, Ga11e 4318, 7/21 /1991, Shurgard 4891, 2/21 /2001, Merlino Empire Estates 1 5161, 1 1 /27/2005, Park Terrace E 5318, 4116/2008, Merrit II 5655, 4/1 /2012, Fairlane Woods 4337, 1 /25/1992, Honey Creek Ridge 4918, 10/24/2001, Lee N 5171, 1 /8/2006, Mosier 11 M 5327, 3/1 /2008, Benson Hill 5665, 7/4/2012, Windstone V 4383, 12/16/1992, Senescu 4924, 12/5/2001, Piele E 5175, 1 2/21 /2005, Lindberg M 5373, 6/9/2008, AQUA BARN E 5713, 4/30/2014, Maertins 4476, 10/26/1994, Winsper 5012, 6/18/2003, Vuong M 5203, 5/3/2006, Hoquiam M 5398, 8/1 1 /2008, Liberty M 5719, 8/17/2014, Alpine Nursery 4510, 5/3/1995, Stonegate 5041, 12/10/2003, Falk r 5205, 5/3/2006, Falk 11 E 5447, 4/10/2009, Springbrook Terrace E 5722, 9/24/2014, Trace Matthew 4564, 12/11 /1995, Holman 5064, 3/24/2004, Bales M 5208, 6/18/2006, Akers Farms M 5456, 5/31 /2009, MacKay M 5857, 10/15/2017, Tim D 4579, 2/14/1996, Anmarco 5068, 4/28/2004, Stoneridge E 5223, 1 1 /19/2006, Querin 11 M 5459, 7/5/2009, Shamrock E 5879, 4/8/2018, Eric Ressler 11 Seattle Seattle School —I District I L 1 / Bellevue School District Bellevue —1 rig i Mercer Island--- School District l— _ L' Mercer Island Newcastle i L — J Issaquah School District West Hill �tM; � 1NEW • � ���nui��llll_=/ ��1� �ii 900 900 Renton School District Tukwila 169 V Tukwila School District _I I �J Kent O 0 0I 1 67 Miles Source: City of Renton, 2019 I Fairwood Unincorporated King County 900 oma School District 169 9 Kent School Unincorp ounty \� District 515 Q Renton City Limits Renton Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) Q Renton School District ' Q Other School Districts Seattle © ` Tukwila Tukwila Mercer Island West Hill Skyway A000C 900 Kent O 0 01 I 67 Miles Source: City of Renton, 2019 Bellevue Newcastle Coal Creek 405 ._, / Renton I�iL'lIlll�ill ir�� , � �11111�1111■ r u► � Kent OF JSoos Creek 515 900 ID rt�L— r -- Unincorporated King County 900 N Fairwood Cedar River r Unincorporated King County Q Renton City Limits Renton Potential Annexation Areas (PAA) Q Renton Sewer District IQ Other Sewer Districts AGENDA ITEM #3. 0 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING Background: • Sidewalks and walkways in the public right-of-way have long been a priority for the City. • The City's Street Standards require frontage improvements be installed with new subdivisions at the time they are developed. • Nevertheless, many arterial and local streets were constructed in Renton prior to the current standards and lack sidewalks on either one or both sides. • Additionally, annexations have incorporated new neighborhoods into the city that were developed under King County development standards. The newer neighborhoods have sidewalks per current King County Road Standards, but older neighborhoods may have been developed without sidewalks under older King County Road Standards. • An assessment of sidewalk needs were last addressed in the City of Renton — Comprehensive Citywide Walkway Study (March 2008), which did not include most of the Benson Hill annexation (2008). • That Study estimated that of the 463 miles of street edge in the City, only 266 miles of sidewalk were in place, and that the minimum cost per linear mile of installing sidewalk to city standards was $700,000. • The City's current budget for the Walkway Program (the program that provides for the design and construction of high -priority sidewalks (i.e., "missing links")) is $200,000 for 2019, and $250,000 for each year after until 2024. Methods of funding construction and maintenance programs: A variety of sources are available to fund sidewalk construction and maintenance programs. In general, funding strategies can be split into two categories: (1) programs that are funded by abutting property owners, and (2) programs funded by community taxes, funds and fees. General Fund Sidewalk repair and replacement is commonly paid for through the general fund, which is typically funded by