HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2011 - Minutes � �
City of Renton
Board of Park Commissioners
D C�ty of �, �
p~ n.
� O ♦ � 4
'Q�N`r���
Meeting Minutes
November 8, 2011
4:30 p.m. — City Hall — 7th Floor Conferencing Center
I. CALL TO ORDER
In Attendance
The following members were present: Larry Reymann, Cynthia Burns,
AI Dieckman, Mike 0'Donin, Marlene Winter, Tim Searing,Troy Wigestrand
Staff: Terry Higashiyama, Sandy Pilat, Leslie Betlach, Kelly Beymer,Tim Williams,
Todd Black, Chip Vincent
Guests: Randy Young, Henderson, Young and Company
Chair, Larry Reymann, called the November 8, 2011, meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.
Roll call was taken; all members were present.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mike O'Donin made a motion, seconded by Cynthia Burns to approve the agenda as
presented. All were in favor, motion carried, the November 8, 2011, agenda was
approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by AI Dieckman and seconded by Marlene Winter to approve the
October 2011 minutes as written, all were in favor, motion carried. The minutes were
approved as submitted.
IV. COMMUNICATION
Leslie Betlach thanked the Board Members for their participation and involvement in
City of Renton � �
Park Board Minutes
November 8,2011
Page 2 of 4
the PRO Plan, she expressed appreciation for their support. Larry Reymann stated the
success of this big project was due to Leslie and Vanessa's hard work and on behalf of
the Board he thanked them.
DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
Parks Impact Fee
Leslie Betlach introduced our consultant, Randy Young, and lead staff member, Chip
Vincent, who had been working on updating the City's impact fees. The current fees
have been the same since the early 1990's. Due to the length of time since being
updated the increase in fees is great and will be phased in. These fees are a one-time
payment only for new developments and the payment is for capital costs, not on-
going operations. Impact fees can pay for system improvements in adopted CIP, but
not for project improvements such as local streets or for repair, replacement or
renovations. Currently the City has three impact fees,transportation, parks and fire.
We anticipate phasing these adjusted rates over a four-year period. Next year, in
2012, we will be keeping the current fee then increasing it in the following four years.
The alternates to imposing these fees is raising taxes or reducing our level of service.
Mike O'Donin thanked Mr. Young for his thorough, easy to understand explanation of Ili
the impact fees. �I
Mike O'Donin made a motion to accept the findings as presented and move this I'
document and its recommendations to Council for adoption. Tim Searing seconded
the motion,there was no further discussion. A�I were in favor, motion carried.
Cost Recovery and Program Pricing Guidelines
Kris Stimpson, Recreation Manager and Tim Williams, Recreation Director, made a
presentation on Cost Recovery and Program Pricing Guidelines. The Recreation Team
has been addressing issues related to costs associated with providing programs and
� services. The guidelines are to be implemented in the winter/spring programming of
2012. An annual review of the model will be conducted to adjust for inflation,
community input and program evaluation recommendations. Tim explained that in
the current economy we must look for all available revenue sources.
There are various tiers associated with these guidelines, from full subsidy to self-
sustaining. We must continually look at ways to do business better. Options also
include partnering with other agencies and organizations and not duplicating
programs already offered within the community. The current cost recovery analysis
was shown breaking down revenue and expenses in various areas and the percentage
recovered. Based on 2010 revenues vs. expenses, 50% is recovered at the Community
H:\Boards and Commissions\Park Board\2011ParkBoard\31.8.11min.docx
City of Renton � �
Park Board Minutes
November 8,2011
Page 3 of 4
Center and Recreation Services, and 72% at the Aquatic Center, Carco Theatre
recovery is 30%, and lastly the Senior Center is 17%. Numerous pricing factors were
considered including contractor and part time instructor pricing, incentives for early
registration and season passes, addition of administrative fees, and establishing ,
partnerships to fill in gaps.
Cynthia Burns made a motion to accept the pricing model as presented and staff will
continue to work on it for implementation in the next budget cycle. Mike O'Donin
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion carried. Cynthia requested Staffto
report back to the Board on the success for the program.
V. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Governor's Budget Recommendation
Terry Higashiyama discussed two key factors going on at the State level that would
impact the City's finances next year. One being the loss of a tax credit associated with
the Benson Hill annexation. We were just one of seven cities affected by this possible
decision. Secondly,the equalization of the liquor tax will create a loss in revenue.
Both create a sizable decrease in revenue that will greatly impact our already lean
budget.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
RiverRock
Kelly Beymer, Parks/Golf Course Director, notified the Board that the concessionaire
at Maplewood is revising their breakfast menu Monday thru Friday due to decreased
traffic. The restaurant will still be open in the morning but serving more of a
continental breakfast. The weekend menu will remain the same. We welcome any
feedback.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
Update on Park Rangers Program
Kelly has met with the Park Ranger applicants and looks forward to ramping up the
program in Spring. She feels the Rangers also serve as ambassador and can recruit
others.
VIII. OTHER COMMUNICATION
Terry thanked those who attended the WRPA mid-year conference.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Troy Wigestrand and seconded by Tim Searing to adjourn the
H:\Boards and Commissions\Park Board\2011ParkBoard\31.8.11min.docx
City of Renton � �
Park Board Minutes
November 8,2011
Page 4 of 4
November 8, 2011, meeting at 6:55 p.m. All were in favor, motion carried, meeting
adjourned.
(
Signatu e
H:\Boards and Commissions\Park Board\2011ParkBoard\11.8.11min.docx
� CITY OF RENTON �
BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
SIGN-IN SHEET
DATE: November 8, 2011
Do you wish to
Name Address City/Zip Phone speak?
PLEASE PRINT Yes No
nI.D` �� L F�j' �� � 0
h
� �rq� l 3� 3 �o • 3�`%�t 5�: c�—�-rv °Ig� `�a�2-a�-�s;�
� � L��� �8�i� ^��ZS��'�. /�(� 2'�ds� c�z�^,zw �o�fr
�' ' ,vi�v 4�3 v 9��7 �c�a�3�
I� 2�60� 2"��� �25�-ZzG--�S��
1
� �lM V �1 ��C!�9 G'S`� S -c� ��1k �t,1.�� t� Z u 1 C-r��cd- "'�.__
C.t�C1� ��"�/`/J{^r^ Ga+�/c�r daw f% � `� 2cf/'��..� .��'�b I-/9�� rn y►"`�'S.
� T • �-^�-tG Gt '7— -�^_�-_3� .(p� � r
�.� r-•�-
�c � �� l?
�
6 0� wc 6�s� Z�crz �� N� ,�,..,� —
/�t �'�D �`�� �°i7�h. ���?�'3�
�� �=2..,,J4-uv� '� �t� D�b
�� �( �.�!J � c � Y"I�" � � ��� !�j+�`''� � V � � �
r � /
�, � •
V
. RATE STU DY
FOR
IMPACT FEES
FOR
TRANSPORTATION,
PARKS,
and
FIRE PROTECTION
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
.�� .......�_�.....
---....�_._.�.....w*r"'� r�ct�f f
� R� x :, �:. .,
�
�, i F, .
,� .. � � .�� „„������ ,
�
August 26, 2011
I
• •
�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
� 1.1NTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................5
2.STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................7
3.TRANSPORTATION INIPACT FEES................................................................................................................15
4.PARK IMPACT FEES...........................................................................................................................................30
5.FIRE IMPACT FEES.............................................................................................................................................40
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: IMPACT FEE RATES PER DWELL[NG UN[T.......................................................................................................5
TABLE 2: STREE7 PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES............................................................................................16
TABLE 3: COST OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES.................................................................................................................1 J
TABLE 4: COST OF FUTURE RESERVE CAPACITY.........................................................................................................2I
TABLE 5: TOTAL PROJECT COST ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES......................................................................................22
TABLE 6: GROWTH TRIPS�P.M.PEAK HOUR�ON THE STREETNETWORK.....................................................................26
TABLE7: COST PER GROWTH TRIP..............................................................................................................................26
TABLE H: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATES PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT...........................................................2g
TABLE 9: ASSET INVENTORY AND CAP[TAL VALUE PER PERSON................................................................................31
TABLE 1 O:VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDED FOR GROWTH.................................................33
TABLE 1 1:INVESTMENT NEEDED IN PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FAC[LITIES FOR GROWTH........................................34
TABLE I2:INVESTMENT IN PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACIUTIES TO BE PAID BY GROWTH.....................................36 I
TABLE 13:GROWTH COST PER PERSON.........................................................................................................................36 II
TABLE 14:COST PER DWELLING UNIT..........................................................................................................................37
TABLE 15:PARK IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT......................................................................................................39
TABLE IE>: FIRE PROTECTION APPARATUS INVENTORY................................................................................................41
,
�
y� � •
TABLE 17: FIRE AND BLS BUILDING INVENTORY........................................................................................................42
TABLE I 8: ANNUAI.IZED APPARA7'US COST.................................................................................................................43
TABLE I9: APPARATUS COST PER RESPONSE...............................................................................................................44
TABLE 20: ANNUAL FIRE AND BLS INCIDENTS............................................................................................................45
TABLE 21: F[RE INC[DENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS...................................................................................45
TABLE 22: TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER FIRE INCIDENT............................................................................................46
TABLE 23: ANNUAL[ZED STATION COST PER SQUARE FOOT........................................................................................47
TABLE 24: STA7'ION COST PER FIRE AND BLS INCIDENT.............................................................................................47
TABLE2S:FIRE INCIDENTS............................................................................................................................................49
TABLE 26:FIRE INCIDEN7'S AT SPECIFIC LAND USES....................................................................................................49
TABLE 27:TRAFFIC RELATED FIRE INCIDENTS(ALLOCATED 7'O LAND USES�..............................................................SO
TABLE 28:TOTAL ANNUAL F[RE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE..........................................................................................51
TABLE 29:ANNUAL FIRE INCIDENTS BY LAND USE.....................................................................................................52
TABLE 30:ENGINE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDEN7'S AT LAND USE CATEGORIES...........................................53
TABLE 31:LADDER COST OF RESPONSES 7'O FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES..........................................54
TABLE 32:A[D VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES..................................55
TABLE 33:HAZARDOUS MATERIALS VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGOR[ES.56
TABLE 34:BRUSH TRUCK COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INC[DENTS AT LAND USE CATEGOR[ES................................57
TABLE 3S:STAFF VEHICLE COST OF RESPONSES TO F[RE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES...............................SH
TABLE 36:OTHER APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES....59
TABLE 37:FIRE STATION COS7 OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INC[DENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES.................................60
TABLE 3H:EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL CAPITAL COST FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT...........60
TABLE 3I:TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO FIRE INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES..............................61
TABLE 4O:BLS INCIDENT RESPONSE BY TYPE OF APPARATUS....................................................................................62
TABLE 41:TOTAL APPARATUS COST PER BLS INCIDENT.............................................................................................63
TABLE42:BLS INCIDENTS............................................................................................................................................E4
TABLE 43:BLS INCIDENTS AT SPECIFIC LAND USES....................................................................................................64
TABLE 44:TRAFFIC RELATED BLS INCIDENTS(ALLOCATED TO LAND USES�..............................................................65
h
• � ' �
TABLE 45:TOTAL ANNUAL BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE..........................................................................................66
TABLE 46:ANNUAL BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE.....................................................................................................67
TABLE 47:ENGINE COST OF RESPONSES'f0 BLS INC[DENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES...........................................68
TABLE 48:LADDER COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGOR[ES..........................................69
TABLE 49:AID VEHICLE COS'T OF RESPONSES TO BLS INC[DENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES..................................70
TABLE 50:STAFF VEHICLE COS'f OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGOR[ES...............................71
TABLE 51:OTHER APPARATUS/EQUIPMENT COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORfES....72
TABLE 52:FIRE STATION COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES..................................73
TABLE 53:EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INC[DENTS FOR A SINGLE-
FAMILYRESIDENCE.............................................................................................................................................�3
TABLE S4:TOTAL CAPITAL COST OF RESPONSES TO BLS INCIDENTS AT LAND USE CATEGORIES..............................74
TABLE 55:TOTAL COST OF RESPONSE O FIRE AND BLS INCIDENTS BY LAND USE CATEGORY....................................75
TABLE 56:FIRE IMPACT FEES BY LAND USE................................................................................................................77
; � �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
1 . INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees in the City of
Renton, Washington for three types of public facilities authorized by RCW'
82.02.090(7). The following list provides the statutory name of each type of
public facility and in parentheses the short name used in this study for each type
of impact fee:
• public streets and roads (transportation)
• publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities (parks)
• fire protection facilities (fire)
Summary of Impact Fee Rates
Impact fees are paid by all types of new development2, Impact fee rates for
new development are based on, and vary according to the type of land use.
The following table summarizes the impact fee rates for several frequently used
land use categories. Rates for other non-residential development are presented
in the sections of this study for each type of public facility,
Table 1: Impact Fee Rates per Dwelling Unit
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Type of
Development Unit Transportation Parks Fire Total
Single-Family dwelling unit $ 8,579,24 $ 2,740,07 $ 718.56 $ 12,037,87
Multi-Family dwelling unit 5,592,71 2,224.29 718,56 8,535.56
Office sq. ft. 14,82 none 0,21 15.03
Retail (shopping) sq. ft. 9.66 none 0.88 10.54
Industrial sq. ft. 10,72 none 0,12 10.84
Restaurant sq. ft. 33.65 none 2,67 36.32
Impact Fees vs. Other Developer Contributions
Impact fees are charges paid by new development to reimburse local
governments for the capital cost of public facilities that are needed to serve
new development and the people who occupy or use the new development.
Throughout this study, the term "developer" is used as a shorthand expression to
describe anyone who is obligated to pay impact fees, including builders, owners
' Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the state law of the State of Washington,
2 The impact fee ordinance may specify exemptions for low-income housing and/or "broad
public purposes", but such exemptions must be paid for by public money, not other impact
fees. The ordinance may specify if impact fees apply to changes in use, remodeling, etc.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 5
Company
� • r
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
or developers.
Local governments charge impact fees for several reasons: 1) to obtain revenue
to pay for some of the cost of new public facilities; 2) to implement a public
policy that new development should pay a portion of the cost of facilities that it
requires, and that existing development should not pay all of the cost of such
facilities; and 3) to assure that adequate public facilities will be constructed to
serve new development,
The impact fees that are described in this study do not include any other forms
of developer contributions or exactions, such as; mitigation or voluntary
payments authorized by SEPA (the State Environmental Policy Act, RCW 43.21 C);
system development charges for water and sewer authorized for utilities (RCW
35,92 for municipalities, 56,16 for sewer districts, and 57,08 for water districts);
local improvement districts or other special assessment districts; linkage fees; or
land donations or fees in lieu of land.
Organization of the Study
This impact fee rate study contains five chapters;
• Chapter 1 provides a summary of impact fee rates for frequently used
land use categories, and other introductory materials.
• Chapter 2 summarizes the statutory requirements for developing impact
fees, and describes the compliance with each requirement.
• Chapters 3 - 5 present impact fees for transportation (Chapter 3), parks
(Chapter 4), and fire (Chapter 5). Each chapter provides the
methodology that is used to develop the fees, presents the formulas,
variables and data that are the basis for the fees, and documents the
calculation of the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the
requirements of Washington state law,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page b
Company
y � �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
2. STATUTORY BASIS AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the statutory requirements for impact fees in the State
of Washington, and describes how the City of Renton's impact fees comply with
the statutory requirements.
Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
The Growth Management Act of 1990 (Chapter 17, Washington Laws, 1990, 1 st
Ex, Sess.) authorizes local governments in Washington to charge impact fees.
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 contain the provisions of the Growth Management
Act that authorize and describe the requirements for impact fees.
The impact fees that are described in this study are not mitigation payments
authorized by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). There are several
important differences between impact fees and SEPA mitigations. Three
aspects of impact fees that are particularly noteworthy are: 1) the ability to
charge for the cost of public facilities that are "system improvements" (i.e„ that
provide service to the community at large) as opposed to "project
improvements" (which are "on-site" and provide service for a particular
development); 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their
proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments; and 3) the
predictability and simplicity of impact fee rate schedules compared to the cost,
time and uncertain outcome of SEPA reviews conducted on a case-by-case
basis.
The following synopsis of the most significant requirements of the law includes
citations to the Revised Code of Washington as an aid to readers who wish to
review the exact language of the statutes,
Types of Public Facilities
Four types of public facilities can be the subject of impact fees; 1) public
transportation and roads; 2) publicly owned parks, open space and recreation
facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection facilities (in jurisdictions that
are not part of a fire district), RCW 82.02.050(2) and(4), and RCW 82,02,090(7)
Types of lmprovements
Impact fees can be spent on "system improvements" (which are typically outside
the development), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development), RCW
82.02.050(3)(a) an d RC W 82,02.090(6) an d(9)
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 7
Company
� • ,
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Benefit to Deve/opment
Impact fees must be limited to system improvements that are reasonably
related to, and which will benefit new development. RCW 82,02.050(3)(a) and
(c). Local governments must establish reasonable service areas (one area, or
more than one, as determined to be reasonable by the local government), and
local governments must develop impact fee rate categories for various land
uses. RCW 82.02.060(6)
Proportionate Share
Impact fees cannot exceed the development's proportionate share of system
improvements that are reasonably related to the new development. The
impact fee amount shall be based on a formula (or other method of calculating
the fee) that determines the proportionate share. RCW 82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW
82.02.060(1)
Reductions of lmpact fee Amounts
Impact fees rates must be adjusted to account for other revenues that the
development pays (if such payments are earmarked for or proratable to
particular system improvements). RCW 82.02.050(1)(c) and (2) and RCW
82.02.060(1)(b) Impact fees may be credited for the value of dedicated land,
improvements or construction provided by the developer (if such facilities are in
the adopted CFP as system improvements eligible for impact fees and are
required as a condition of development approval). RCW 82.02,060(3)
Exemptions fiom lmpact Fees
Local governments have the discretion to provide exemptions from impact fees
for low-income housing and other "broad public purpose" development, but all
such exempt fees must be paid from public funds (other than impact fee
accounts). RCW 82.02.060(2)
Deve%pei Options
Developers who are liable for impact fees can submit data and or/analysis to
demonstrate that the impacts of the proposed development are less than the
impacts calculated in this rate study. RCW 82.02.060(5). Developers can pay
impact fees under protest and appeal impact fee calculations. 2CW
82.02.060(4) and RCW 82.02.070(4) and (5). The developer can obtain a refund
of the impact fees if the local government fails to expend or obligate the
impact fee payments within 10 years, or terminates the impact fee requirement,
or the developer does not proceed with the development (and creates no
impacts). RCW 82,02.080
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 8
Company
� M �
Rate Study fo�lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Capita/Facilities Plans
Impact fees must be expended on public facilities in a capital facilities plan
(CFP) element or used to reimburse the government for the unused capacity of
existing facilities, The CFP must conform to the Growth Management Act of
1990, and must identify existing deficiencies in facility capacity for current
development, capacity of existing facilities available for new development, and �
additional facility capacity needed for new development. RCW 82.02.050(4),
RC W 82,02.060(7), and RC W 82.02.070(2)
Ne w Versus Existing Facilities
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(1)(a) and
for the unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7) subject to
the proportionate share limitation described above.
