The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 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 •