property and sales tax revenues. Sidewalk repair and replacement projects often compete with other projects and funding obligations. Community -Paid Repair and Maintenance Programs Many communities treat sidewalks as a community -wide asset, and fund their repair and maintenance directly. Typically, these funds come from a municipality's general fund or transportation fund. A community -paid program eases administrative costs compared to assessment programs and spreads the costs for pedestrian facility maintenance over the entire community. The primary concern with community -paid maintenance programs is that funds must be budgeted for the program. Fees and taxes that are commonly used to fund pedestrian facility maintenance programs are briefly discussed in the example below. Communitywide Assessments: Ann Arbor, Michigan The City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, has a voter -approved sidewalk millage tax (i.e., property tax) that generates $560,000 or more per year for sidewalk repair and replacement. The tax was proposed by city officials as a means to address significant sidewalk maintenance that was not being adequately addressed through the city's code requirements, which assigns the responsibility of sidewalk maintenance to the adjacent property owner. The special millage was seen as a more equitable and effective means to address the city's sidewalk maintenance needs and was approved by over 60% of AGENDA ITEM #3. 0 voters. As a result of the 0.125-mill, the average household pays an additional $13 per year in local taxes. Improvement Districts Many communities have downtown or other business district areas that (i.e. Business Improvement Districts, Community Improvement Districts, Business Improvement Area, transportation improvement districts, etc.) have assumed responsibility of sidewalk maintenance. These special districts may fund sidewalk maintenance through their general funds or may assess local property owners for general sidewalk maintenance as well as necessary repairs and replacements. Utility Fees Utility fees are used by some municipalities to fund street and sidewalk maintenance. Often such fees are voter -approved. Typically the utility fee an individual household pays is relatively small, but the steady funding source enables municipalities to plan and execute maintenance activities in a systematic way. Utility fees may be specific line items, such as a sidewalk maintenance fee collected directly by the municipality, or may be a tax on electric or natural gas service collected by the utility. Utility Fees Corvallis, Oregon Corvallis, Oregon, includes a sidewalk maintenance fee as part of residents' monthly City Services bill, which also includes water and sewer charges. The $0.80 monthly fee was determined by taking the average yearly cost to repair defective sidewalks ($150,000) divided by the number of utility customers divided by 12. Prior to the imposition of the utility fee, property owners paid for repairs to sidewalks in the public right-of-way along their property. Now, the City will use the money raised by the fee to pay for repairs to defects on public sidewalks. Cheney, Washington Cheney, Washington, uses a voter -approved tax on electrical and natural gas services to fund maintenance of residential streets and sidewalks. The 4% electric and natural gas tax generates roughly $380,000 annually. This dedicated funding paid for the repair of nearly 18 miles of existing residential streets and nearly 6 miles of existing residential sidewalks throughout the city over 14 years. Sales Tax Many communities indirectly use sales tax revenues to fund pedestrian facility maintenance by way of the general fund. Additionally, many states allow local municipalities or counties to impose a small local sales tax that could be earmarked for pedestrian facility maintenance. Sales tax revenue, direct or indirect, is a common source of funding for