Accounting Requirements
The local government must separate the impact fees from other monies,
expend or obligate the money on CFP projects within 10 years, and prepare
annual reports of collections and expenditures. RCW 82.02.070(1)-(3)
Compliance With Statutory Requirements for Impact Fees
Many of the statutory requirements listed above are fulfilled in .Chapters 3 - 5 of
this study that present the calculation of each type of impact fee. Some of the
statutory requirements are fulfilled in other ways, as described below.
Types of Public Facilities
This study contains impact fees for three of the four types of public facilities
authorized by statute: transportation, parks and fire, This study does not contain
impact fees for schools.
In general, local governments that are authorized to charge impact fees are
responsible for specific public facilities for which they may charge such fees,
The City of Renton is legally and financially responsible for the transportation,
parks and fire facilities it owns and operates within its jurisdiction. In no case may
a local government charge impact fees for private facilities, but it may charge
impact fees for some public facilities that it does not administer if such facilities
are "owned or operated by government entities" (RCW 82,02.090(7), Thus, a city
or county may charge impact fees for transportation, and enter into an
agreement with the State of Washington for the transfer, expenditure, and
reporting of transportation impact fees for state roads. A city may only charge
and use impact fees on State roads if it has an agreement with the State, and
the City CFP includes the state road projects.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 9
Company
� � •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Types of lmprovements
The impact fees in this study are based on system improvements that are
described in Chapters 3 - 5 for each type of impact fee, No project
improvements are included in this study.
The public facilities that can be paid for by impact fees are "system
improvements" (which are typically outside the development), and "designed
to provide service to service areas within the community at large" as provided in
RCW 82,02.050(9)), as opposed to "project improvements" (which are typically
provided by the developer on-site within the development or adjacent to the
development), and "designed to provide service for a development project,
and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users
of the project" as provided in RCW 82,02.050(6). The capital improvements costs
contained in Chapters 3-5 comply with these requirements,
Impact fee revenue can be used for the capital cost of public facilities. Impact
fees cannot be used for operating or maintenance expenses, The cost of public
facilities that can be paid for by impact fees include design studies,
engineering, land surveys, land and right of way acquisition, engineering,
permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction, applicable
mitigation costs, and capital equipment pertaining to capital improvements.
Benefit to Deve%pment, Proportionate Share and Reductions of Fee Amounts
The law imposes three tests of the benefit provided to development by impact
fees; 1) proportionate share, 2) reasonably related to need, and 3) reasonably
related to expenditure (RCW 80.20.050�3)). In addition, the law requires the
designation of one or more service areas (RCW 82.02.060(6)
1. Proportionate Share.
First, the "proportionate share" requirement means that impact fees can
be charged only for the portion of the cost of public facilities that is
"reasonably related" to new development, In other words, impact fees
cannot be charged to pay for the cost of reducing or eliminating
deficiencies in existing facilities,
Second, there are several important implications of the proportionate
share requirement that are not specifically addressed in the law, but
which follow directly from the law;
• Costs of facilities that will benefit new development and existing users
must be apportioned between the two groups in determining the
amount of the fee. This can be accomplished in either of two ways; (1)
by allocating the total cost between new and existing users, or (2)
calculating the cost per unit and applying the cost only to new
development when calculating impact fees.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 10
Company
� �► •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
• Impact fees that recover the costs of existing unused capacity should
be based on the government's actual cost. Carrying costs may be
added to reflect the government's actual or imputed interest expense.
The third aspect of the proportionate share requirement is its relationship
to the requirement to provide adjustments and credits to impact fees,
where appropriate. These requirements ensure that the amount of the
impact fee does not exceed the proportionate share. '
• The "adjustments" requirement reduces the impact fee to account for
past and future payments of other revenues (if such payments are
earmarked for, or proratable to, the system improvements that are
needed to serve new growth), Each impact fee calculated in this
study includes an adjustment that accounts for any other revenue that
is paid by new development and used by the City to pay for a portion
of growth's proportionate share of costs, This adjustment is in response
to the limitations in RCW 82.02.060 (1)(b) and RCW 82,02.050(2),
• The "credit" requirement reduces impact fees by the value of
dedicated land, improvements or construction provided by the
developer (if such facilities are in the adopted CFP, identified as the
projects for which impact fees are collected, and are required as a
condition of development approval), The law does not prohibit a local
government from establishing reasonable constraints on determining
credits, For example, the location of dedicated land and the quality
and design of donated street, park or fire public facilities can be
required to be acceptable to the local government.
2. Reasonably Related to Need.
There are many ways to fulfill the requirement that impact fees be
"reasonably related" to the development's need for public facilities,
including personal use and use by others in the family or business
enterprise (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide
goods or services to the fee-paying property or are customers or visitors at
the fee paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity
(presumed benefit), These measures of relatedness are implemented by
the following techniques;
• Impact fees are charged to properties which need (i.e., benefit from)
new public facilities, The City of Renton provides its infrastructure to all
kinds of property throughout the City, therefore impact fees have been
calculated for all types of property with one exception: park impact
fees are not calculated for non-residential property because the
dominant stream of benefits redounds to the occupants and owners of
dwelling units and there is insufficient data to document the
proportionate share of parks and recreational facilities reasonably
needed by non-residential development,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 11
Company
� � .
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
• The relative needs of different types of growth are considered in
establishing fee amounts (i.e., different impact values for different
types of land use). Chapter 3 uses different trip generation rates for
each type of land use, Chapter 4 uses different persons per dwelling
unit, and Chapter 5 uses different emergency response rates for each
type of land use.
• Feepayers can pay a smaller fee if they demonstrate that their
development will have less impact than is presumed in the impact fee
schedule calculation for their property classification. Such reduced
needs must be permanent and enforceable (i,e„ via land use
restrictions). '
3. Reasonably Related to Expenditures.
Two provisions of Renton's impact fee ordinance comply with the
requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the
development that paid the impact fee. First, the requirement that fee
revenue must be earmarked for specific uses related to public facilities
ensures that expenditures are on specific projects, the benefit of which
has been demonstrated in determining the need for the projects and the
portion of the cost of needed projects that are eligible for impact fees as
described in this study. Second, impact fee revenue must be expended
or obligated within 10 years, thus requiring the impact fees to be used to
benefit to the feepayer and not held by the City.
4. Service Areas for Impact Fees
Impact fees in some jurisdictions are collected and expended within
service areas that are smaller than the jurisdiction that is collecting the
fees, Impact fees are not required to use multiple service areas unless
such "zones" are necessary to establish the relationship between the fee
and the development, Because of the compact size of the City of Renton
and the accessibility of its transportation, parks and fire systems to all
property within the City, Renton's transportation, parks and fire systems
serve the entire City, therefore the impact fees are based on a single
service area corresponding to the boundaries of the City of Renton,
Exemptions
The City's impact fee ordinance addresses the subject of exemptions.
Exemptions do not affect the impact fee rates calculated in this study because
of the statutory requirement that any exempted impact fee must be paid from
other public funds. As a result, there is no increase in impact fee rates to make
up for the exemption because there is no net loss to the impact fee account as
a result of the exemption.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 12
Company
� �
Rate Study fo�lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Deve%per Options
A developer who is liable for impact fees has several options regarding impact
fees, The developer can submit data and or/analysis to demonstrate that the
impacts of the proposed development are less than the impacts calculated in
this rate study. The developer can appeal the impact fee calculation by the
City of Renton. If the local government fails to expend the impact fee
payments within 10 years of receipt of such payments, the developer can
obtain a refund of the impact fees, The developer can also obtain a refund if
the development does not proceed and no impacts are created. All of these
provisions are addressed in the City's impact fee ordinance, and none of them
affect the calculation of impact fee rates in this study.
Capita/Facilities P/an
There are references in RCW to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for
projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees, Cities often adopt
documents with different titles that fulfill the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et,
seq, pertaining to a "capital facilities plan". The Transportation Element, Park
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
fulfill the requirements in RCW, and are considered to be the "capital facilities
plan" (CFP) for the purpose of this impact fee rate study. In addition, the City's
Capital Investment Program (CIP) section of the City's Budget provides up-to-
date and detailed information about the projects in the CFP. The City also
produces an annual update of the multi-year Transportation Improvements Plan
(TIP) All references to a CFP in this study are references to the Comprehensive
Plan elements, City CIP and TIP documents listed above.
The requirement to identify existing deficiencies, capacity available for new
development, and additional public facility capacity needed for new
development is determined by analyzing levels of service for each type of
public facility. Chapters 3 -5 provide this analysis for each type of public facility,
New Versus Existing Facilities, Accounting Requirements
Impact fees must be spent on capital projects contained in an adopted capital
facilities plan, or they can be used to reimburse the government for the unused
capacity of existing facilities, Impact fee payments that are not expended or
obligated within 10 years must be refunded unless the City Council makes a
written finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason exists to hold the
fees for longer than 10 years. In order to verify these two requirements, impact
fee revenues must be deposited into separate accounts of the government,
and annual reports must describe impact fee revenue and expenditures, These
requirements are addressed by Renton's impact fee ordinance, and are not
factors in the impact fee calculations in this study.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 13
Company
� �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Data Sources
The data in this study of impact fees in Renton, Washington was provided by the
City of Renton, unless a different source is specifically cited,
Data Rounding
The data in this study was prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In
some tables in this study, there may be very small variations from the results that
would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason
for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software was allowed
to calculate results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the
tables of these reports, The calculation to extra places after the decimal
increases the accuracy of the end results, but causes occasional minor
differences due to rounding of data that appears in this study.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 14
Company
� � �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for transportation begin with the list of projects in the Transportation
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element of City's Comprehensive Plan and
' the City's CIP and TIP (which are the "CFP", as noted in Chapter 2). The projects
in these elements are analyzed to identify capacity costs attributable to new
development. The costs are apportioned between existing deficiencies (if any)
� and growth capacity, The capacity costs for growth are further apportioned to
eliminate the cost of future reserve capacity. The costs are adjusted to reflect
other sources of revenue that reduce the cost of the facility that is to be paid by
impact fees, The eligible costs are divided by the growth in trips to calculate the
cost per growth trip. The cost per growth trip is applied to the unique trip
generation rates for each type of land use. The amount of the fee is
determined by charging each fee-paying development for cost of the number
of growth trips that it generates.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of transportation impact fees.
Formula T-1: Transportation Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
The City has many projects in its transportation plan. Only those that add
capacity to the streets in order to maintain the City's adopted standard for level
', of service are eligible for impact fees.
Non-Capacity
T-1 , All Capital _ Projects or Not _ Projects Eligible for
Projects Needed for Level Impact Fees
of Service
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) street capacity projects, and
needed for level of service.
Variab/e (A):Street Capacity Projects
RCW 82.02.050 (4)(c) requires identification of public facility improvements
needed to serve new development. Projects in the Transportation Element and
Capital Facilities Plan Element, the CIP and TIP, and previously constructed
projects are not eligible for impact fees if they do not add capacity to the City's
current street system.
r I vel of service are also
In addition, capacity projects that are not needed fo e
not eligible for impact fees. For each capacity project, the future traffic volume
(the amount of traffic on the street) was compared to the current capacity of
the street (the amount of traffic the street is designed to carry without
exceeding the adopted level of service standard), If the future volume is
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 15
Company
� � .
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
greater than the current capacity, the project is needed in order to increase the
capacity to serve the future volume, and the project is included in the impact
fee. If, however the future volume is less than the current capacity, the City
does not need the project for level of service, therefore the project is not eligible
for impact fees3.
A similar analysis was conducted of level of service for previously constructed
projects eligible for "reimbursement" impact fees. RCW 82.02,050 (4)(b) requires
this analysis of the additional demands placed on existing public facilities by
new development,
Table 2 lists the transportation projects that are eligible for impact fees. projects
1 - 13 are new projects that will be built in the future. Projects A - C were
completed by the City and they have unused capacity that is available to serve
new development ("reimbursement projects")4.
Table 2: Street Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
# Street From To Descri tion
New Projects
Widen existing 2-lane
roadway to provide 4 lanes
1 156th Ave SE NE 4th St SE 143rd St with left turn lanes at
intersection and two-way left
turn lane where needed.
2 Benson Road South 26th St South 31st St Arterial widening
Widen Carr Road between
105th Ave SE and 109th Ave
SE to provide an additional
EB lane;at the 108th Ave SE
intersection,widen the Carr
Road EB approach to provide
3 Carr Rd/Benson Rd(SR 515) intersection 21eft turn lanes and 3 thru
lanes;at the 108th Ave SE
intersection,widen the WB
approach to provide 2 left
turn lanes,a separate right
turn lane,2 WB lanes,and 3
EB lanes;widen the 108th SE
a roach at the Carr Road
3 The City may have other reasons to build the project, and the project may provide additional
capacity, but the project cannot be included in the impact fee if it is not needed for level of
service.
° RCW 82,02.060(7) authorizes the City to impose impact fees for system improvement costs
previously incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served
by the previously constructed improvements, RCW 82,02,060 (1)(d) authorizes the cost of
existing public facilities improvements in the calculation of impact fees.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 16
Company
� � �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
# Street From To Descri tion
intersection to provide a
separate right turn lane;
widen Benson Drive(SR515)
between Carr Road
intersection and 108th Way
SE(old Benson Road)to
provide a separate NB right
turn lane
Add turn lanes at Talbot
West of Talbot intersection;Widen to add EB
4 Carr Road Central 108th PI
Road lane between Talbot and
Benson
New SR 167 SB Off-ramp;
West of Talbot new collector-distributor road;
5 Carr Road West Lind Avenue Road Add EB lane between Lind
and Talbot
6 Grady Way Talbot Road Rainier Ave Arterial improvements
Widen existin roadwa to
i 9 Y
provide dual SB left turn
lanes on Lk Washington Blvd
approach to Logan Ave/
Garden Ave/N Park Dr
7 Lake Washington Blvd Park Ave N Coulon Park intersection and a NB left turn
Entrance lane on Lk Washington Blvd
approach to Coulon Park
Entrance intersection; install
new traffic signal at Lk WA
Blvd/Coulon Park Entrance
intersection
Widen existing roadway to
8 Lind Ave SW SW 16th St SW 43rd St provide center two-way left
turn lane
Widen roadway to provide an
9 Logan Ave N/Garden Ave N/ Intersection additional EB left turn lane on
Lk Washington Blvd EB Logan approach at Lk WA
Blvd intersection
Widen existing 4-lane
roadway to provide additional
10 Maple Valley Hwy(SR 169) Park entrance East City Limits lane in each direction;traffic
operations improvements at
intersections
1200 ft north of New 4-lane roadways with
11 Park Ave N Extension Logan Ave N Logan center left turn lane where
needed
12 South 7th Street Rainier Ave S S Grady Way EB lane Shattuck-Talbot,
signal @ Shattuck&Talbot
13 SW 27th StreeUStrander Oakdale West Valley Hwy New 5 lane arterial
Boulevard Connection
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 17
Company
� ` .
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
# Street From To Descri tion
Reimbursement Projects(Impact Fee Reimburses Local Revenues)
A Duvall Sunset North City limits Reconstructed to 5 lane road
B Logan 6th Garden New 3-5 lane road and 2
signals
C SR 169(Maple Valley Hwy) I-405 Park entrance Added one lane in each
direction
Formula T-2: Eligible Cost of Projects Needed for Level of Service
A project that is needed for level of service is eligible for impact fees, but some
of the project's costs may not be eligible for impact fees. Ineligible costs include
the cost of existing deficiencies, and the value of extra ("reserve") capacity
beyond that needed by new development.
Cost of Projects Costs Not Growth's Share of
T-2, Eligible for - Eligible for = Eligible Cost
Impact Fees Impact Fee
There are two new variables that require explanation: (B) costs of projects, and
(C) costs not eligible for impact fee.
Variab/e (8): Costs of Projects
The costs in this study are the same costs of the projects in the Transportation
Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element and the CIP and TIP, The costs of
street projects used in this study include the full cost of the project, including
engineering, right of way, and construction costs. The cost of street projects
does not include any costs for interest or other financing, If the City decides in
the future to borrow money for transportation, the carrying costs for financing
can be added to the costs in this study, and the impact fee can be
recalculated to include such costs.
Variab/e (C): Costs Not Eligible for lmpact Fee
Costs that are eligible for impact fees must meet the statutory requirement to be
growth's proportionate share of projects that are reasonably needed to serve
growth. Two aspects of a project that do not meet this requirement include
existing deficiencies, and reserve capacity in excess of that needed by growth,
These elements will be analyzed in a series of tables below,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 18
Company
, � �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
EXISTING DEFICIENCIES I
RCW 82A2.050 (4)(a) requires an analysis of deficiencies in public facilities �
serving existing development. Table 3 contains the analysis of deficiencies for
future and reimbursement projects (projects previously constructed). Existing
deficiencies are determined by comparing existing traffic volume to existing
capacity of each street that is planned for improvement, If current traffic
exceeds current capacity, the "excess" traffic is the number of deficient trips.