street maintenance and there are communities that use these revenues to also fund sidewalk repair and replacement programs. Shoreline, Washington The City of Shoreline established a voter -approved sales and use tax of 0.2%, for a term of 20 years, to fund sidewalk transportation improvements. The tax will repay indebtedness issued from time to time to construct, maintain, rehabilitate, repair and/or preserve sidewalks and pedestrian improvements. Next Steps: Refer this matter to the Transportation/Aviation Committee and direct staff of the Department of Public Works to explore implementation of one or more of the above funding sources. AGENDA ITEM #4. a) PLANNED GROWTH Background: • The City's Business Plan states that the city supports planned growth by fostering development of vibrant, sustainable, attractive, mixed -use neighborhoods in urban centers. • The City has accepted responsibility for planning for 14,050 new household and 28,755 new jobs by 2035 as identified in the King County household and employment growth targets (attached). • According to Buildable Lands analysis (attached), which evaluates the number of households the City can accommodate based on current zoning, the City has the capacity to accommodate 15,351 new households. • Recent projections from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) indicate the region needs to plan for 1.8 million more people and 1.2 million more jobs by 2050. • Since the adoption of Growth Management Act (GMA), the State has put significant limitations on the authority of cities to tax residential development. o Generally, residential growth no longer pays in taxes the cost it requires for facilities and services. • When the GMA was adopted, there was an expectation that the State would provide additional funding for infrastructure to ensure adequate facilities were in place at the time of development. This has not occurred. There have been mixed results with state investments. Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulations Amendments: • The City has adopted several amendments to the development regulations that are impacting the look and feel of density, in single family residential zones in particular. In some cases, the amendments have reduced the number of lots a parcel can be subdivided into. These items include: o Tree retention. Trees that are retained as part of a subdivision that are not located on a residential lot are required to be placed in tracts. This is a new requirement. It has in some cases reduced the number of lots developed because tracts are not a buildable area. o Minimum lot sizes and setbacks. In the R-4 zone, minimum lot size was increased from 8,000 to 9,000 square feet. Additionally, the side setback was increased from 5 feet to a combined 20 feet. In the R-8 zone, the minimum lot size was standardized to 5,000 square feet. Previously, subdivisions of parcels larger than 1 acre were allowed 4,500 square foot minimum lot sizes. Additionally, in the R-8 zone the front setback increased from 15 feet to 20 feet and the side setback increased from 5 feet to a combined 15 feet. In these two zones, these standards, in particular the increased minimum lot size in R-4, have in some cases reduced the number of lots that can be developed in a subdivision. A new single-family residential zone was created, R-6. This zone improved the range of options available for zoning (previously zoning went from R-4 to R-8, a doubling of density). It also serves as a transition between the lower density residential zones and the smaller lot development that is associated with R-8 development. Many areas (portions of Kennydale, Highlands, and Cascade neighborhoods) that are largely built out with R-6 zone lot sizes (7,000 square feet) were rezoned from R-8 to R-6. In response to community desire to preserve single-family character, rezoned much of South Renton from RMT (Residential Multi -Family