The deficient trips are divided by the amount of new capacity to be added in
order to calculate the percent of the project that will make up for existing
deficiencies. The deficiency percentage is multiplied times the project costs to
calculate the portion of the project cost that is attributable to existing
deficiencies, The portion of the total $224.8 million of eligible projects that is for
existing deficiencies equals $3,870,236 (1 .7% of the total cost),
Table 3: Cost of Existing Deficiencies
��) �2) �3) �4) �5) �6) ��) �8) �9)
Existing
2008 (Deficiency)
Capacity 2008 Existing Increase °/a of Cost of
Before Traffic (Deficiency) in Increased Existing
# Name of Pro'ect Total Cost Pro'ect Volume Or Reserve Ca aci Ca aci Deficienc
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 1,400 1,127 274 1,400 0.00% $ 0
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 1,600 1,559 42 1,600 0.00% 0
South 26th St to South
31 st St
3 515)Rd/Benson Rd(SR 23,391,000 6,400 5,701 699 800 0.00% 0
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 3,200 2,776 424 1,600 0.00% 0
West of Talbot Road to
108th PI
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 3,200 3,527 (327) 1,200 27.25% 3,187,269
Lind Avenue to West of
Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 3,200 3,324 (124) 800 15.54% 466,250
Talbot Road to Rainier
Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 1,300 1,483 (183) 1,300 14.08% 77,175
Park Ave N to Coulon
Park Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 2,400 1,362 1,039 800 0.00% 0
SW 16th St to SW 43rd
St
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 19
Company
� � .
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
��) �2) �3) �4) �5) �6) ��) �8) �9)
Existing
2008 (Deficiency)
Capacity 2008 Existing Increase %of Cost of �
Before Traffic (Deficiency) in Increased Existing !,
# Name of Pro'ect Total Cost Pro'ect Volume Or Reserve Ca aci Ca acit Deficienc
9 Logan Ave N/Garden Z,683,492 2,800 2,904 (104) 2,000 5.20% 139,542
Ave N/
Lk Washington Blvd
Intersection
10 �fi9je Valley Hwy(SR g3,693,292 3,550 2,714 836 1,775 0.00% 0
Park entrance to East
Cit Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 0 0 0 1,300 0.00% 0
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft
north
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 1,760 1,323 437 400 0.00% 0
Rainier Ave S to S Grady
Wa
13 SW 27th SUStrander g,000,000 0 0 0 3,200 0.00% 0
Connection
Oakdale to West Valley
Hw
Subtotal:New Projects 199,702,922 3,870,236
Reimbursement Projects(Impact Fee Reimburses Local
Revenues
A Duvall 8,190,713 1,714 1,673 41 1,829 0.00% 0
Sunset to North City
limits
B Logan 8,583,652 0 0 0 3,520 0.00% 0
6th to Garden
C HWy)69(Maple Valley g,306,708 3,600 3,293 307 1,800 0.00% 0
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement 25,081,073 0
Pro'ects
Total All Projects 224,783,995 3,870,236
FUTURE RESERVE CAPACITY
Capacity in excess of trips generated by growth is considered future reserve
capacity. It may eventually be used by growth that occurs after the planning
horizon of the Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Plan Element, and it
may be repaid in part by future impact fees, but it is not eligible to be included
in the impact fees calculated in this study. Table 4 presents the analysis of future
reserve capacity for future and reimbursement projects (projects previously
constructed). The amount of future reserve capacity is determined by
comparing the total capacity of the improved street to the forecast of traffic
volume at the end of the planning period. The amount by which future
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 20
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
capacity exceeds future traffic volume is the number of future reserve capacity
trips. The future reserve capacity trips are divided by the amount of new
capacity to be added in order to calculate the percent of the project that wili
be future reserve capacity, The future reserve capacity percentage is muitiplied
times the project costs to calculate the portion of the project cost that is
attributable to future reserve capacity. The portion of the total $224.8 million of
eligible projects that is for future reserve capacity equals $82,428,993 (36,7% of
the total cost).
Table 4: Cost of Future Reserve Capacity
��) �2) �3) �4) �5) �6) �7) �$)
2030 Future
Capacity 2030 Post 2030 Reserve Cost of
When Traffic (Deficiency) %of Future
# Name of Pro'ect Total Cost Com lete Volume Or Reserve Increase Reserve
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 2,800 1,728 1,072 76.57% $10,108,960
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 3,200 2,046 1,154 72.13% 3,245,625
South 26th St to South 31 st
St
3 515)Rd/Benson Rd(SR 23,391,000 7,200 6,853 347 43.38°/a 10,145,846
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 4,800 3,596 1,204 75.23% 24,440,828
West of Talbot Road to
108th PI
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 4,400 4,476 (76) 0.00°/a 0
Lind Avenue to West of
Talbot Rd
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 4,000 4,787 (787) 0.00°/a 0
Talbot Road to Rainier Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 2,600 1,885 715 55.00% 301,531
Park Ave N to Coulon Park
Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 3,200 2,516 684 85.55% 2,994,141
SW 16th St to SW 43rd St
9 N/gan Ave N/Garden Ave 2,683,492 4,800 4,637 163 8.15% 218,705
Lk Washington Blvd
Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy(SR 169) 83,693,292 5,325 4,806 519 29.26% 24,489,129
Park entrance to East City
Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 1,300 2,288 (988) 0.00% 0
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft
north
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 21
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
��) �2) �3) �4) �5) �6) ��) �8)
2030 Future
Capacity 2030 Post 2030 Reserve Cost of
When Traffic (Deficiency) %of Future
# Name of Pro'ect Total Cost Com lete Volume Or Reserve Increase Reserve
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 2,160 2,100 60 15.05% 1,053,500
Rainier Ave S to S Grady
Wee
13 SW 27th SUStrander g,000,000 3,200 3,073 127 3.97% 357,188
Connection
Oakdale to West Valley
Hw
Subtotal: New Projects 199,702,922 77,355,451
Reimbursement Projects(Impact Fee Reimburses Local
Revenues
A Duvall 8,190,713 3,543 2,465 1,078 58.93% 4,826,762
Sunset to North City limits
B Logan 8,583,652 3,520 3,419 101 2.87% 246,780
6th to Garden
C SR 169(Maple Valley Hwy) 8,306,708 5,400 6,342 {942) 0.00% 0
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement 25,081,073 5,073,542
Pro'ects
Total All Projects 224,783,995 82,428,993
COST ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEES
Table 5 begins with the total cost of projects needed for growth, The columns to
the right repeat the costs of existing deficiencies (from Table 3), and future
reserve capacity (from Table 4). These costs are subtracted from the total cost
of each project to calculate the remaining cost of each project that is eligible
for impact fees, The total eligible cost is $138,484,767 which is bl ,b% of the
$224.8 million total cost of eligible projects.
Table 5: Total Project Cost Eligible for Impact Fees
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2008-2030
Cost of Cost of Project Cost
Existing Future Eligible for
# Name of Pro'ect Total Cost Deficienc Reserve Im act Fees
New Projects
1 156th Ave SE: $13,202,000 $ 0 $10,108,960 $3,093,040
NE 4th St to SE 143rd St
2 Benson Road 4,500,000 0 3,245,625 1,254,375
South 26th St to South 31 st St
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 22
Company
� •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
2008-2030
Cost of Cost of Project Cost
Existing Future Eligible for
# Name of Pro'ect Total Cost Deficienc Reserve Im act Fees
3 Carr Rd/Benson Rd(SR 515) 23,391,000 0 10,145,846 13,245,154
intersection
4 Carr Road Central 32,488,500 0 24,440,828 8,047,672
West of Talbot Road to 108th PI
5 Carr Road West 11,696,400 3,187,269 0 8,509,131
Lind Avenue to West of Talbot Rd�
6 Grady Way 3,000,000 466,250 0 2,533,750
Talbot Road to Rainier Ave
7 Lake Washington Blvd 548,238 77,175 301,531 169,532
Park Ave N to Coulon Park
Entrance
8 Lind Ave SW 3,500,000 0 2,994,141 505,859
SW 16th St to SW 43rd St
9 Logan Ave N/Garden Ave N/ 2,683,492 139,542 218,705 2,325,246
Lk Washington Blvd Intersection
10 Maple Valley Hwy(SR 169) 83,693,292 0 24,489,129 59,204,163
Park entrance to East City Limits
11 Park Ave N Extension 5,000,000 0 0 5,000,000
Logan Ave N to 1200 ft north
12 South 7th Street 7,000,000 0 1,053,500 5,946,500
Rainier Ave S to S Grady Way
13 SW 27th SUStrander Connection 9,000,000 0 357,188 8,642,813
Oakdale to West Valley Hwy
Subtotal:New Projects 199,702,922 3,870,236 77,355,451 118,477,235
Reimbursement Projects(Impact Fee Reimburses Local Revenues)
A Duvali 8,190,713 0 4,826,762 3,363,951
Sunset to North City limits
B Logan 8,583,652 0 246,780 8,336,872
6th to Garden
C SR 169(Maple Valley Hwy) 8,306,708 0 0 8,306,708
I-405 to Park entrance
Subtotal: Reimbursement Projects 25,081,073 0 5,073,542 20,007,532
Total All Projects 224,783,995 3,870,236 82,428,993 138,484,767
Reduction for RCW 82.02.050(2)@ 3% -4,154,543
of eli ible cost
Growth's Share of Eligible Cost 134,330,224
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 23
Company
• .
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
The final step in Table 5 is to further reduce the cost that is needed by new
development in order to implement a conservative interpretation of RCW
82.02.050(7) which provides that "...the financing for system improvements to
serve new development ,.. cannot rely solely on impact fees." The statute
provides no further guidance, and "not rely solely" could be anything between
0.1% and 99.9%, thus additional analysis is presented below.
As noted previously, the total cost of all eligible projects is $224,8 million, and
only 1.7% of that is for existing deficiencies, Because the future reserve capacity
equals 36,7% of total costs, the City will be required to pay for those costs, and
may or may not eventually recoup those costs from development that occurs
after the 2030 planning horizon for the transportation improvements. Arguably
the 1,7% and the 36,6% that will be paid by the City provide sufficient
compliance with the requirement to "not rely solely on impact fees." However,
in the event that the intent of the statute is more narrowly construed to mean
that the City should "not rely solely on impact fees" for the $138,484,767 cost
that is eligible for impact fees, an additional 3% reduction ($4,154,543) is taken
at the end of Table 5, leaving a net total cost of growth's share of $134,330,224,
This amount will be used as the basis for the remaining calculations of the
transportation impact fee for Renton.
No other reduction is warranted for other revenues that the City may obtain for
transportation capital improvements, Grant revenue is primarily regional in
nature, and will be used by the City for the portion of the eligible $134 million
that is attributable to external traffic that comes from development that does
not pay impact fees to Renton. Any other local revenue would be used first to
pay the $4,154,839 for the 3% reduction, then for the 1 .7% for existing
deficiencies, and lastly for the 36.7% for future reserve capacity. In other words,
there are no other revenues that would be subject to the "adjustment"
provisions of RCW 82,02.060(1)(b).
If a developer believes that significant prior payments were made by their
property that meet the criteria of RCW 82,02.060(1)(b), the applicant can submit
supporting information and request a special review to reduce their impact fee
by the amount of such prior payments made by their property and used for the
same system improvements that are the basis of the impact fee (i.e., those listed
in Tables 2-5).
Formula T-3: Growth Trips on the Street Network
The growth of trips on Renton's streets and roads is calculated from data
produced by the City's traffic model:
Future Current Growth
T-3. P,M. Peak Hour - P.M. Peak Hour P.M, Peak Hour
Trips Trips - Trips
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 24
Company
• �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
� There is one new variable used in formula 3 that requires explanation. (D) p.m.
peak hour trips on the network of streets and roads.
Variab/e (D): P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Renton's traffic model can count the total number of trips on all the City's streets
and roads during the busiest hour (i,e„ "p,m, peak hour), Measuring traffic
during the p,m, peak hour is a common practice among Washington cities
because they are concerned about congestion and the level of service during
the time of heaviest traffic volumes.
The City's traffic model can count p.m, peak hour trips currently on the system.
The model can also use future population and employment data to estimate
the p,m, peak hour trips at future points in time.
The City's long-range transportation planning horizon is the year 2030, therefore
the "future" p,m, peak hour trips are for the year 2030 (and the City's
transportation improvement projects are selected to address the increased trips
through 2030).
Table 6 shows a total of 45,880 trips in 2008. In 2030 the total is estimated to be
63,750 trips. The difference between the 2008 and 2030 trips is 17,870 growth
trips. The growth trips will be divided into the cost of growth to calculate the
cost per growth trip.
One other feature of the trip data is noteworthy. Some of the trips begin and or
end outside the City. Renton's transportation impact fee only applies to
development inside the City, so it will be useful to know how many growth trips
will be paying the impact fee, and how many will not,
Information about "inside" and "outside" trips is available from Renton's traffic
model. It identifies the starting point (i.e., "origin") and the ending point (i.e.,
"destination") of each trip. In the summary of trip ends in Table b each trip end
is either inside the City of Renton (i,e., "internal") or outside the City (i.e„
"external").
The trip data is reported in Table 6 for all four combinations; internal - internal
means a trip that starts and ends inside the City, External - external is a trip that
begins and ends outside the City limits without stopping in Renton, These are
also called "through trips", The trips that have one end in the City and the other
end outside the City are internal-external or external-internal, The column
showing internal growth trips includes all of the internal-internal, one-half of the
internal-external and external-internal, and none of the external-external trips,
The column showing external growth trips counts the opposite end of all trips,
The sum of the internal and the external trips is the total growth trips. This data
will be used outside this study to estimate the costs that will be paid by impact
fees and the cost that will be paid by other sources of revenue. Those estimates
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 25
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
are for financial planning purposes, but do not affect the calculation of the
impact fee rates in this study.
Table 6: Growth Trips (p.m. peak hour) on the Street Network
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Internal External
Origin- 2008 2030 Growth Growth Growth
Destination Trips Tri s Trips Trips Trips
internal-internal 6,150 9,200 3,050 3,050 0
internal-external 15,265 21,010 5,745 2,873 2,873
external- internal 12,618 17,815 5,197 2,599 2,599
external-external 11,847 15,725 3,878 0 3,878
Total 45,880 63,750 17,870 8,521 9,349
Formula T-4: Cost per Growth Trip
The cost per growth trip is calculated by dividing growth's share of eligible costs
of projects needed for growth by the number of growth trips:
T-4, Growth's Share _ Growth's Trips on _ Cost Per
of Eligible Cost the Street Network Growth Trip
There are no new variables used in formula 4.
Calculation of Cost per Gro wth Trip
Table 7 shows the calculation of the cost per growth trip by dividing the $134,3
million of eligible cost of street projects (from Table 5) by the 17,870 growth trips
(from Table b), The result is the cost per trip of $7,517.08.
Table 7: Cost per Growth Trip
��) �2)
Item Amount
Growth's Share of Eligible Costs $ 134,330,224
P.M. Peak Hour Growth Trips 17,870
Cost per PM Peak Growth Trip 7,517.08
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 26
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Formula T-5: Impact Fee Rates For Specific Land Uses
The impact fee rate for each category of land use is determined by multiplying
the cost per growth trip times the number of trips generated per unit of
development of each category of land use:
Cost Per Trip Generation Impact Fee Rate Per
T-5. Growth Trip x Rate per Unit of = Unit of Development
Development
The formula uses different trip generation rates for different types of land uses
(i.e„ single family houses, office buildings, etc,), There is one new variable used
in formula 5 that requires explanation: (E) trip generation rates.
Variab/e (E): Trip Generation Rates.
Trip generation rates measure the impact on the street and road network by
different types of land uses. For example, office buildings average 1 .49 p.m,
peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of office, but industrial buildings average
only 0.97 p.m, peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet of industrial space,
This rate study uses the data reported in Trip Generation, compiled and
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The report is currently
in its 8th edition, The report is a summary of data from hundreds of surveys of trip
origins and destinations conducted throughout the United States. The data is
reported on several variables (i.e., type of land use, units of development,
number of employees, hour of day, etc,). The data used in this impact fee rate
study is for trips generated during the p.m. peak hour, since that is the same
basis the City uses to analyze the City's traffic conditions,
Impact fee rates are calculated in this study for many frequently used types of
land use (i.e„ dwellings, industrial, offices, retail, restaurants, etc.). Impact fees
can be calculated for other land uses not listed in this rate study by referring to
the data in the ITE report referenced above,
Trip generation data is reported initiaily as the total number of trips leaving and
arriving at each type of land use. This impact fee rate study makes two
' adjustments to trip generation rates reported in ITE's Trip Generation, 8th edition.
The first adjustment is to reduce the number of trips that are incidental attractors
and generators of trips, For example, if a person leaves work to return home at
the end of the work day, the place of employment is the origin, and the home is
the destination. But if the person stops enroute to run an errand at a store, the
ITE data counts the stop at the store as a new destination (and a new origin
when the person leaves the store to continue to their home). In reality, the work-
, to-home trip was going to occur regardless of the incidental stop, therefore the
store should not be charged with an additional trip on the street system, The
'� Henderson,
Youn & Au ust 26, 201 1 Page 27
, 9 9
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
measurement for this adjustment is the number of "pass-by" trips that stop at the
store instead of "passing by." In Table 8, these trips are eliminated by counting
only the trips that are truly "new" trips (i.e„ a person made a special trip to the
store). The adjustment is shown in Table 8 as "Percent New Trips,"
The second adjustment is the "Trip Length Factor." Not all trips are the same
length, Longer trips are considered to have a greater impact than shorter trips.
The ITE report's trip generation data is adjusted by a factor that compares the
average trip length of each type of development to the average trip length
factor of 1.0 for all trips. Some land uses have factors greater than 1 .0 (i.e.,
industrial trips are factored at 1,47 because their trips are 47% longer than
average) while other land uses have factors less than 1 .0 (i.e„ 24-hour
convenience markets trips are factored at 0.44 because their trips are only 44%
the length of an average trip). Trip length data is compiled from studies
prepared by a number of local governments and consultants,
Calculation of lmpact Fee Rates for Specific Land Uses
Table 8 shows the calculation of impact fee rates for frequently used categories
of land use that are listed in columns 1 and 2, The ITE trip rate in column 3 is
multiplied times the percent new trips in column 4, and the result is multiplied
times the trip length factor in column 5. Column 6 reports the net new trips that
are the result of these calculations. The impact fee rates in column 7 are
calculated by multiplying the net new trips from column b times the $7,517,08
cost per growth trip (from Table 7, and repeated in the column heading of
column 7).