Traditional) — 35 dwelling units per acre, RMU (Residential Multi -Family Urban) — 75 dwelling units per acre, and/or CD (Center Downtown) — 100 dwelling units per acre to R-14. RMF zoned areas without existing multi -family development or with predominant multi -family development in the area were rezoned to lower density zones (R-8 or R-10). Several areas with CA zoning were rezoned to lower density zones; and the maximum density in East Plateau and AGENDA ITEM #4. a) Kennydale were reduced to 30 dwelling units per acre. Multi -family residential development is no longer allowed in the CA zone in Benson and Talbot. • With these changes, high density multi -family has been focused into areas where: 1) adequate planning and infrastructure exist or have been planned for and 2) where it will leverage redevelopment of existing antiquated housing or commercial buildings. • The CO (Commercial Office) zone was amended to allow multi -family development when it is in close proximity to significant transportation infrastructure (for example, in the Longacres area near the Sounder station). This creates an opportunity to create Transit Oriented Developments where significant employment areas also have housing. • Bonus density criteria were amended to only allow density bonuses for providing affordable housing. Next Steps: • Coordinate with King County to evaluate the Buildable Lands available in Renton. • Participate in Countywide assessment and designation of Housing and Employment Growth Targets. • Continue to monitor land availability data. • As Community Plans are developed, review zoning and land uses in the Plan area with the community. • Continue to plan and construct Capital Facilities and Transportation infrastructure in areas where density is planned. • Continue to coordinate with and represent Renton on the King County Growth Management Policy Board, the PSRC, and the Sound Cities Association. • Review and possibly comment on PSRC SEPA (attached). • Participate in State (Legislature), regional (PSRC), and countywide planning bodies (SCA, GMPB) to insure Renton vision for growth and development are consistent with the work products of these bodies/organizations. AGENDA ITEM #4. b) Exhibit 2. King County Growth Targets (2006-2031) Compared to 2007 Capacity Regional Geography City/ Subarea Housing Target PAA Housing Target Housing Capacity +/- ? Employment Target PAA Emp. Target Employment Capacity +/- ? Net New Units Net New Units Net New Units Net New Jobs Net New Jobs Net New Jobs 2006-2031 2006-2031 2006 from BLR 2006-2031 2006-2031 2006 from BLR Metropolitan Cities Bellevue 17,000 290 13,670 53,000 49,100 Seattle 86,000 1 128,900 146,700 254,900 Total 103,000 142,570 199,700 304,000 Core Cities Auburn 9,620 9,190 - 19,350 17,760 Bothell 3,000 810 2,860 - 4,800 200 6,040 Burien 4,440 3,170 4,960 3,260 Federal Way 8,100 2,390 5,670 12,300 290 8,860 Kent 9,270 90 9,080 - 13,280 210 12,540 - Kirkland 8,570 - 6,380 20,850 - 12,600 X Redmond 10,200 640 8,990 23,000 25,075 4 Renton 14,835 3,895 16,250 29,000 470 29,550 4 SeaTac 5,800 5,240 - 25,300 17,730 Tukwila 4,800 50 3,490 15,500 2,050 16,200 dX Total 78,635 70,320 168,340 149,615 Larger Cities Des Moines 3,000 3,300 5,000 3,950 Issaquah 5,750 290 6,900 20,000 19,100 - Kenmore 3,500 5,020 3,000 3,050 Maple Valley 1,800 1,060 2,380 2,000 3,770 Mercer Island 2,000 1,760 1,000 820 X Sammamish 4,000 350 3,740 1,800 X Shoreline 5,000 6,890 5,000 3,490 AXWoodinville 3,000 2,140 5,000 3,770 Total 28,050 32,130 42,800 37,950 Small Cities Algona 190 320 210 580 4 Beaux Arts 3 5 3 - ? Black Diamond 1,900 4,270 1,050 4,700 4 Carnation 330 800 370 1,570 4 Clyde Hill 10 25 - - 4 Covington 1,470 3,300 1,320 3,330 4 Duvall 1,140 2,650 4 840 1,600 4 Enumclaw 1,425 3,250 4 735 1,790 4 Hunts Point 1 1 4 - - 4 Lake Forest Park 475 675 4 210 380 4 Medina 19 40 4 - - 4 Milton 50 90 420 4 160 2,470 4 Newcastle 1,200 1,500 4 735 870 4 Normandy Park 120 275 4 65 170 4 North Bend 665 1,600 4 1,050 7,760 4 Pacific 285 135 560 4 370 350 - Skykomish 10 35 4 - - Snoqualmie 1,615 3,480 4 1,050 900 X Yarrow Point 14 35 4 - Total 10,922 23,241 8,168 26,470 Urban Unincorporated Total 12,470 20,190 9,060 9,200 King County UGA Total 233,077 288,451 428,068 1 527,235 The base year for these Targets is 2006. As cities annex territory, PAA targets Key: Sufficient capacity M capacity in 2007 BLR shift into Targets column. meets target Adjustments to Burien, Kent & Kirkland targets have been made to account for Slight shortfall F----I less than 10% short 2010 and 2011 annexations. of target King County Growth Targets Committee, Growth Management Planning Council, August Substantial shortfall FX more than 10% short 2009. Adjusted June2011 of target July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 13 CITY OF RENTON 1. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT From 2006 to 2012, the City of Renton issued permits for more than 3,000 new housing units, adding 11 % to the city's housing stock. These new units were equally divided between single family and multifamily. - In 2007, Renton annexed the Benson Hill area wtih an additional housing units, and there were other annexations as well. After adjusting for annexations and new construction, Renton's remaining 2012 - 2031 housing target is to plan for 11,700 additional housing units by 2031. Residential Development Activity: 2001-2005 I Gross Critical I Public I Net I Net Zoned Density ROWs # Lots j Area Areas jPurpose� Area Density (max. du/acre) (acres) . or Unitsl ____________________�� (acres (acres) acres acres) , (units/ac) Plats Recorded 0 - 3 du/acre 4.4 0.7 0.7 0.0 3.0 4 1.3 3 - 5 du/acre 165.7 23.9 23.7 14.0 104.1 ' 542 5.2 5 - 7 du/acre 220.9 19.1 25.7 13.6 162.7 • 1, 095 6.7 7 - 9 du/acre -------------------- > 9 du/acre ------- 116.2 --------- 9.9 ------------------ 15.7 24.8 -------------------- 65.8• 523 ------------ 8.0 Plats Total 1 507.3 53.61 65.81 52.41 335.E • 2,1641 6.4 Single -Family Permits Issued 0 - 3 du/acre 8.8 4 89.4 478 Not Applicable I 189.3• 1,225 1 72.0' 666 0.5 3 - 5 du/acre 5.3 5 - 7 du/acre 7 _ 9_ du/acre _ > 9 du acre ________ 6.5 9.3 SF Pmts Total 1 n/a n/a I n/a 1 n/a 1 359.5• 2,3731 6.6 Multifamily Permits Issued < 9 du/acre 9 - 13 du/acre 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4 10.3 13 - 19 du/acre 32.5 11.3 0.5 0.4 20.4 • 262 12.8 -19 - 31 du/acre 31 - 48 du/acre 61.9 33.1 7.4 1.0 _ 20.4'. 220 10.8 48 + du/acre Other zones 7.9 7.51 0.0 0.01 0.0 1.31 0.2 0.31 7.7, 578 5.8' 193 74.7 MF Pmts Total 1 110.2 44.4 9.21 1.8 54.8' 1,2571 22.9 July 23, 2014 Housing Unit Update, 2006 to 2012 1 Single I Multi- Total Family*[ -1------------- family - Hous'g Units ---------------------------- ---------------- 2006 Base Year 14, 373 12, 726 27,099 2006-12 Change I 1,515 1 1,584 3,099 -------------I----� �� =2012 Units (old bdrl ------ 14,3- 30,198 Plus anxtn, adjustm 6,300 3,870 10,170 I 2012 Ad'. H.Unilbss 22,189 18,180 40,368 " single family includes mobile homes Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 Housing Growth Target (2006-2031) Net New SF Units Permitted -1,516 Net New MF Units Permitted -------------------------------------------- -1,583 Net New Units, Annex Area -30 Net New Units 2006-2012) -3,129 Plus Annexat'n Area Target ------------------------------- 835 ------- Net Adiustment to Taraet -2.294 ------------------------------- ----- -Net-Adjustment-to-Target --------------------- ----- -- Remaining Target (2012-2031) King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 14,000 ---(2,294) 11,706 Page 72 2. RESIDENTIAL LAND SUPPLY AND CAPACITY Residential Land SunDiv and Dwellina Unit Capacity (2012) CITY OF RENTON ROW & Public Net Available Assumed Residential Capacity Gross acres Critical Areas Purpose Market Factor Net Capacity Acres Density Discount Single Family y Vacant Subtotal 489.76 201.64 46.32 10% 