Table 8: Transportation Impact Fee Rates Per Unit of Development
�1) �2) �3) �4) �5) �6) �7)
ITE % Trip
ITE Trip New Length Net New Trips Per Impact Fee Per Unit @
Code ITE Land Use Cate o Rate Tri s Factor Unit of Measure $7,517.08 er Tri
110 Light Industrial 0.97 100% 1.47 1.43 1,000 sq ft 10.72 per sq ft
140 Manufacturin 0.73 100% 1.47 1.07 1,000 s ft 8.07 er s ft
151 Mini-warehouse 0.26 100% 1.47 0.38 1,000 sq ft 2.87 per sq ft
210 Sin le famil House 1.01 100% 1.13 1.14 dwellin 8,579.24 er dwellin
220 Apartment 0.62 100% 1.20 0.74 dwelling 5,592.71 per dwel�ing
230 Condominium 0.52 100% 1.15 0.60 dwellin 4,495.21 er dwellin
240 Mobile Home 0.59 100% 1.09 0.64 dwelling 4,834.23 per dwelling
251 Senior Housin -Attached 0.16 100% 0.93 0.15 dwellin 1,118.54 per dwellin
310 Hotel 0.59 100% 1.28 0.76 room 5,676.90 per room
320 Motel 0.47 100% 1.28 0.60 room 4,522.28 er room
420 Marina 0.19 100% 0.97 0.18 berth 1,385.40 per boat berth
444 Movie Theater 3.80 85% 0.73 2.36 1,000 s ft 17.72 er s ft
492 Health/Fitness Club 3.53 75% 1.00 2.65 1,000 sq ft 19.90 per sq ft
530 Hi h School 0.97 80% 1.00 0.78 1,000 s ft 5.83 er s ft
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 28
Company
� •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
��) �2) �3) �4) �5) �6) �7)
ITE % Trip
ITE Trip New Length Net New Trips Per Impact Fee Per Unit @
Code ITE Land Use Cate o Rate Tri s Factor Unit of Measure $7,517.08 er Tri
560 Church 0.55 100% 1.20 0.66 1,000 sq ft 4.96 per sq ft
610 Hos ital 1.14 80% 1.28 1.17 1,000 s ft 8.78 er s ft
620 Nursing home 0.22 100% 0.87 0.19 bed 1,438.77 per bed
710 General Office 1.49 90% 1.47 1.97 1,000 s ft 14.82 er s ft
720 Medical office 3.46 75% 1.40 3.63 1,000 sq ft 27.31 per sq ft
820 Sho in Center 3.73 65% 0.53 1.28 1,000 s ft 9.66 er s ft
932 Restaurant:sit-down 11.15 55% 0.73 4.48 1,000 sq ft 33.65 per sq ft
933 Fast food, no drive-u 26.15 50% 0.67 8.76 1,000 s ft 65.85 er s ft
934 Fast food,w/drive-up 33.84 51% 0.62 10.70 1,000 sq ft 80.43 per sq ft
944 Gas station 13.87 40% 0.56 3.11 um 23,354.67 er um
945 Gas station w/convenience 13.38 45% 0.53 3.19 pump 24,967.98 per pump
850 Su ermarket 10.50 65% 0.67 4.57 1,000 s ft 34.37 er s ft
851 Convenience market-24 hr 52.41 45% 0.44 10.38 1,000 sq ft 78.01 per sq ft
912 Drive-in Bank 25.82 55% 0.47 6.67 1,000 sq ft 50.17 er sq ft
Henderson, I�
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 29
Company
• •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
4. PARK IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for parks, open space, and recreation facilities begin with an
inventory and valuation of the existing assets in order to calculate the current
investment per person. The current investment per person is multiplied times the
future population to identify the value of additional assets needed to provide
growth with the same level of investment as the City owns for the current
population. The future investment is reduced by the amount of specific revenues
to determine the net investment needed to be paid by growth. Dividing the net
investment by the population growth results in the investment per person that
can be charged as impact fees, A final adjustment reduces the impact fee
amount to match the investments listed in the City's adopted Capital
Investment Program, The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging
each fee-paying development for impact fee cost per dwelling multiplied times
the number of dwelling units in the development,
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of park impact fees,
Formula P-1: Park and Recreation Capital Value Per Person
The capital investment per person is calculated by dividing the value of the
asset inventory by the current population,
Value of Parks & Current Capital Value
P-1 , Recreation - Population - Per Person
Inventory
There is one variable that requires explanation: (A) value of parks and recreation
inventory
Variab/e (A): Va/ue of Parks and Recreation lnventory
The value of the existing inventory of parks, open space and recreation facilities
is calculated by determining the value of park land, amenities and buildings
The sum of all of the values equals the current value of the City's park and
recreation system.
The values in this study come from a variety of sources, depending on the type
of the park or recreation facility. The land values are from King County's land
assessment data base. Most of the valuations of the park amenities are from the
City's cost records, Values of a few amenities are based on information from
vendors or costs in other Washington cities. The values of the following amenities
were determined by special studies; Coulon Park, Henry Moses Aquatic Center,
grandstand and bridge, and all park system buildings. The value of amenities
does not include land because the facilities are customarily located at a park.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 30
Company
. �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
The costs of new parks and recreation facilities in this rate study do not include
any costs for interest or other financing. If borrowing is used to "front fund" the
costs that will be paid by impact fees, the carrying costs for financing can be
added to the costs, and the impact fee can be recalculated to include such
costs.
Table 9 lists the inventory of park land and amenities that make up the existing
City of Renton park system. Each item is listed in column 1, the unit of
measurement in column 2, the inventory in column 3, and the average cost per
unit in column 4, The value of the park land or amenity is shown in Column 5.
The total value for the current existing inventory of park land and amenities is
$204,664,604. That value is divided by the current population of 84,928 to
calculate the capital value of $2,409,62 per person.
Table 9: Asset Inventory and Capital Value per Person
(1) (2) (3) (5)
(4)
Average Cost
T pe of Park or Facilit Unit Invento Per Unit Capital Value
Land Value
Neighborhood Park acre 141.53 129,783 $18,368,188
Community Park acre 129.54 229,463 29,724,637
Regionai Park(Coulon Memorial) acre 27.69 1,089,094 30,157,013
Open Space Park acre 612.55 71,728 43,936,986
Special Use Park acre 2.75 903,586 2.484,862
Land Value Subtotal $724,671,686
Park Amenity
Balifield field 9 310,000 $2,790,000
Ballfield, Complete&Lighted field 4 710,000 2,840,000
Basketball Court, Half court 3 125,000 375,000
Basketball Court, Full court 7 190,000 1,330,000
Basketball Court, Lighted court 3 240,000 720,000
Boardwalk Trail linear feet 1,300 700 910,000
Boathouse Pier pier 1 1,538,030 1,538,030
Boathouse Pier Wood Floats float 2 154,750 309,500
Kennydale Beach Pier, Bulkhead, Logboom pier 1 548,930 548,930
Land-Passive/Landscaped acre 75 196,020 14,701,500
Multi-Purpose Field acre 7 196,020 1,372,140
Multi-Purpose Trail, 12'wide,Paved mile 3.5 443,520 1,552,320
Park Bridge bridge 4 5,993,575
Parking Lot acre 18.5 305,000 5,642,500
Pedestrian Trail,8'wide,AC Paved mile 3 295,680 887,040
Pedestrian Trail,8'wide, Brick Paved linear feet 1,735 120 208,200
Picnic Shelter shelter 7 55,000 385,000
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 31
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
(1) (2) (3) (5)
(4)
Average Cost
T e of Park or Facilit Unit Invento Per Unit Ca ital Value
Play Equipment lot 19 110,000 2,090,000
Skateboard Park,lighted park 1 500,000 500,000
Soccer Field,All-Weather Surface field 1 340,000 340,000
Tennis Court court 9 165,000 1,485,000
Tennis Court, Lighted court 8 210,000 1,680,000
Volleyball Court,Sand court 2 45,000 90.000
Park Amenit Subtotal $48 288 735
Coulon Park Amenities
Restaurant building 2 $509,509
Picnic Gallery shelter 1 323,673
Picnic Shelter shelter 4 289,908
Bathhouse/Restroom building 1 356,289
Restroom building 2 259,676
Waterwalk,Small Boat Dock,Picnic Pads waterwalk 4 4,390,025
Deck&Bulkhead @ Ivar's deck 1 2,067,000
BoatLaunch(81ane) launch 1 1,111,835
Sail Club Launch,Wood Float launch 1 1,088,500
Bridge bridge 5 1,110,250
Fishing Pier&Shelter pier 1 457,938
Log Boom boom 1 702.750
Coulon Park Amenities Subtotal $12,667,353
Buildings
Activity Center building 5 $979,425
Neighborhood Center building 2 2,490,064
Renton Community Center building 1 5,062,334
Carco Theater building 1 1,998,806
Henry Moses Aquatic Center building 1 3,966,232
Renton Senior Activity Center building 1 2,742,035
Liberty Park Community Bldg. building 1 569,716
Cedar River Boathouse building 1 430,534
Kennydale Beach Bathhouse building 1 81,466
Grandstand structure 1 630,925
Greenhouse building 1 65.293
Buildin s Subtotal $19,016,830
Total Capital Value $204,644,604
2010 Population 84,928
Ca ital Value er Person $2,409.62
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 32
Company
• •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Formula P-2: Value Needed for Growth
Impact fees must be related to the needs of growth, as explained in Chapter 2.
The first step in determining growth's needs is to calculate the total value of
parks and recreational facilities that are needed for growth. The calculation is
accomplished by multiplying the investment per person (from Table 9) times the
number of new persons that are forecast for the City's growth.
Capital Value Population Value Needed
P-2' per Person X Growth - for Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 2 that requires explanation; (B)
forecasts of future population growth.
Variable (B):Forecast Population Growth
As part of the City of Renton long-range planning process, including its
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the Growth Management Act, the City
prepares forecasts of future growth. During the next b years the City expects
3,486 additional dwelling units with an average of 2.2 persons per dwelling unit.
This will bring 7,669 additional people to Renton,
Table 10 shows the calculation of the value of parks and recreational facilities
needed for growth. Column 1 lists the current capital value per person from
Table 9, Column 2 shows the growth in population that is forecast, and Column 3
is the total value of parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the
' growth that is forecast for Renton,
Table 10: Value of Parks and Recreational Facilities Needed for Growth
��) �2) �3)
Capital Forecast Value
Value Population Needed
� per Person Growth for Growth
$2,409.62 7,669 $ 18,479,412
Table 10 shows that Renton needs parks and recreational facilities valued at
$18,479,412 in order to serve the growth of 7,669 additional people who are
expected to be added to the City's existing population. The future investment
needed for growth will be $18,479,412 unless the City has existing reserve
capacity in its parks and recreational facilities or other unused assets,
Formula P-3. Investment Needed for Growth
The investment needed for growth is calculated by subtracting the value of any
existing reserve capacity and any existing balance in the impact fee account
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 33
Company
. �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
from the total value of parks and recreational facilities needed to serve the
growth.
Value Value of Uncommitted Investment
P-3, Needed _ Existing _ Balance in = Needed for
for Reserve Impact Fee Growth
Growth Capacity Account
There are two new variables used in formula 3 that require explanation: (C)
value of existing reserve capacity of parks and recreational facilities, and (D)
the uncommitted balance in the impact fee account.
Variable (C): Value of Existing Reserve Capacity
The value of reserve capacity is the difference between the value of the City's
existing inventory of parks and recreational facilities, and the value of those
assets that are needed to provide the level of service standard for the existing
population, Because the capital value per person is based on the current assets
and the current population, there is no reserve capacity (i.e., no unused value
that can be used to serve future population growth)5.
Variable (D): Uncommifted Ba/ance in lmpact Fee Account
Any unexpended and uncommitted balance in the park impact fee account is
an asset that can be used to increase the value of park and recreation assets,
thus reducing the amount that needs to be invested for future growth.
Table 11 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational
facilities that is needed for growth. Column 1 lists the value of parks and
recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 10), Column 2 shows
the value of existing reserve capacity, and Column 3 is the remaining investment
in parks and recreational facilities that is needed to serve the growth, Column 4
subtracts the balance in the impact fee account, producing the net investment
needed for growth shown in Column 5,
Table 11: Investment Needed in Parks and Recreational Facilities for Growth
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Value of
Value Existing Investment Balance Net Investment
Needed Reserve Needed In Impact Needed
for Growth Ca acit for Growth Fee Account for Growth
$ 18,479,412 $0 $ 18,479,412 $ 1,100,000 $ 17,379,412
5 Also, the use of the current assets and the current population means there is no existing
deficiency, This approach satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine whether
or not there are any existing deficiencies in order to ensure that impact fees are not charged for
any deficiencies.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 34
Company
� •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 11 shows that Renton needs to invest $17,379,412 in additional parks and
recreational facilities in order to serve future growth. The future investment in
parks and recreational facilities that needs to paid by growth may be less that
$17,379,412 if the City has other revenues it invests in its parks and recreational
facilities,
Formula P-4. Investment to be Paid by Growth
The investment to be paid by growth is calculated by subtracting the amount of
any revenues the City invests in infrastructure for growth from the total
investment in parks and recreational facilities needed to serve growth.
Investment City Investment
P-4, Needed for - Investment = to be Paid
Growth for Growth by Growth
There is one new variable used in formula 4 that requires explanation; (E)
revenues used to fund the City's investment in projects that serve growth.
Variab/e (f): City lnvestment of Non-lmpact Fee Revenues
The City of Renton has historically used a combination of state grants and local
revenues to pay for the cost of park and recreational capital facilities. The City's
plan for the future is to continue using grant revenue and limited local revenues
to pay part of the cost of parks and recreational facilities needed for growth,
A detailed analysis of the City's CIP indicates that estimated local revenues will
pay for 11 .92% of park projects that add "capacity' to the park system for new
development by increasing the value of park and recreation assets.
Revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs are not used
to reduce impact fees because they are not used, earmarked or prorated for
the system improvements that are the basis of the impact fees, Revenues from
past taxes paid on vacant land prior to development are not included because
new capital projects do not have prior costs, therefore prior taxes did not
contribute to such projects.
The other potential credit that reduces capacity costs (and subsequent impact
fees) are donations of land or other assets by developers or builders. Those
reductions depend upon specific arrangements between the developer and
the City of Renton. Reductions in impact fees for donations are calculated on a
case by case basis at the time impact fees are to be paid.
Table 12 shows the calculation of the investment in parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth, Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to serve growth (from Table 11), column 2
shows the value of City investment for growth from grants and some local
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 35
Company
. .
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
revenues, and column 3 is the remaining investment in parks and recreational
facilities that will be paid by growth,
Table 12: Investment in Parks and Recreational Facilities to be Paid by Growth
��) �2) �3)
Investment City Investment
Needed Investment to be Paid
for Growth for Growth b Growth
$ 17,379,412 $2,071,626 $ 15,307,786
Table 12 shows that growth in Renton needs to pay $17,379,412 for additional
parks and recreational facilities to maintain the City's standards for future
growth, The City expects to use $2,071,626 in grant and local revenue towards
this cost (calculated at 11 .92% of $17,379,412 needed for growth), and the
remaining $15,307,786 will be paid by growth.
Formula P-5: Growth Cost Per Person
The growth cost per person is calculated by dividing the investment in parks and
recreational facilities that is to be paid by growth by the amount of population
growth.
Investment - Growth = Growth Cost
P-5, to be Paid Population per Person
by Growth
There are no new variables used in formula P-5, Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
Calculation of lnvestment to be Paid by Growth
Table 13 shows the calculation of the cost per person of parks and recreational
facilities that needs to be paid by growth, Column 1 lists the investment in parks
and recreational facilities needed to be paid by growth (from Table 12), column
2 shows the growth population (see Variable B, Formula 2, above), and column
3 is the growth cost per person,
Table 13: Growth Cost per Person
��) �2) �3)
Investment Growth
to be Paid Growth Cost
b Growth Po ulation er Person
$ 15,307,786 7,669 $ 1,996.06
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 36
Company
• •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 13 shows that cost per new person for parks and recreational facilities thC�t
will be paid by growth is $1,996.06. The amount to be paid by each new
dwelling unit depends on the number of persons per dwelling unit, as described
in the next formula.
Formula P-6: Cost per Dwelling Unit
The cost per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per
person by the number of persons per dwelling unit,
Growth Cost Persons per Cost per
P-b' per Person X Dwelling Unit - Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula b that requires explanation: (F)
average number of persons per dwelling unit.
Va�iab/e (F): Persons per Dwelling Unit
The number of persons per dwelling unit is the factor used to convert the growth
cost of parks and recreational facilities per person into growth cost per new
dwelling unit. The data for calculating the persons per dwelling unit comes from
the Washington Office of Financial Management's 2010 Population Worksheet
for the City of Renton.
Table 14 shows the calculation of the parks and recreational facilities cost per
dwelling unit. Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units, column 2 shows the
average persons per dwelling unit, and column 3 is the cost per dwelling unit
calculated by multiplying the number of persons per dwelling unit times the
growth cost of $1,996.06 per person from Table 13.
Table 14: Cost per Dwelling Unit
��) �2) �3)
Type of Average Cost
Dwelling Persons per per Dwelling Unit @
Unit Dwellin Unit $1,996.06 er Person
Single Family 2.55 $ 5,089.95
Multi-Family: 2 units 2.07 4,131.84
Multi-Family: 3 or 4 units 1.97 3,932.24
Multi-Family: 5 or more units 1.73 3,453.18
Mobile Home 1.81 3,612.87
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 37
Company
.
• �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Formula P-7: Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
The impact fee per dwelling unit is calculated by adjusting the cost per dwelling
unit to limit it to an amount consistent with the projects that will add capacity
(asset value) in Renton's adopted CIP compared to the total investment that
would be needed to maintain the current value per person.
P_� Cost Per _ Adjustment for _ Impact Fee Per
Dwelling Unit CIP Project Value Dwelling Unit
There is one new variable used in formula 7 that requires explanation: (G) CIP
adjustment per dwelling unit,
Variab/e (G):Adjustment for C/P Project Value
As noted in Chapter 2, impact fees must be based on the Capital Facilities Plan
(CFP) of the City. The details of Renton's CFP appear in the Capital Investment
Program (CIP) portion of the City's budget. A detailed review of the CIP
identified specific projects that will increase the value of park and recreation
assets, thus providing additional capacity for new development. If the value of
the specific projects is equal to, or greater than the value needed for growth
there is no adjustment to the cost per dwelling unit, However, if the value of the
capacity projects is less than the value needed for growth, the cost per dwelling
unit must be reduced to account for the difference.
The 2011-2016 CIP contains 5 projects that increase the asset value of the park
systemb. The total value of the 5 projects is $9,948,000. However, Table 10
calculated that the value needed for growth is $18,479,412. The difference
between the value of the 5 projects and the value needed for growth is
$8,531,412, which is 46.17% of the value needed for growth. As a result, the cost
per dwelling unit must be reduced by 46.17% in order to limit the impact fee to
the amount that will be spent by the City for projects that serve growth.
Table 15 (on the next page) shows the calculation of the parks and recreational
facilities impact fee per dwelling unit, Column 1 lists the types of dwelling units,
column 2 shows the cost per dwelling unit from Table 14, column 3 shows the
amount of the adjustment (calculated at 46.17% of the cost per dwelling unit),
and column 4 is the impact fee per dwelling unit after subtracting the
adjustment from the cost per dwelling unit.
° Henry Moss Aquatic Center, Grant Matching Program, Black River Riparian Forest, Regis Park
Athletic Field Expansion, Park Master Planning Implementation, and King County Proposition 2
Capital Expenditure Levy Fund,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 38
Company
.
� •
Rate Study fo�Impact Fees • City of Renton
Table 15: Park Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Impact Fee per
Type of Cost per Adjustment to Dwelling Unit
Dwellin Unit Dwellin Unit Match CIP
Single Family $5,089.95 $2,349.88 $2,740.07
Multi-Family:2 units 4,131.84 1,907.55 2,224.29
Multi-Family: 3 or4 units 3,932.24 1,815.40 2,116.84
Multi-Family: 5 or more units 3,453.18 1,594.24 1,858.95
Mobile Home 3,612.87 1,667.96 1,944.91
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 39
Company
. �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
5. FIRE IMPACT FEES
Impact fees for fire protection facilities begin with an inventory of fire apparatus
and stations and the number of emergencies they responded to. Next is an
analysis of the capital cost of fire protection apparatus and stations including
calculation of the capital cost per response. The emergency responses are
summarized according to the types of land uses that received responses, and
incident rates are calculated to quantify the average number of emergency
responses per unit of development for each type of land use, The costs per
response and the response incident rates are used to calculate the number and
cost of responses to fire incidents and to BLS incidents (basic life support medical
responses) at each type of land use, The fire and BLS cost per unit of
development are combined to calculate the total cost per unit of
development. The total cost is adjusted for payments of other and the result is
the fire impact fee rates for the City of Renton.
These steps are described below in the formulas, descriptions of variables, tables
of data, and explanation of calculations of fire impact fees.
The need for fire protection facilities is influenced by a variety of factors, such as
response time, call loads, geographical area, topographic and manmade
barriers, and standards of the National Fire Protection Association, and the
National Commission on the Accreditation of Ambulance Services. For the
purpose of quantifying the need for fire and BLS apparatus and stations to serve
growth this study uses the ratio of apparatus and stations to incidents. The
current ratio provides acceptable levels of service to current residents and
businesses. As growth occurs, more incidents will occur, therefore more
apparatus and stations will be needed to maintain standards.
Formula F-1: Inventory and Emergency Responses
The City of Renton owns a variety of fire apparatus (i.e., fire engines, ladder
trucks, aid vehicles, etc.). Each vehicle responds to many emergencies, The
average number of emergency responses per apparatus is used as one element
in calculating the cost per emergency response.
F-1 , Emergency _ Fire _ Responses per
Responses Apparatus Apparatus
There are three variables that require explanation; (A) fire apparatus, (B)
emergency responses, and (C) fire stations.
Variab/e (A):Fire Apparatus
The term "fire apparatus" applies to vehicles that the City of Renton uses for two
categories of emergency responses: fire emergencies and medical
emergencies. The medical emergencies will be referred to in this study as "BLS"
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 40
Company
� •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of 2enton
because the Renton Fire Department provides Basic Life Support (BLS) responses
and is typically the first responder to medical emergencies in Renton.
Advanced Life Support (ALS) is provided by King County. ALS costs are not
included in Renton's fire impact fee, Table 16 contains a list of each type of
primary fire apparatus and the number of each type. Renton also has several
older "reserve" apparatus that are dispatched as needed when a primary
apparatus is out of service for repairs or maintenance. The reserve apparatus
are not routinely dispatched and are excluded from the impact fee analysis
because they are not used frequentiy enough to have a material effect on the
. cost of providing fire protection facilities,
Variab/e (B):Emergency Responses
The total annual responses for each type of apparatus is also shown in Table 1 b.
The average number of emergency responses for each type of apparatus is
calculated by dividing the number of annual emergency responses by the
i
number of units making those runs. In many cases, more than one apparatus s
dispatched to an emergency incident. The number and type of apparatus
dispatched to each incident varies depending on the type and severity of the
incident,
During 2010, Renton's 50 primary response apparatus were dispatched a total of
16,545 times to 12,421 emergency incidents (many times the seriousness of an
incident requires that more than one unit respond). Using the existing ratio of
apparatus and station space per incident maintains the current level of service
and avoids any existing deficiency or unused reserve capacity. This approach �
satisfies the requirements of RCW 82.02.050(4) to determine whether or not there
are any existing deficiencies or reserve capacity in order to ensure that impact
fees are not charged for any deficiencies or reserve capacity (other than
reimbursement fees).
Table 16: Fire Protection Apparatus Inventory
��) �2) �3) �4)
Average
Primary Annual Emergency
Apparatus Emergency Responses
Type of Apparatus Inventory Responses Per Unit
Primary Career Service Response Units:
Engine 5 8,713 1,743
Ladder 1 1,048 1,048
Aid Vehicle 6 5,825 971
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1 4 4
Brush Truck 1 15 15
Staff Vehicles 28 909 32
Other A aratus/E ui ment' 8 31 4
Total Prima A aratus 50 16,545
' Other apparatus and equipment include 4 specialized trailers and a dive boat,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 41
Company
� �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renfon
Variable (C):fire Stations
The City of Renton provides fire and BLS services out of 6 stations. Table 17 lists
the 6 stations and the square footage of fire stations and support facilities (i.e.,
EOC, shop, and tower). Table 17 also shows the total fire and BLS incidents, and
the average square footage of fire station per incident (caiculated by dividing
the total square footage of all fire stations by the number of annual fire and BLS
incidents). The total incidents from stations (Table 17) is less than the total
incidents from apparatus (Table 16) because more than one apparatus
responds to many calls, but often one station is the source of all the apparatus
responding to a cali.
Table 17: Fire and BLS Building Inventory
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Fire
District Station Square Feet
Inventory Annual Per
Station S uare Feet Incidents Incident
11 -Mill Ave.S. 14,000
12-Kirkland Ave. NE 13,200
12-EOC 4,000
13- 108th Ave.SE 24,400
13-Shop 4,600
14-Lind Ave.S. 13,050
14-Tower 3,780
16- 156th Ave. SE 9,760
17-SE Petrovitsk Rd. 9,500
Total 96,290 12,421 7.75
Formula F-2: Annual Cost Per Apparatus
Formulas F-2 through F-4 are needed to calculate the apparatus cost per fire
incident, The first step in this calculation is to identify and annualize the cost of
each type of apparatus using formula F-2. The capital cost per apparatus is
based on the cost of primary response apparatus and major support
equipment. The annualized capital cost per apparatus is determined by
dividing the capital cost of each type of apparatus by its useful life;
F_2 Fire Apparatus _ Useful Life = Annual Cost per
Cost Apparatus
There are two variables that require explanation: (D) fire apparatus cost, and (E)
useful life,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 42
Company
� •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Variab/e (D);fire Apparatus Cost
Table 18 shows the annualized cost for each type of primary apparatus listed in
Table 16. The cost per apparatus includes the vehicle, fire and BLS equipment,
and communication equipment, The apparatus and equipment costs in Table
18 represent current costs to purchase a new fully equipped apparatus.
Variable (E): Useful Life
Table 18 also shows the number of years of useful life of each type of apparatus,
The annualized cost is calculated by dividing each apparatus cost by the useful
life of that apparatus,
Table 18: Annualized Apparatus Cost
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Useful Life
Total Cost of Annual
Per Component Cost
A aratus A aratus Years Col. 2/Col.3
Engine $ 494,531 10 $49,453.10
Ladder 1,004,968 20 50,248.40
Aid Vehicle 200,000 7 28,571.43
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 50,000 30 1,666.67
Brush Truck 30,000 30 1,000.00
Staff Vehicles 27,183 10 2,718.30
OtherA aratus/E ui ment 41,142 10.2 4,033.53
Formula F-3: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or BLS Incident
The second step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-3,
The capital cost per fire or BLS incident is calculated for each apparatus by
dividing the annualized cost per apparatus by the total annual incidents (both
fire and BLS) each type of apparatus responds to. Each type of apparatus is
analyzed separately because the number and type of apparatus responding to
an incident varies depending on the type and severity of the incident,
Annual Cost Annual Annual Apparatus
F-3. Per Apparatus - Responses Per = Cost Per Response
Apparatus ,
There are no new variables used in formula F-3. Both variables were developed ,
in previous formulas, li
In Table 19 the cost per emergency response is calculated for each type of �'�
apparatus. Table 19 shows the annualized cost of one of each type of '
apparatus (from Table 18) and the average annual emergency responses for
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 43
Company
• �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
each type of apparatus (from Table 16). Each apparatus cost per response is
calculated by dividing the annualized cost of that type of apparatus by the
total number of annual responses for the same type of apparatus.
Table 19: Apparatus Cost per Response
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Average
Annual Apparatus Cost
Annual Responses Per
Apparatus Per Response
T e of A aratus Cost A aratus Col.2�-Col.3
Engine $49,453.10 1,743 $ 28.38
Ladder 50,248.40 1,048 47.95
Aid Vehicle 28,571.43 971 29.43
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 1,666.67 4 416.67
Brush Truck 1,000.00 15 66.67
Staff Vehicles 2,718.30 32 83.73
OtherA aratuslE ui ment 4,033.53 4 1,040.91
Formula F-4: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
The third step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is formula F-4.
The total apparatus cost per fire incident is calculated by multiplying the
apparatus cost per response by the percent of fire incidents each type of
apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for the fact that multiple
apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that some apparatus are only
dispatched to specific types of incidents, The result of this calculation is a
weighted average total cost of apparatus per fire incident.
Apparatus Apparatus
F-4. Cost Per x Percent of Fire = Apparatus Cost Per
Response Responses Fire Incident
There is one new variable that requires explanation; (F) apparatus percent of fire
responses,
Variable (F):Apparatus Percent of Fire Responses
The next step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is to identify the
annual number of incidents that Renton's Fire Department responds to,
Emergency incidents are separated into two categories; Fire and BLS. Table 20
lists the annual number of fire and BLS incidents responded to during 2010.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 44
Company
.
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 20: Annual Fire and BLS Incidents
��) �2)
Average
Annual
T e of Incident Emer enc Incidents
Fire 2,931
Rescue 9,490
Total Annual Incidents 12,421
Different types of fire emergencies need different types or combinations of
apparatus. As a result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of
apparatus. This variance is an important factor in determining the cost per
incident. The percent of fire responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Table 21 by dividing the annual fire responses for each type of apparatus by
the total annual fire incidents from Table 20, The result of the calculation in Table
21 is the percent of fire incidents responded to by each type of apparatus. For
example, engines provided 2,979 responses to the 2,931 fire incidents, equaling
101 .6% of ail fire incidents, Another way to understand this data is that one
average fire incident involved 1 .016 engines, therefore the cost of responding to
a fire incident includes 101.6% of the cost of an engine. Other apparatus
typically respond to only some of the incidents. Ladder trucks, for example,
respond to 18.0% of fire emergency incidents, therefore the cost to respond to
the average fire incident includes 18% of a ladder truck,
Table 21: Fire Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Percent of Annual
Total Annual Fire Related
Fire-Related Annual Incidents
Responses for Fire-Related Dispatched To
T e of A aratus A aratus Incidents Col 2/2,931
Engine 2,979 101.6%
Ladder 529 18.0%
Aid Vehicle 547 18.7%
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 4 0.1%
Brush Truck 15 0.5%
Staff Vehicles 594 20.3%
Other A aratus/E ui ment 13 0.4%
Total 4,681 2,931
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per fire incident is shown in Table
22, The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 19) is
multiplied by the percent of fire incidents dispatched to (from Table 21) resulting
in the total apparatus cost per fire incident,
The "bottom line" in Table 22 is the apparatus cost per fire incident of $65.49, In
other words, every fire incident "uses up" $65,49 worth of apparatus.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 45
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 22: Total Apparatus Cost Per Fire Incident
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Apparatus
Percent Of Cost Per
Apparatus Fire Fire
Cost Per Incidents Incident
T e of A aratus Res onse Dis atched To Col.2*Col.3
Engine $ 28.38 101.6% $28.84
Ladder 47.95 18.0% 8.65
Aid Vehicle 29.43 18.7°/a 5.49
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 416.67 0.1% 0.57
Brush Truck 66.67 0.5% 0.34
Staff Vehicles 83.73 20.3% 16.97
OtherA aratus/E ui ment 1,040.91 0.4% 4.62
Total 65.49
Formula F-5: Annual Station Cost
The annual station cost is determined by dividing the station capital cost by its
useful life.
Station Cost Annual Station
F-5, Per Square - Useful Life = Cost Per Square
Foot Foot
There is one new variable that requires explanation; (G) station cost per square
foot.
Variab/e (F):Station Cost per Square Foot
Table 23 calculates the average annualized fire station cost per square foot.
The cost per square foot is based on the average cost of the most recently
constructed station (Station 12, built in 2003). The costs include land, building,
furnishings and equipment,
The useful life represents the length of time the station will last before it needs to
be replaced. The annualized cost is calculated by dividing the estimated cost
per square foot by the average useful life. The "bottom line" of Table 23 is an
annualized station cost of $ 11 .78 per square foot.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 46
Company
. � �
Rcte Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 23: Annualized Station Cost Per Square Foot
��) �2) �3) �4)
Annual
Building Building
Cost Useful Cost Per
Per Life square Foot
T e of Cost S uare Foot Years Col.2=Col.3
Land $ 74.43
Building, Furnishings and Equipment 405.08
Cost of Borrowin 109.54
Total 589.05 50 $11.78
Formula F-6: Station Cost Per Fire and BLS Incident
The station cost per fire and BLS incident is caiculated by multiplying the annual
station cost per square foot by the station square feet per fire and BLS incident.
Annual Station Station Square Annual Station
F-6. Cost Per x Feet Per Fire = Cost Per Fire and
Square Foot and BLS BLS Incident
Incident
There are no new variables used in formula F-b. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas.
This calculation is shown in Table 24: the station cost per square foot (from Table
23) is multiplied times the station square feet per incident (from Table 17). The
result is the station cost of $ 91.33 per fire and BLS incident. In other words, each
fire and BLS incident "uses up" $91 .33 worth of fire station.
Table 24: Station Cost Per Fire and BLS Incident
��) �2) �3)
Annualized
Annual Building Cost Per
Building Square Feet Fire and Rescue
Cost Per Per Incident
S uare Foot Incident Col. 1 *Col.2
$ 11.78 7.75 $91.33
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 47
Company
• � .
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Formula F-7: Annual Fire Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
The annual fire incident rate per unit of development (i,e., dwelling unit or
square foot of non-residential development) is calculated by dividing the total
annual fire incidents to each type of land use by the number of dwelling units or
square feet of non-residential development for that type of land use.
Annual Number of
Emergency Fire Dwelling Units Annual Fire
F-7. Incidents at - or Square Feet = Incidents Per Unit
Each Type of of Each Type of Development
Land Use of Land Use
There are two variables that require explanation; (H) annual emergency fire
incidents at land use types, and (I) number of dwelling units or square feet.
Variab/e (H):Annua/Emergency Fire lncidents at Land Use Types
The emergency incident data comes from the City's dispatch records and the
data showing dwelling units and square feet of non-residential development is
from King County's property records for the City of Renton.
The database identifies each incident by occupancy type such as residences,
office or retail, The land use categories in this study were created by combining
the numerous occupancy types into broad land use categories for impact fees,
such as residences, office, retail, restaurant and industrial/manufacturing.
During 2010, Renton's Fire Department responded to 2,931 fire incidents. Of the
2,931 fire incidents, 2,570 were traceable to a type of development (i.e„ the
incident occurred at a specific property address, such as a residence or
business) or they were traffic-related (occurred on a roadway). Of the 2,570 fire
incidents analyzed, 2,040 occurred at a specific property and 530 were traffic-
related. The records for the remaining 361 fire incidents did not allow the
incident to be traced to either a specific land use or a traffic-related incident,
therefore these 361 incidents are apportioned to land uses and traffic on the
same basis as the 2,570 incidents that are traceable. Table 25 shows the
allocation of the 361 incidents without land use designations to the property and
traffic categories using the same percentage as the 2,570 incidents for which a
location was identifiable. Thus 287 of the 361 fire incidents were allocated the
same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the other 74 fire incidents
were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 48
Company
. • �s
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 25: Fire Incidents
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Incidents Incidents
Identifiable Not Identifiable Total
Incident Location B Location B Location Incidents
Total 2,570 361 2,931
At Properties 2,040 287 2,327
%of Total 79.38% 79.38% 79.38%
In Roads and Streets 530 74 604
%of Total 20.62% 20.62% 20.62%
There are four tables on the following pages that present the allocation of fire
incidents among types of land use: Table 26 shows the fire incidents that were
identifiable by land use type, Table 27 shows the fire incidents that were traffic-
related. Table 28 combines the fire incident data (land use and traffic), and
Table 29 shows the fire incident rate per unit of development.