217.62 1.33 / 8.44 1,229 c Redev Subtotal 1,602.57 308.60 267.80 15% 872.25 1.33 / 8.44 3,736 Total 2,092.33 510.24 1,089.87 4,965 0 Multifamily Vacant Subtotal 11.38 9.74 0.04 10% 1.44 19.0 / 84.0 43 .5 Redev Subtotal 85.94 20.36 1.66 15% 54.33 19.0 / 84.0 1,408 97.32 30.10 55.77 1,451 Total Neighborhood Total 2,189.651 540.341 1 1 1,145.641 1 6,416 y Multifamily in Mixed -Use Zones Vacant Subtotal 52.36 8.69 0.04 10% 40.21 53.1 / 116.0 1,306 x Redev Subtotal 170.58 14.87 0.00 15% 132.35 44.5 / 116.0 5,177 2 Total 222.94 23.56 172.56 8,935 All Housing r 0 Vacant Total 553.50 220.07 46.40 10% 259.27 2,578 r Redev Total 1,859.091 343.83 269.46 15% 1, 058.93 10,321 v Total 2,412.591 563.901 1 1 1,318.20 15,351 Note: pipeline development is embedded in mixed -use numbers above Capacity (2012) vs Housing Growth Target (2012-2031 Capacity (units) Housing Capacity (in housing units) Residential capacity in Renton exceeds the City's target by single Family 3,600 housing units. More ■ Multifamily than half the capacity is in the downtown & other mixed -use 0 Mixed Use areas. Single -Family Zones 4,965 Single -Family Capacity in Pipeline 745 Multifamily Zones 1,451 Multifamily Capacity in Pipeline 93 Mixed -Use Zones - Renton CBD + 6,483 Mixed -Use Capacity in Pipeline 1,614 Other adjustments 0 Total Capacity units 15,351 Remaining Housing Target (2012-2031) 11,706 Surplus/Deficit Capacity 3,645 July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 73 rn Z v 3. COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CITY OF RENTON From 2006 to 20012, the City of Renton gained jobs, in the face of job losses at nearby cities. In 2007, Renton annexed the Benson Hill area with about 3,000jobs and capacity for more. As of 2012, Renton has capacity for more than 26,000 additionaljobs, a surplus over its target of about 23,200jobs. Nearly half of that capacity is in projects already in the pipeline, including redevelopment of the Longacres site for office development. Non -Residential Land Supply (Acres) Zoned Density Gross Critical ROWS Public , Net Market Net -net (max. du/acre) area Areas (acres) Purpose� Area Factor Area (acres (acres) acres (acresL (acres) Vacant / Redev. Commercial 258.5 63.6 0.0 0.0 194.9 10%/15% 168.5 Mixed -Use 1 196.1 20.9 1.41 0.0 175.0 10%/15% 150.4 Industrial 1 235.8 79.9 0.01 1.8 154.1 10%/15% 133.9 Non -Res Land Total 690.3 164.41 1.41 1.81 524.0 452.9 Employment Capacity (2012) Net Land (mil.sq.ft.) Assumed FAR Existing Floor (s.f.) Floor Area Capac (million sq.ft.) Sq. ft. per Employee Job Capacity Neighborhoods 0.15/0.38 0.69 0.82 Commercial 7.34 250/400 2,473 Industrial 5.83 0.17/0.37 0.26 1.06 700 1,516 Neighborhood Total 3,989 Mixed -Use / Urban Center Mixed Use Vacant 0.88 0.31/1.86 0.40 250/400 1,493 Mixed Use Rededable 1.84 1.18/1.86 0.91 2.16 250/400 8,172 Mixed -Use Total 2.71 0.31/1.86 0.91 2.56 250/400 9,665 City Total Commercial 7.34 0.15/0.38 0.69 0.82 250/400 2,473 Mixed -Use 2.71 0.31/1.86 0.91 2.56 250/400 9,664 Industrial 5.83 0.17/0.37 0.26 1.06 700 1,516 Jobs in Pipeline 1 1 12,437 City Total 15.891 1 1.86 1 4.45 26,090 Employment Update, 2006 to 2012 Comm'I Indust. I Total Jobs Jobs* I Employment 2006 Base Year 2006-12 Change 29,716 5,462F 22,773 336 52,490 F 5,798 = 2012 Jobs 35,1781 23,1091 58,287 Adjustments 1 0 = 2012 Adj. Jobs 35,178 1 23,109 58,287 industrial = manufacturing, construction, wholesale, transp. Growth Target Update, 2006 to 2012 Jobs Growth Target (2006-2031) 28,700 Jobs Change: 2006-2012 Plus Annexat'n Area Target 300 Less Job Gain in 2006 bdy. -5697 Less Job Gain, AnAn Area -100 Net Adjustment to Target -5,497 Net Adjustment to Target (5,497) Remaining Target (2012-2031) 23,203 2012 Job Capacity [from table to left] 26,090 Adjustment to capacity 0 Final 2012 Job Capacity Surplus/Deficit Capacity 26,090 2,887 n, Z v July 23, 2014 King County Buildable Lands Report 2014 Page 74 n • �` " Draft SEIS Open Houggi We need your