Table 26 shows the distribution of the 2,040 fire incidents that are traceable to a
land use along with the percent distribution of these 2,040 incidents, In column 4
the total 2,327 fire incidents to land use (2,040 traceable + 530 allocated) is
allocated among the land use types using the percent distribution column, The
result is the total annual fire incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 26: Fire Incidents At Specific Land Uses
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Percent
Fire Of All Allocate
Incidents Fire 2,327
Identifiable Incidents Incidents
To Identifiable To Land Uses
Land Use Land Use To Land Use Col. 3 x 2,327
RESIDENTIAL 1,373 67.30% 1,566
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 31 1.52% 35
Medical Care Facility 29 1.42% 33
Commercial:
Office 39 1.91% 44
Medical/Dental Office 17 0.83% 19
Retail 191 9.36% 218
Leisure Facilities 82 4.02% 94
RestauranULounge 28 1.37% 32
Industrial/Manufacturing 78 3.82% 89
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 25 1.23% 29
Education 131 6.42% 149
S ecial Public Facilities 16 0.78% 18
Total 2,040 2,327
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page d9
Company
�J � ,
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renfon
Variab/e (l):Number of Dwelling Units or Square Feet
The traffic-related fire incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the
amount of traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 27, the number
of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential construction in the City of
Renton is multiplied times the number of trips that are generated by each land
use type as reported in the 8th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). (The trip rates in are one-half of ITE's trip rates in
order to account for the trips each land use generates while excluding the
"return" trip). The result is the total trips associated with each land use type. The
percent of trips associated with each land use type is calculated from the total
of all trips,
In the final calculation in Table 27 the total 604 annual fire incidents that are
traffic-related (530 traceable + 74 allocated) is allocated among the land use
types using the percent of trips generated,
Table 27: Traffic Related Fire Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ITE Trip Annual
Generation 604
Rate/2 Traffic Related
Renton Per D.U. Percent Fire Incidents
Units or Total Of Per Unit Of
Of Per Unit Of Trips Trips Development
Land Use Develo ment Develo ment Col.2*Col.3 Generated Col.5*604
RESIDENTIAL 53,889 d.u. 4.23228 228,073 41.27% 249
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 675,098 sq.ft. 0.00446 3,011 0.54% 3
Medical Care Facility 505,735 sq.ft. 0.00825 4,172 0.75% 5
Commercial:
Office 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.00551 37,312 6.75% 41
Medical/Dental Office 916,863 sq.ft. 0.00551 5,052 0.91% 6
Retail 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.02147 159,213 28.81% 174
Leisure Facilities 851,359 sq.ft. 0.01541 13,119 2.37% 14
Restaurant/Lounge 358,466 sq.ft. 0.06358 22,791 4.12% 25
Industrial/Manufacturing 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.00349 52,635 9.52% 58
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.00456 4,761 0.86% 5
Education 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.00645 18,414 3.33% 20
S ecial Public Facilities 291,913 s .ft. 0.01396 4,075 0.74% 4
Total 552,630 100.00% 604
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 50
Company
� �
Rate Study fo�lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 28 summarizes the results of the analysis of fire incidents. The total annual
fire incidents is a combination of the fire incidents allocated among direct
responses to land use categories (from Table 26) and the allocation of traffic-
related incidents based on trip generation rates (from Table 27),
Table 28: Total Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annual Total
Fire Annual Annual
Incidents Traffic Related Fire Incidents
Direct to Fire Incidents By
Land Use Land Use B Land Use Land Use
RESIDENTIAL 1,566 249 1,815
NONRESIDENTIAL
� Hotel/Motel/Resort 35 3 39
Medical Care Facility 33 5 38
Commercial:
Office 44 41 85
Medical/Dental Office 19 6 25
Retail 218 174 392
Leisure Facilities 94 14 108
RestauranULounge 32 25 57
Industrial/Manufacturing 89 58 147
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 5 34
Education 149 20 170
S ecial Public Facilities 18 4 23
Total 2,327 604 2,931
The final step in determining the annual fire incident rate per unit of
development is shown in Table 29, The total annual fire incidents for each type
of land use (from Table 28) are divided by the number of dwelling units or square
feet of structures to calculate the annual incident rate per dwelling unit or
square foot. The units of development are the same as was used to determine
traffic-related incidents (see Table 27).
The results in Table 29 show how many times an average unit of development
has a fire incident to which the City of Renton responds, For example, a
residence has an average of 0.0336863 fire-related incidents per year. This is the
same as saying that 3.3% of single family/duplexes have a fire-related incident in
a year, Another way of understanding this information is that an average single
family/duplex would have a fire-related incident once every 30 years,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 51
Company
s •
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 29: Annual Fire Incidents By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual
Fire Units Annual Fire Incidents
Incidents To Of Per
Land Use Land Use Develo ment Unit of Develo ment
RESIDENTIAL 1,815 53,889 d.u. 0.0336863 perdwellingunit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 39 675,098 sq.ft. 0.0000572 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 38 505,735 sq.ft. 0.0000744 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 85 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.0000126 persqft
Medical/Dental Office 25 916,863 sq.ft. 0.0000272 per sq ft
Retail 392 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.0000529 per sq ft
Leisure Facilities 108 851,359 sq.ft. 0.0001267 per sq ft
RestauranULounge 57 358,466 sq.ft. 0.0001586 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing 147 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.0000097 persqft
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 34 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.0000323 persqft
Education 170 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.0000594 per sq ft
Special Public Facilities 23 291,913 sq.ft. 0.0000778 per sq ft
Total 2,931
Formula F-8: Fire Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of fire incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual fire incidents per unit of development (from Table 29)
times the annual capital cost per fire incident of each type of apparatus (from
Table 22) and fire station (from Table 24), then multiplying that result times the
useful life of the apparatus or fire station,8
Annual Fire Annual Useful Life Fire Incident
F_8 Incidents Per X Cost Per X Of _ Capital Cost
Unit Of Fire Apparatus Per Unit Of
Development Incident or Station Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-8, All three variables were
developed in previous formulas.
B Some fire impact fees are calculated for the economic life of the property paying the impact
fee, rather than the useful life of the apparatus and stations that provide the fire protection.
Both methods meet the legal requirements for impact fees. The method used in this rate study
charges impact fees for the first of each type of apparatus and station needed for new
development, but subsequent replacements of apparatus and stations are funded by other
revenues available to the City of Renton,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 52
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
In Tables 30- 37 on the following pages, each fire incident rate (from Table 29) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per fire incident. The result is then
multiplied times the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station.
For example, residential units average 0,0336863 fire incidents per year (i.e., 3.3%
of a fire incident per year), In Table 30, multiplying this incident rate times the
annual capitai cost of an engine ($28.84 from Table 22) per incident indicates a
cost of $0.9716 per dwelling unit to provide it with fire engines for one year,
Since an engine lasts 10 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 10 times
the annual rate, for a total of $9.7164,
Table 30: Engine Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Engine Engine
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $28.84 10
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.9716 $9.7164
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0017 0.0165
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0021 0.0215
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0004 0.0036
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0008 0.0078
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0015 0.0152
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0037 0.0365
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0046 0.0458
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0003 0.0028
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0009 0.0093
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0017 0.0171
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0022 0.0224
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 53
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 31 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a ladder truck
responding to fire incidents, The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
ladder's capital cost per fire incident ($8.65 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a ladder truck to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for ladder trucks,
Table 31: Ladder Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ladder Ladder
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $8.65 20
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.2915 $5.8302
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0005 0.0099
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0006 0.0129
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0001 0.0022
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0002 0.0047
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0005 0.0091
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0011 0.0219
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0014 0.0275
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0001 0.0017
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0003 0.0056
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0005 0.0103
S ecial Pubiic Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0007 0.0135
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 54
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 32 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is muitiplied by the
tender's capital cost per fire incident ($5,49 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 7-year usefui life of an aid vehicle to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 32: Aid Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Aid Vehicle Aid Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $5.49 7
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.1850 $ 1.2951
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0003 0.0022
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0004 0.0029
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0001 0.0010
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0003 0.0020
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0007 0.0049
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0009 0.0061
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0001 0.0004
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0002 0.0012
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0003 0.0023
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0004 0.0030 '
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 55
Company
� �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Table 33 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a hazardous
materials vehicle's response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is
multiplied by the hazardous materials vehicle's capital cost per fire incident
($0.57 from Table 22), The result is then multiplied times the 30-year useful life of
a hazardous materials vehicle to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for hazardous materials vehicles.
Table 33: Hazardous Materials Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Hazardous Hazardous
Materials Materials
Vehicle Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $0.57 30
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.0192 $0.5747
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0000 0.0010
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0000 0.0013
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0000 0.0002
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0000 0.0005
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0000 0.0009
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0001 0.0022
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0001 0.0027
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0002
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0000 0.0006
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0000 0.0010
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0000 0.0013
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 56
Company
� !
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 34 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for a brush truck's
response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
brush truck's capital cost per fire incident ($0,34 from Table 22). The result is then
multiplied times the 30-year useful life of a brush truck to calculate the capital
cost per unit of development for brush trucks.
Table 34: Brush Truck Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Brush Truck Brush Truck
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $0.34 30
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.0115 $0.3448
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0000 0.0006
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0000 0.0008
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0000 0.0001
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0000 0.0003
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0000 0.0005
, Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0000 0.0013
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0001 0.0016
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0001
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0000 0.0003
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0000 0.0006
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0000 0.0008
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 57
Company
� �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Table 35 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles
responding to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
staff vehicle capital cost per fire incident ($16.97 from Table 22). The result is
then multiplied times the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles.
Table 35: Staff Vehicle Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Staff Vehicle Staff Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $16.97 10
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.5716 $5.7163
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0010 0.0097
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0013 0.0126
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0002 0.0021
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0005 0.0046
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0009 0.0090
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0022 0.0215
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0027 0.0269
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0002 0.0016
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0005 0.0055
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0010 0.0101
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0013 0.0132
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 58
Company
,
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of 2enton
Table 36 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment's response to fire incidents. The incident rate (from Table
29) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment's capital cost per fire
incident ($4.62 from Table 22). The result is then multiplied times the 10,2-year
usefui life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for other apparatus/equipment.
Table 36: Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Other
Apparatus/ Apparatus/
Equipment Equipment
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $4.62 10.2
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $0.1555 $ 1.5863
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0003 0.0027
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0003 0.0035
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0001 0.0006
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0001 0.0013
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0002 0.0025
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0006 0.0060
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0007 0.0075
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0000 0.0005
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0001 0.0015
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0003 0.0028
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0004 0.0037
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 59
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 37 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that
house fire apparatus. The fire incident rate (from Table 29) is multiplied by the
fire station's capital cost per fire and BLS incident ($91.33 from Table 24). The
result is then multiplied times the 50-year useful life of a fire station to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Table 37: Fire Station Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire Station Fire Station
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual Fire $91.33 50
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.0336863 $3.0765 $ 153.8260
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0000572 0.0052 0.2614
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0000744 0.0068 0.3398
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000126 0.0012 0.0575
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0000272 0.0025 0.1241
Retail per sq ft 0.0000529 0.0048 0.2414
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0001267 0.0116 0.5786
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0001586 0.0145 0.7243
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000097 0.0009 0.0444
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000323 0.0029 0.1475
Education per sq ft 0.0000594 0.0054 0.2712
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0000778 0.0071 0.3552
Table 38 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from
Tables 30- 37) to show the total capital cost of responses to fire incidents for one
unit of residential development.
Table 38: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost for A Single-Family
Residential Unit
��) �2) �3)
Cost Com onent Cost Source
Engine $9.7164 Table 30
Ladder 5.8302 Table 31
Aid Vehicle 1.2951 Table 32
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 0.5747 Table 33
Brush Truck 0.3448 Table 34
Staff Vehicle 5.7163 Table 35
Other Apparatus/Equipment 1.5863 Table 36
Station 153.8260 Table 37
Total 178.8898
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all
types of apparatus and station in Table 39,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 60
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 39: Total Capital Cost Of Responses to Fire Incidents at Land Use
Categories
��) �2) �3)
Fire Incident
Life Cost
of All
Unit of Apparatus
Land Use Develo ment and Station
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $178.89
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.30
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.40
Commerciai:
Office per sq ft 0.07
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.14
Retail per sq ft 0.28
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.67
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.84
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.05
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.17
Education per sq ft 0.32
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.41
Formula F-9: Cost Per Apparatus Per Fire or BLS Incident
The annual cost per type of apparatus is the same as in Table 18, The cost per
apparatus per fire or BLS incident is the same as Table 19.
Formula F-10: Apparatus Cost Per BLS Incident
The calculation of apparatus cost per BLS incident is similar to the calculation of
costs per fire incident in Table 22, The total apparatus cost per BLS incident is
calculated by multiplying the cost per apparatus per response by the percent of
BLS incidents each type of apparatus responds to. This calculation accounts for
the fact that multiple apparatus are dispatched to many incidents, and that
some apparatus are only dispatched to specific types of incidents, The result of
this calculation is a weighted average total cost of apparatus per BLS incident.
Apparatus Apparatus Apparatus Cost Per
F-10, Cost Per x Percent of BLS _ BLS Incident
Response Responses -
There are no new variables used in formula F-10, The first variable is identical to
the data from Table 19, and the second variable concerning the percent of BLS
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page bl
Company
� �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
responses works identically to Variable F, but using BLS responses instead of fire
responses.
Different types of BLS emergencies need different types or combinations of �,
apparatus. As a result, the usage of apparatus varies among the types of
apparatus. This variance is an important factor in determining the cost per
incident. The percent of BLS responses by each type of apparatus is calculated
in Table 40 by dividing the annual BLS responses for each type of apparatus by
the total annual BLS incidents from Table 20. The result of the calculation in Table
40 is the percent of BLS incidents responded to by each type of apparatus, For
example, engines provided 5,734 responses to the 9,490 BLS incidents, equaling
60,4% of all BLS incidents, Another way to understand this data is that one
average BLS incident involved 0.604 engines therefore the cost of responding to
an BLS incident includes 60,4% of the cost of an engine.
Table 40: BLS Incident Response By Type of Apparatus
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Percent of Annual
Total Annual BLS Related
BLS Annual Incidents
Responses for BLS Dispatched To
T e of A aratus A aratus Incidents Col 2/9490
Engine $5,734 60.4%
Ladder 519 5.5%
Aid Vehicle 5,278 55.6%
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 0 0.0%
Brush Truck 0 0.0%
Staff Vehicles 315 3.3%
Other A aratuslE ui ment 18 0.2%
Total 11,864 9,490
The final step in calculating the apparatus cost per BLS incident is shown in Table
41 , The cost per response for each type of apparatus (from Table 19) is
multiplied by the percent of BLS incidents dispatched to (from Table 40) resulting
in the total apparatus cost per BLS incident. The "bottom line" in Table 41 is the
apparatus cost per BLS incident of $40,04, In other words, every BLS incident
"uses up" $40.04 worth of apparatus,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 62
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 41: Total Apparatus Cost Per BLS Incident
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Annuai Apparatus
Percent Of Cost Per
Apparatus BLS BLS
Cost Per Incidents Incident I
' T e of A aratus Res onse Dis atched To Col.2 Col.3 !i
Engine $ 28.38 60.4°/a $ 17.15
Ladder 47.95 5.5% 2.62
Aid Vehicle 29.43 55.6% 16.37 ,
Hazardous Materials Vehicle 416.67 0.0% 0.00 '
Brush Truck 66.67 0.0% 0.00
Staff Vehicles 83.73 3.3% 2.78
OtherA aratus/E ui ment 1,040.91 0.2% 1.97
Total 40.89
Formula F-11: Station Cost per Fire and BLS Incident
The station cost per BLS incident is the same as Table 24, The formula is the same
as Formula F-b,
Formula F-12: Annual BLS Incident Rate Per Unit Of Development
Formula F-12 is the same as Formula F-7, The annual BLS incident rate per unit of
development is calculated using the same methodology as described for fire
incidents in Tables 25- 29,
There are no new variables used in formula F-12. The variables are identical to
those used in Formula F-7, but using BLS incidents instead of fire incidents,
During 2010, Renton's Fire Department responded to 9,490 BLS incidents, Of the
9,490 BLS incidents 9,371 were traceable to a type of development (i.e., the
incident occurred at a specific type of property such as a residence or business)
or they were traffic-related (occurred on a roadway) and were included in the
following detailed analysis of incidents to land uses, Of the 9,371 BLS incidents
analyzed 7,944 occurred at a specific property and 1,421 were traffic-related.
The remaining 119 BLS incidents were not traceable to either a specific property
or a traffic-related incident, therefore these 119 are apportioned to land uses
and traffic on the same basis as the 9,371 incidents that are traceable, Table 42
shows the allocation of the 119 incidents without land use designations to the
property and traffic categories using the same percentage as the 9,371
incidents for which a location was identifiable. Thus 101 of the 119 BLS incidents
were allocated the same as the incidents at identifiable lands uses, and the
other 18 BLS incidents were allocated the same as the traffic-related incidents.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 63
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 42: BLS Incidents
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Incidents Incidents
Identifiable Not Identifiable Total
Incident Location B Location B Location Incidents
Total 9,371 119 9,490
At Properties 7,944 101 8,045
%of Total 84.77°/a 84.77% 84.77%
In Roads and Streets 1,427 18 1,445
%of Total 15.23°/a 15.23% 15.23%
There are four tables that present the allocation of BLS incidents among types of
land use: Table 43 shows the BLS incidents that were identifiable by land use
type, Table 44 shows the BLS incidents that were traffic-related. Table 45
combines the BLS incident data (land use and traffic), and Table 46 shows the
BLS incident rate per unit of development,
Table 43 shows the distribution of the 7,944 BLS incidents that are traceable to a �
land use along with the percent distribution of these 7,944 incidents. In column 4
the total 8,045 BLS incidents to land use (7,944 traceable + 101 allocated) is
allocated among the land use types using the percent distribution column, The
result is the total annual BLS incidents at each of the land use types.
Table 43: BLS Incidents At Specific Land Uses
(1) (2) (3) (4)
BLS Percent Allocate
Incidents Of All BLS 8,045
Identifiable Incidents BLS Incidents
To Identifiabie To Land Uses
Land Use Land Use To Land Use Col.3 x 8,045
RESIDENTIAL 5,448 68.58% 5,517
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 82 1.03% 83
Medical Care Facility 788 9.92% 798
Commercial:
Office 113 1.42% 114
Medical/Dental Office 198 2.49% 201
Retail 510 6.42% 516
Leisure Facilities 199 2.51% 202
RestauranULounge 78 0.98% 79
Industrial/Manufacturing 81 1.02% 82
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 0.37% 29
Education 163 2.05% 165
Special Public Facilities 255 3.21°/a 258
7,944 100.00% 8,045
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 64
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
The traffic-related BLS incidents are allocated to land uses on the basis of the
amount of traffic generated by each type of land use. In Table 44, the number
of dwelling units and square feet of non-residential construction in Renton is '
multiplied times the number of trips that are generated by each land use type in
the same manner as Table 27. The result is the total trips associated with each
land use type. The percent of trips associated with each land use type is
calculated from the total of all trips,
In the final calculation in Table 44 the total 1,145 annual BLS incidents that are
traffic-related (1,427 traceable + 18 allocated) is allocated among the land use
types using the percent of trips generated,
Table 44: Traffic Related BLS Incidents (Allocated to Land Uses)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
ITE Trip Allocate
Generation 1,445
Rate/2 Traffic-Related
Renton Per D.U. Percent BLS
Units or Total Of Incidents By
Of Per Unit Of Trips Trips Land Use
Land Use Develo ment Develo ment Col.2"Col.3 Generated Col 5* 1,445
RESIDENTIAL 53,889 d.u. 4.23228 228,073 41.27% 596
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 675,098 sq.ft. 0.00446 3,011 0.54% 8
Medical Care Facility 505,735 sq.ft. 0.00825 4,172 0.75% 11
Commercial:
Office 6,771,692 sq.ft. 0.00551 37,312 6.75% 98
Medical/Dental Office 916,863 sq.ft. 0.00551 5,052 0.91% 13
Retail 7,415,594 sq.ft. 0.02147 159,213 28.81% 416
Leisure Facilities 851,359 sq.ft. 0.01541 13,119 2.37% 34
Restaurant/Lounge 358,466 sq.ft. 0.06358 22,791 4.12% 60
Industrial/Manufacturing 15,081,742 sq.ft. 0.00349 52,635 9.52% 138
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 1,044,126 sq.ft. 0.00456 4,761 0.86% 12
Education 2,854,937 sq.ft. 0.00645 18,414 3.33% 48
S ecial Public Facilities 291,913 s .ft. 0.01396 4,075 0.74% 11
552,630 100.00% 1,445
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 65
Company
� �
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Table 45 summarizes the results of the analysis of BLS incidents. The total annual
BLS incidents is a combination of the BLS incidents allocated among direct
responses to land use categories (from Table 43) and the allocation of traffic-
related incidents based on trip generation rates (from Table 44). ,,
Table 45: Total Annual BLS Incidents By Land Use II
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Total
Annual Annual Annual
BLS Incidents Traffic Related BLS Incidents
Direct to BLS Incidents By
Land Use Land Use B Land Use Land Use
RESIDENTIAL 5,517 596 6,114
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 83 8 91
Medical Care Facility 798 11 809
Commercial:
Office 114 98 212
Medical/Dental Office 201 13 214
Retail 516 416 933
Leisure Facilities 202 34 236
Restaurant/Lounge 79 60 139
Industrial/Manufacturing 82 138 220
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 29 12 42
Education 165 48 213
Speciai Public Facilities 258 11 269
Total 8,045 1,445 9,490
The final step in determining the annual BLS incident rate per unit of
development is shown in Table 46, The total annual BLS incidents for each type
of land use (from Table 45) are divided by the number of dweliing units or square
feet of structures to calculate the annual BLS incident rate per dweiling unit or
square foot, The units of development are the same as was used to determine
traffic-related incidents (see Table 44), The results in Table 46 show how many
times an average unit of development has an BLS incident to which the City of
Renton responds. For example, a residential unit has an average of 0,1134479
BLS incidents per year. This is the same as saying that 11 .3% of all residential
dwellings have an BLS incident in a year, Another way of understanding this
information is that an average residential dwelling unit would have a BLS
incident once every 8.8 years.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page bb
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 46: Annual BLS Incidents By Land Use '�'
��) �2) �3) �4)
Total
Annuai
BLS Units
Incidents To Of Annual BLS Incidents per
Land Use Land Use Develo ment Unit of Develo ment
RESIDENTIAL 6,114 53,889 0.1134479 perdwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 91 675,098 0.0001347 per sq ft
Medical Care Facility 809 505,735 0.0015995 per sq ft
Commercial:
Office 212 6,771,692 0.0000313 per sq ft
Medical/Dental Office 214 916,863 0.0002331 per sq ft
Retail 933 7,415,594 0.0001258 per sq ft
Leisure Facilities 236 851,359 0.0002770 per sq ft
RestauranULounge 139 358,466 0.0003866 per sq ft
Industrial/Manufacturing 220 15,081,742 0.0000146 persqft
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 42 1,044,126 0.0000401 persqft
Education 213 2,854,937 0.0000747 per sq ft
Special Public Facilities 269 291,913 0.0009211 per sq ft
Total 9,490
Formula F-13: BLS Incident Capital Cost Per Unit Of Development
The capital cost of BLS incidents per unit of development is determined by
multiplying the annual BLS incidents per unit of development (from Table 45)
times the annual capital cost per BLS incident of each type of apparatus (from
Table 41) and fire station (from Table 24), then multiplying that result times the
useful life of the apparatus or fire station.9
Annual BLS Annual Useful Life BLS Incident
Incidents Per Cost Per Of Capital Cost
F-13. Unit Of X BLS X Apparatus - Per Unit Of
Development Incident or Station Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-13. The variables are identical to
those used in Formula F-8, but using BLS incident rates and costs instead of fire
incident rates and costs.
In Tables 47 -52 on the following pages, each BLS incident rate (from Table 45) is
multiplied by the annual capital cost per BLS incident, The result is then
multiplied times the useful life of the apparatus or station to calculate the
° Footnote 8 applies to formula F-13 as well as F-8,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 67
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
capital cost per unit of development for each type of apparatus and station,
This series of tables does not include the cost for a hazardous materials vehicle
or brush truck because, as shown in Table 40, they do not respond to BLS
incidents, therefore the apparatus cost per BLS incident for these two types of
apparatus is zero in Table 41 ,
Table 47 calculates the BLS related capital costs of an engine per unit of '
development.. For example, residential units average 0.1134479 BLS incidents
per year (i.e., 11 ,3% of a BLS incident per year). Multiplying this times the annual
capital cost of $17.15 per incident (from Table 41) produces the result that it
costs $1.9453 per dwelling unit to provide it with engines for one year. Since the
engine lasts 10 years, the residential dwelling needs to pay for 10 times the
annual rate, for a total of $19.4529,
Table 47: Engine Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Engine Engine
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $ 17.15 10
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $1.9453 $ 19.4529
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0023 0.0231
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0274 0.2743
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0005 0.0054
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0040 0.0400
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0022 0.0216
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0047 0.0475
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0066 0.0663
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0002 0.0025
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0007 0.0069
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0013 0.0128
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0009211 0.0158 0.1579
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 68
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 48 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
ladder truck's capital cost per BLS incident ($2.62 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 20-year useful life of a ladder truck to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for ladder trucks,
Table 48: Ladder Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ladder Ladder
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $2.62 20
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $0.2975 $5.9496
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0004 0.0071
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0042 0.0839
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0016
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0006 0.0122
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0003 0.0066
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0007 0.0145
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0010 0.0203
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0008
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0021
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0002 0.0039
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0009211 0.0024 0.0483
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 69
Company
• i
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 49 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
aid vehicle's capital cost per BLS incident ($16.37 from Table 41), The result is
then multiplied times the 7-year useful life of an aid vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for aid vehicles.
Table 49: Aid Vehicle Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Aid Vehicle Aid Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $16.37 7
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 1.8569 $12.9962
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0022 0.0154
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0262 0.1833
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0005 0.0036
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0038 0.0267
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0021 0.0144
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0045 0.0317
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0063 0.0443
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0002 0.0017
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0007 0.0046
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0012 0.0086
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0009211 0.0151 0.1055
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 70
Company
! �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 50 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles
responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
staff vehicle's capital cost per BLS incident ($2,78 from Table 41). The result is
then multiplied times the 10-year useful life of a staff vehicle to calculate the
capital cost per unit of development for staff vehicles,
Table 50: Staff Vehicle Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use
Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Staff Vehicle Staff Vehicle
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $2.78 10
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $0.3153 $3.1531
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0004 0.0037
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0044 0.0445
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0009
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0006 0.0065
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0003 0.0035
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0008 0.0077
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0011 0.0107
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0004
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0011
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0002 0.0021
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0009211 0.0026 0.0256
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 71
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renfon
Table 51 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for other
apparatus/equipment responding to BLS incidents. The incident rate (from
Table 46) is multiplied by the other apparatus/equipment's capital cost per BLS
incident ($1 .97 from Table 41), The result is then multiplied times the 10.2-year
useful life of other apparatus/equipment to calculate the capital cost per unit of
development for other apparatus/equipment.
Table 51: Other Apparatus/Equipment Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at
Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Other Other
Apparatus/ Apparatus/
Equipment Equipment
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $1.97 10.2
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er BLS Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $0.2240 $2.2846
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0003 0.0027
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.0032 0.0322
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0001 0.0006
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0005 0.0047
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0002 0.0025
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0005 0.0056
RestauranULounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0008 0.0078
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0000 0.0003
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0001 0.0008
Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0001 0.0015
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0009211 0.0018 0.0186
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 72
Company
� •
Rate Study for Impact Fees • City of Renton
Table 52 calculates the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations that
house BLS apparatus. The BLS incident rate (from Table 46) is multiplied by the
fire station's capital cost per fire and BLS incident ($91,33 from Table 24), The
result is then multiplied times the 50-year useful life of a fire station to calculate
the capital cost per unit of development for fire stations.
Table 52: Fire Station Cost of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use Categories
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire Station Fire Station
Cost @ Life Cost @
Unit of Annual BLS $91.33 50
Land Use Develo ment Incident Rate er Incident Year Life
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit 0.1134479 $ 10.3610 $518.0517
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.0001347 0.0123 0.6150
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.0015995 0.1461 7.3040
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.0000313 0.0029 0.1430
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.0002331 0.0213 1.0645
Retail per sq ft 0.0001258 0.0115 0.5744
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.0002770 0.0253 1.2649
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.0003866 0.0353 1.7655
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.0000146 0.0013 0.0665
Institutions:
I Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.0000401 0.0037 0.1829
, Education per sq ft 0.0000747 0.0068 0.3410
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.0009211 0.0841 4.2063
Table 53 combines the capital costs of all types of apparatus and station (from
Tables 47 - 52) to show the total capital cost of responses to BLS incidents for
one unit of residential development.
Table 53: Example of Calculation of Total Capital Cost Of Responses to BLS
Incidents for a Single-Family Residence
��) �2) �3)
Cost Com onent Cost Source
Engine $ 19.4529 Table 47
Ladder 5.9496 Table 48
Aid Vehicle 12.9982 Table 49
Staff Vehicle 3.1531 Table 50
Other Apparatus/Equipment 2.2846 Table 51
Station 518.0517 Table 52
Total 561.8901
This example is repeated for each land use to combine its capital costs of all
types of apparatus and stations in Table 54,
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 73
Company
. •
Rate Study fo�lmpact Fees • City of Renton
Table 54: Total Capital Cost Of Responses to BLS Incidents at Land Use
Categories
��) �2) �3)
BLS Incident
Life Cost
of All
Unit of Apparatus
Land Use Development an Station
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $561.89
NONRESIDENT�AL
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.67
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 7.92
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.16
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 1.15
Retail per sq ft 0.62
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 1.37
RestauranULounge per sq ft 1.91
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.07
Instituiions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.20
Education per sq ft 0.37
Special Public Facilities per sq ft 4.56
Formula F-14: Fire and BLS Cost Per Unit Of Development
The fire and BLS costs per unit of development (from tables 39 and 54) are
combined to determine the total fire and BLS cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot.
Fire Incident BLS Incident Fire and BLS Cost
F-14, Capital Cost + Capital Cost _ Per Unit Of
Per Unit of Per Unit of Development
Development Development
There are no new variables used in formula F-14. Both variables were developed
in previous formulas and tables.
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 74
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
In Table 55 the fire and BLS costs per unit of development (from Tables 39 and
54) are added together to determine the combined total fire and BLS cost per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot.
Table 55: Total Cost of Response o Fire and BLS Incidents by Land Use Category
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fire and BLS
Fire Incident BLS Incident Life Cost
Life Cost Life Cost of All
of All of All Apparatus
Unit of Apparatus Apparatus and Station
Land Use Develo ment an Station an Station Col. 3+Col.4
RESIDENTIAL per dwelling unit $ 178.89 $561.89 $740.78
NONRESIDENTIAL 1
Hotel/Motel/Resort per sq ft 0.30 0.67 0.97
Medical Care Facility per sq ft 0.40 7.92 8.32
Commercial:
Office per sq ft 0.07 0.16 0.22
Medical/Dental Office per sq ft 0.14 1.15 1.30
Retail per sq ft 0.28 0.62 0.90
Leisure Facilities per sq ft 0.67 1.37 2.04
Restaurant/Lounge per sq ft 0.84 1.91 2.76
Industrial/Manufacturing per sq ft 0.05 0.07 0.12
Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit per sq ft 0.17 0.20 0.37
Education per sq ft 0.32 0.37 0.69
S ecial Public Facilities er s ft 0.41 4.56 4.98
Formula F-15: Adjustments and Impact Fees
The final step in determining the fire services impact fee is to reduce the cost per
dwelling unit or non-residential square foot by subtracting any credits for other
revenue from existing and new development that the City of Renton will use to
pay for part of the cost of the same fire protection facilities that are the basis of
the impact fee, and any adjustment to comply with RCW 82.02,050(7).
Fire and BLS Adjustment Impact Fee
F-15, Cost Per Unit of - For Revenue = Per Unit Of
Development Credits Development
There is one new variable that requires explanation: (J) adjustment for revenue
credits,
Variab/e (J):Ad%ustment for Revenue Credits
Renton does not have dedicated revenues for fire stations and apparatus,
therefore there is no adjustment for future payments of other revenues that are
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 201 1 Page 75
Company
� •
R�te Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
used to pay for the same new fire stations and apparatus that are required to
serve the new development. The only revenue sources to be included in the
adjustment are those that are used for fire services facilities capacity expansion
according to law and local policy or practice.
Adjustments are not given for other payments that are not used for new fire
services facilities needed for new development. Such an adjustment would
extend to payments of all taxes for all purposes to all forms of governments,
which contradicts the well-established system of restricting fees, charges, and
many taxes for specific public facilities and services10� Adjustments are not given
for revenues that are used for repair, maintenance or operating costs because
impact fees are not used for such expenses.
The final step in Table 56 (on the next page) is to further reduce the impact fees
that would be charged to new development in order to implement RCW
82.02.050(7) which provides that "...the financing for system improvements to
serve new development ... cannot rely solely on impact fees," The statute
provides no further guidance, and "not rely solely" could be anything between
0,1%and 99,9%.
10 RCW 82.02.060(1)(b) requires an adjustment for revenue credits to be given only for
"...payments made or reasonably anticipated to be made by new development to pay for
particular system improvements in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, or other
payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement (emphasis
added);"
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 76
Company
� �
Rate Study for lmpact Fees • City of Renton
The adjustment of 3% used in Table 56 is the same adjustment percent used for
transportation impact fees. Table 56 shows the cost per dwelling unit or non-
residential square foot from Table 55, the 3% adjustment, and the impact fee
after the adjustment is subtracted from the fuli cost,
Table 56: Fire Impact Fees By Land Use
(1) (2) (3) (4)
, Total Fire and BLS
Fire and Impact Fee
, BLS Per
Cost of Credit Unit of
Impact of Adjustment @ Development
Land Use Develo ment 3.00% Col.2-Col.3
RESIDENTIAL $740.78 $22.22 $718.56 per dwelling unit
NONRESIDENTIAL
Hotel/Motel/Resort 0.97 0.03 0.94 per square foot
Medical Care Facility 8.32 0.25 8.07 per square foot
Commercial:
Office 0.22 0.01 0.21 per square foot
Medical/Dental Office 1.30 0.04 1.26 per square foot
Retail 0.90 0.03 0.88 per square foot
Leisure Facilities 2.04 0.06 1.98 per square foot
RestauranULounge 2.76 0.08 2.67 per square foot
� Industrial/Manufacturing 0.12 0.00 0.12 per square foot
' Institutions:
Church/Non-Profit 0.37 0.01 0.36 per square foot
Education 0.69 0.02 0.66 per square foot
S ecial Public Facilities 4.98 0.15 4.83 er s uare foot
Henderson,
Young & August 26, 2011 Page 77
Company
� +
� �
� City of �,�, �
� ;, �.�,
� � • �
�f
�<'�,c�''
Community Services ��e�'�;�tment
Recreation Division �
: ; . Cost Recovery ..:
and
Pr+�gram Pricing
Guidelines
RENTON
AHEAD OF TtiE CURVE
� ,
COST �VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI�NES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Cost Recovery and Program Pricing Guidelines wereprepared to develop a methodology for
determining the appropriate target of cost recovery for current and future services. This model
provides guidance for determining which program services should be fee based, and provides a
method to ensure that current services are priced at a level co,mmensurate with Renton Results
directives. This guide will help the Recreation Division determine how well aligned its current
pricing practices are with cost recovery goals and establisti`a�methodology for appropriately
aligning current and future program services. I
Cost recovery refers to the amount of revenue th�t'the Recreation Division takes in from fees,
charges, and alternative funding in proportion��to operational expenditures;, The recent past has
been challenging for recreation programming se'r'vices to meet revenue expectations and
reduce expenditures. Cost Recovery and Program P�`i�ing Guidelines will provide direction to
sustain quality program services in,a.growing community;v+ihile costs of doing business
continue to rise.
In the winter of 2011,the Recreation D'ivisi.on�ctecided to examine.Cost Recovery and Program
;:r::.
Pricing issues. The Recreation Team began;work�on:�ddressing issues related to cost recovery
and subsidy philosophie� �ertinent to how we,:deliV�r:�stlstainable services. The Recreation
Team identified direct,:�nd indirect costs associatetl with p�ov�ding programs and services, and
defined various fees arict;participant categories th'a� pertained to the Cost Recovery
, Programming Tiers. They"tlefined:these terms speci�ically relating to Public Good and Private
Good criteria which ultimately defined �ategories of�programs and services associated with
target.cos# recovery.ranges.
Additionally,the Recreation Team determined the Cost Recovery and Program Pricing
Guidelines were to be implemented beginning in the Winter/Spring programming of 2012. An �
annual review of.the Cost Recovery and Program Pricing model will be conducted to adjust to I
inflation, community input, and program evaluation recommendations. '
R E N T O I�1
AFIEAD OF THE CUIt�E
2
' j COS'�OVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................2
Cost Recovery Guidelines...................................................................... 5
r. ....................................................
::-.,:.
Section 1. Cost Recove DEFINITION ��<>'=� 5
ry .......................................... ...................................................
.....
Cost Recovery Defined.........................................................:::::::::::......................................................5
;...... --
Cost Recovery in Recreation ............................................::.z«,:...::.:;i,...................................................5
- ..
Section 2: Vision, Mission,Goals,and Strategies........................:............::::................................................7
Vision................................................................... ......................... ...........................................7
Mission........................................................... ..:R<: ::................................... ....................................7
Goals................................................................. .......................................... ..............................7
.:.. .
Community Services Department Mission...........::.:.:...........................................................................8
Recreation Division Mission ......................8
....................................... .. ..... .,. ..................................