input! PSRC will be seeking comments in March 2019 on the Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Statement (SEIS) for VISION 2050, the region's long-range plan to keep the central Puget Sound region healthy and vibrant as it grows. The SEIS reviews the environmental effects of three regional growth alternatives that distribute growth in unique patterns throughout the region. Drop in to an open house to learn more about the alternatives and join the regional conversation: Tuesday, March 12 / 4-6Pm / Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N, Edmonds, 98020 Wednesday, March 13 / 4-6`1 / South Tacoma Public Library As the region prepares 3411 S 56th Street, Tacoma, 98409 to add more people and Monday, March 18 / 4-6Pm / Bothell Police Community Room more jobs in the coming 18410 101" Avenue NE, Bothell, 98011 decades — about 1.8 Tuesday, March 19 / 4-6`1 / Bremerton City Council Chambers million more people by 345 6th Sreet, #600, Bremerton, 98377 2050 — VISION 2050 Thursday, March 21 / 12-2Pm/ PSRC Boardroom 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, 98104 will provide a guide for sustaining a healthy environment, thriving communities, and a strong economy. rI J Puget Sound Regional Council 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 • Seattle, WA 98104-1035 • 206-464-7090 • psrc.org 9 January 2019 Provide a safe, healthy, vibrant community Promote safety, health, and security through effective communication and service delivery Facilitate successful neighborhoods through community involvement ■ Encourage and partner in the development of quality housing choices for people of all ages and income levels Promote a walkable, pedestrian and bicycle - friendly city with complete streets, trails, and connections between neighborhoods and community focal points Provide opportunities for communities to be better prepared for emergencies Promote economic vitality and strategically position Renton for the future Promote Renton as the progressive, opportunity - rich city in the Puget Sound region Capitalize on opportunities through bold and creative economic development strategies Recruit and retain businesses to ensure a dynamic, diversified employment base ■ Nurture entrepreneurship and foster successful partnerships with businesses and community leaders Leverage public/ private resources to focus development on economic centers Support planned growth and influence decisions that impact the city Foster development of vibrant, sustainable, attractive, mixed -use neighborhoods in urban centers Uphold a high standard of design and property maintenance Advocate Renton's interests through state and federal lobbying efforts, regional partnerships and other organizations Pursue transportation and other regional improvements and services that improve quality of life ■ Balance development with environmental protection AGENDA Building an inclusive informed city with opportunities for all Improve access to city services, programs and employment, and make residents and businesses aware of opportunities to be involved with their community Build connections with ALL communities that reflect the breadth and richness of the diversity in our city Promote understanding and appreciation of our diversity through celebrations and festivals Provide critical and relevant information on a timely basis and facilitate two-way dialogue between city government and the community Meet service demands and provide high quality customer service Plan, develop, and maintain quality services, infrastructure, and amenities Prioritize services at levels that can be sustained by revenue Retain a skilled workforce by making Renton the municipal employer of choice Develop and maintain collaborative partnerships and investment strategies that improve services Respond to growing service demands through partnerships, innovation, and outcome management GXT CD RENTON. AHEAD OF THE CURVE