Livable Community Goals..............:................................:::..::.:.:::...........................................................8
�.._. .,
Livable Community Strategies.....:`�:::...::.............................::::>..............................................................8
Section 3: Description of Benefits Contin�urri���1 Filters.............::c;;,;.....................................................10
WhoBenefits?............................................. ..... ...................... ...............................................10
..
, .
Community Benefit/Individual Benefit Coptinuurrt.:.........................::::..............................................10
CommunityBenefi�_i:::..... . ...................... ..... :;;:•i;,;: ..............................................................10
Individual Benefit:::r;>::....... .................... .... ....... ::: ........................................................10
MixedBenefit.....:... ........ ..................... .............................................................................10
.::-:. -..:.
Cost Recovery Tier Defr�ition..:::::.........................:;.:i.........................................................................10
SecondaryFilters........... ::. :i: .,. ................... ...................................................................11
.::::.:::.::.:.::.. .
Section 4:,-Sorting Services into Tie�'S.....:.:::::.:...
........................................................................................14
_ ; . ,.;:,,.. _
Prograrn'Tier Cie'scr�ptions...............:�:.a...........::.::.:.....................................................................................14
: -
--::::
1. Full Subsidy"Pt'ograms.........:>:>,,.............:'::::...............................................................................14
2. Nttsstly Subsidiied Programs....::::...............................................................................................14
....
3. Partiai Subsidy Programs..............:.:.
...........................................................................................14
4. Self-Sustaining Progr�ri�s.............................................................................................................15
„
Section 5: Direct, Ineremental, Origoing and Overhead Cost Descriptions...............................................16
.....
DirectProgram Costs......:..........::.:..............................................................................................................16
OverheadCosts................. ... ..............................................................................................................16
...
Section 6: Current Cost Recov�rjr Analysis(FY 2010).................................................................................17
PROGRAMPRICING.....................................................................................................................................18
PricingGuidelines........................................................................................................................................18
RecommendedFees............................................................................................................................18
Determining Program Pricing..............................................................................................................18
Fixed Incremental and Ongoing Costs for Renton Recreation Programming.....................................18
Applying Full-Time Employee Costs with Benefits..............................................................................19
PricingFactors.....................................................................................................................................19
�
RENTOI�
AHEAD OF 1'HE CUIIVE
3
.
COST �VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI�NES .
InstructorPayments............................................................................................................................20
General Recreation Program Report...................................................................................................21
RefundPolicy.......................................................................................................................................21
Appendix A Recreation Programming Target Outcomes...........................................................................23
Appendix B Program Proposal and Budget................................................................................................25
ProgramProposat........................................................................................................................................25
ProgramBudget..........................................................................................................................................27
R� � To �
AHEAD OR THE CURVE
4
' COSI�OVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
COST RECOVERY GUIDELINES
SECTION 1. COST RECOVERY DEFINITION
Cost Recovery De�ned
Cost recovery at a basic level is a very easy to understand—it is the percentage of expenditures
recovered by generating revenue for any undertaking. ;�;;;;:;;:;
Having cost recovery goals is a concept very familiar to privat�:��cto'r.:;�nd for-profit enterprises because
their very existence depends on the ability to recover at least what they;spend and generally to turn as
much profit as possible. .
In the public sector, however,the concept of a specific cost recovery policy is fair1y new. While there
may have been revenue expectations for certain are'a'�.qf the budget in a public sector agency, or even
enterprise funds that have a full cost recovery expectatiori;the r��jprity of services delivered by the
public sector have focused on the expense budget which is tieteri'�ined by the amount of tax dollars
collected. This has historically been the:�se with the field of P�;t�Cs and Recreation where funding
primarily comes from public subsidy and"�tie"�s�E-vices themselves were not expected to generate any
significant revenue. Staying within budget b,y,not overspending has fypically been the mandated goal,
where revenue generation was secondary. '�
Cost Recovery in Recreat'ion
Applying explicit cost reco�ie.ry pol`iG�es to recreation departments is a relatively new idea and is not
without resistance within t�ie".field.;�any believe that'prpviding recreation opportunities and services is
�:.:,�..,
a public service,and treating it�ik�:;�iny pther business undermines the core of its primary mission. Parks
and recr,�atiiiri.�er"vices provide irYiirieasurable benefits to the entire community and aspire to be open
and acces"sible to ait:"T�e goal is to serVe as many as possible and have the greatest beneficial impact to
the comrriunity.
In private busin�ss the goal is to generate revenue, and the inability to pay limits access to services.
Another source of resistance for,Gost recovery policies in recreation is that it has been historically free or
low cost,and this is what;���ize�s:;and recreation professionals have come to expect. Public recreation
�.,.:.. ..:........
programs originated as soci��programs much the same as roads,fire, or police. There was no
expectation to charge fees for programs and they were mostly supported by tax dollars. It has long
' been assumed that private business practices were not generally applicable to public recreation
programs because the goal is not the same;the benefits of recreation are not measured in dollars.
As resources shrink and the cost of providing services has grown, recreation departments across the
country began adopting some business practices from the private sector, including creating cost
recove olicies and a I in them to the field of ublic recreation services. The result is an array of
rYp , pPY g p
_---
RE � TON
AHtAD OF THE CURVE
5
I COST�VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI�NES ` .
cost recovery models that help departments become better stewards of the public funds,while taking
into account the public benefit of the services and recognizing the need for some level of public subsidy.
Cost recovery in recreation is rarely about recovering the full cost of providing services or generating a
profit. In fact, if public recreation departments were held to the same cost recovery standards as
private businesses they would most likely fail and the programs that provide the greatest benefit to the
community and those most in need would certainly not be offered.
A sound cost recovery policy for public recreation should balance the social mission of recreation to
provide opportunities and services that improve the quality of life,�for residents, and contributes to a
more livable community with the reality of shrinking budgets;:lirriited_.resources and the need to be
more efficient and accountable by prioritizing services at levels that car►be sustained by revenue. ,
Generating revenue through user fees, sponsorship�,;Ei�rtnerships,grants, and other funding sources
helps recreation departments reduce taxpayer sub���y in order to continue proVid.ing services without
having to make severe cuts.
Through establishing a cost recovery policy that identifies whiat seiarices are most beneficial to the
community as a whole and merits a higlier,subsidy, as well as what services have the potential to ��
generate higher revenue when equitably priced, recreation departti�ents can continue to offer both.
R� r� Tor�
AFiF.AD OF TH6 CU1lVE
6
' CO�COVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING �ELINES
SECTION 2: VISION, MISSION, GOALS, AND STRATEGIES
The starting point for developing a cost recovery plan is to understand the mission of the organization ,
and how the division supports that mission. It is important that the organizational values reflect the
community mission and the division's mission supports those goals,strategies,and values of the
organization.
In order to develop a clear and consistent policy that reflects the mis5ion of the community,
organization, department,and division it is helpful to understan¢:h:4iy�the mission at each level of the
organization ties in to the others and becomes more specific�rit#;i�nstxuctive as you go from city to
department to division. The City of Renton Recreation Division i5��pari�vf.the Community Services
Department within the City of Renton. The mission,vision, and goals fo���ach level of the organization
are not independent of each other, but rather refine�,specific pieces of a ciirtsistent, overarching
community vision. ..
The Renton Business Plan spells out broad organizational goals and;.provides a "big p�icture"vision for
Renton. Within the Renton Business Plan,five important goals are�-identified that help guide the future
of the City as a whole,and help to defi�i�.each department's corg'3ervices. While the Community
Services Department is instrumental in�#i���illing multiple goals in`#h�,Renton Business Plan,the vast
majority of Recreation programs are desigiied to::meet the service demands that contribute to the
livability of the community,or simply put, "livable�cotnmunity." Everytiiing that the Recreation
Department does should�dYance this goal through one of;Xhe five categaries of strategies identified
within "livable community{'�'The missions,visiorts,go,al,s;arid_strategies follow.
Vision
Renton: The center of opportuhity.i�:the,Puget Sound Region where families and businesses thrive.
Mission` `:
The City of Renton, in parfnership and communication with residents, businesses, and schools, is
dedicated to::
• Providing.a healthy, w�lcoming atmosphere where citizens choose to live, raise
families, anii take pride��r�their community.
• Promoting plaiirt�d gro�yth and economic vitality.
• Valuing our diverslty v,f language, housing, culture, backgrounds, and choices.
• Capitalize on the divers7ty of the community to build stronger neighborhoods
and ensure the availability of City services to all.
• Creating a positive work environment.
• Meeting service demands through innovation and commitment to excellence.
Goals
1. Meet the service demands that contribute to the livability of the community.
2. Manage growth through sound urban planning.
RENTON
AEIFAD OF Fli£ CURVE
7
COST R�VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI[�JES
3. Influence decisions that impact the City.
4. Promote strong neighborhoods.
5. Promote citywide economic development.
Community Services Department Mission
To provide to the citizens of Renton quality of life opportunities through leisure time activities and
Human Services Programs. This includes maintaining parks,trails,facilities,a museum,and offering a
variety of recreational activities for people of all ages. The Department also provides information and
referral programs.
Recreation Division Mission
The Recreation Division of the Community Services D.epartment promotes and supports a more livable
community by providing opportunities for the pubJlG�tp participate in diverse recreational,cultural,
athletic,and aquatic programs and activities.
Livable Community Goals
Meet the service demands that contribute,.to the livability of tFie community:
• Prioritize services at levels that cati b�.�ustained by revenue.
• Plan, develop, and maintain quality:services;,infrastructure, dnd�rmenities.
• Respond to growing service demands�while meeting the unique requirements of a diverse
population through Aartnerships, innov6tion, ariof.outcvme management.
Livable Community Strategies `'. .
Provide avenues for residents to meet their social;educational, personal,and professional needs
and foster community engagement=and dialogue that:
• Areinclusive of all ages, abilities, and.cultures.
• ii�elcome new participants and forge new relationships among residents.
• P'r'o;i�ide diverse re.'�reational, inte�lectual, cultural, and artistic activities and
progrdms.
• Strength"en.pnd encourage a sense of belonging through volunteerism and
neighborhood involvem"ent.
• Provide opporturli�ies fQ�social interaction, shared experiences, and cultural
exchange. � ,
Provide opportunities for fearning and enrichment:
• Provide diverse intellectual,cultural, artistic, and recreational activities and
programs that meet the needs and interests of the public.
• Promote opportunities for shared experiences, cultural exchange,social interaction,
and volunteerism within the community.
• Develop and maintain collections of materials and resources that support the
intellectual and informational needs of the public.
RENTON
AHEAD Ofi SEIE CUAVE
8
' COS�OVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
• Incorporate public art into the design and creation of community spaces, and
maintain it.
• Support formal education, life-long learning, and personal growth.
Create clean,safe, healthy,well-maintained,and accessible places:
• Clean,safe, well-maintained, and accessible parks, open spaces, trails,facilities,
right-of-ways, and other City properties.
• Public and private developments that are accessible to all,-are i�ve11-landscaped, and
easily maintained '
.;..
• Provide safe, accessible, well-maintained, and healthy r�creatior�al programming
and facilities to engage, challenge, and bring together members of.the community
to promote personal well-being. ,
• Incorporate sustainability in design of facilit�es to adapt to change and meet
community needs.
�::.
`>;
RENTON
AWf.AD OB THE CU1tVE
9
COST �VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUf�NES
SECTION 3: DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITS CONTINUUM AND FILTERS
WHO BENEFITS?
Community Benefit Individual Benefit
Community Benefit/Individual Benefit Continuum—Foundation of all Programs
As a whole, recreation programs span a continuum that encompasses programs that benefit the
community as a whole through programs that serve primarily the individuals that take part in them.
Community Benefit programs not only provide recreation opportunities�b"ut.also meet a broader
community goal. Senior programming or Specialized Rec"reation programs respond to a clear
community goal to "fill in the gaps"within our com.rriun'ity to serve underserveii groups with limited
resources and recreation opportunities. Communitji b�nefit programs are also characterized by their
indivisible nature. Many people can take advantage of a:trail, a beach,or drop-in activit�es at a
community center without depleting the availability of that resouree significantly. Their use of that
facility or opportunity does not preclude use by others.
Individual Benefit programs are designed�q=meet,the expressed needs of participants for particular
programs. Their benefit is primarily to the iridividua"l`user and space and access to the program is
limited in availability or selective in nature. Par�icipatior�in the program by one user diminishes the
availability of that progra�'i fo ather users,or in�he ca,se of rentals, reserving a particular space restricts
access to that space liy:other members of the comt�unity.
Mixed Benefit programs fafl in the middle of the continirum. Rarely is a recreation program strictly
communitypr;individual benefit;;=Most of�he recreation programs offered have some mix of both
commu.nity bene�it and individual benefit. One example is summer day camps for youth. The
commu�iity has exp'ressed a clear desire for prograirls that serve youth and families where they benefit
by having�"-safe,structured program for#heir kids to participate in healthy activities when school is out.
Day camp spaces, however;are limited in riumber and have significant cost in staffing and supplies. The
public benefits�liy,having youth,programming available,especially when school is out,and the individual
youth and families also benefit'from these opportunities. To the extent that these programs benefit the
community,they deserve some level of support and they are also candidates for some level of cost
recovery by user fees.
Cost Recovery Tier Definition —Cost Recovery Tiers establish the expectation that the Recreation
Division will confirm or determine current cost recovery and subsidy allocation levels by program service
area. This will include consideration of program revenues sources and services costs or expenses. The
Cost Recovery Tiers are categorized into four programming tiers: 1) Full Subsidy,2) Mostly Subsidized,
3) Partial Subsidy,and 4) Self-Sustaining. The programming tiers range from Public Good (Full Subsidy)
to Private Good (Self-Sustaining),with most of the recreation programming being categorized on a
continuum between public and private good. Example of Public Good would be Lifeguards at Coulon
Beach Park because it benefits safety to many who swim there. Example of Private Good would be
RENTON
AMEAO OF THE CUAWE
10
COS�COVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
private tennis lessons for someone who takes lessons on a one-on-one basis, because it only serves one
person and occupies valuable court time. Cost Recovery Programming Tiers correct inconsistencies in
program cost accounting that sometimes become difficult to determine when delivering a program.
Results of the Programming Tiers will identify whether staff members know what it costs to provide '
services to the community;whether staff has the capacity or resources necessary to account for and
track costs;whether accurate cost recovery levels can be identified; and whether general ledger line
items align with how the Recreation Division may want to track these costs in the future.
Secondary Filters—these can move a program from one tier into�Fitither:
,:,• •:
Evaluating a program based solely on the benefit continuum would:��cely categorize programs that are
strictly community or individual benefit, but does not adequately;�v�iluate the majority of programs that
are "mixed benefit." The following additional filters help to place mixed_�enefit programs into one of
the defined cost recovery tiers by taking into account additional factors suclt as time,cost,commitment,
and targeted populations.
A. Commitment(the intensity of work/resources to offer program)
The level of commitment a program requires in otder to b�;offered has to be considered when
evaluating cost recovery goals. The higher the commitment,the more cost recovery will be
necessary.
B. Obligation (our role to provide)
If we are obligated to provide a certain service;such as lifegua�ding at beaches,that must be
taken into account. Regardless of the place on the eontinuum,these programs will be offered
so cost recovery�goals are secondary to rriandatecl seivjces.
C. Market(highly popular or sttiall market?)
Program and activity prjcing�"sF�o,uld consider the rnarket rate for similar services as well as the
denr�and. A very popula"r:pi'Og'raitiw�th limited space and a long waiting list may be a candidate
_.,<#or fiigher cost recovery ifit:is.;determined that demand exceeds supply or the price is
`�ignificantly tdinter than the go'ing market rate. Alternatively, a high community benefit program
may require a price.decrease because of market factors in order to be viable.
D. Cost to provide (cost peC participant,to run the program?)
Cost is another factor wli�n considering cost recovery goals. This is different from commitment
because it deals exclusively with dollars, not necessarily resources or time. Programs with high
cost and high corrimuni�y"benefit may require higher cost recovery than low cost programs with
comparable benefit: f}ne example is specialized programs that may require expert instructors
or expensive supplies.
E. Who we serve (is this serving a targeted population as defined by community surveys and
evaluations?)
Targeted populations are the result of expressed desires by the community to serve certain
groups by removing barriers to participation. One significant barrier to participation is cost. A
program may be the exact same as another that is offered to the general public, but because it
.�—
RENTON
AtIEAD OF Th1E CtTRVE
11
COST �VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI�NES
is targeted to a certain population,the cost recovery goal and thus the price, may be lower
because of who is served by the program.
F. Are others in the community already doing it?
This filter addresses the reality that park and recreation departments must be selective with
limited resources. Many programs have considerable benefit to the community, but we do not
offer them because the needs or market for that program is already being met by other
providers within the community. If we decide to offer a program that is already offered within
the community, cost and pricing should be consistent with the.market rate at least, so as not to
compete with other providers within our community.
G.
Is the program partnered with other agencies .oi�::o�ganizations?
Programs are more cost effective when pai'trtered with other agencies���td organizations.
Examples include Aces Tennis, non-motorized'boating programs, programs:iiaith the local YMCA,
etc.
-----
RENTON
AHEAt1 OF TFIE CU1lYE
12
COST RECOVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUIDELINES ,
COST RECOVERY TfE:aS .
1. Full Subsidy Programs 2. Nlostly Subsidized Programs 3. Partial Subsidy Programs 4. Self-Sustaining Programs
$0 to nomina/cost recovery Cover all incremental costs of the Cover all incremental costs of the Cover all incrementa/and ongoing
expectations activity plus 20%of onqoinq costs activity plus 30%of all onqoing costs costs of the progrom cosis
Senior Center Drop-in Senior Fitness Room Youth Geii�ra�?Programs Aquatic Center Programs
' Neighborhood Center Drop-in Specialized Recreation Progr�iiis�:�;;. Non-Specialt�r:�ay Camps Boat Launch
Beaches Senior General Programs �.. Teen General P'rogramming Facility Rentals
City Use Facility Rentals P�rent/Child Programs Picnic Shelter Rentals
Youth Council Youtft��ports Field Reritals Field Rentals
Certifications and Safety Classes Cotririiuriify:Partner/NP Rentals Adult Programs
Senior Day 7rips Specialty Day Camps
Youth Cultural Arts Teen Day Trips
Senior Extended Travel
Concessionaire Agreements
� Recreation Special Events
Adult Fitness �
Preschool
RENT" ON
AHBAD OF Tt1E CU1tVL•
13
COST R�VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI[�IES
SECTION 4: SORTING SERVICES INTO TIERS
PROGRAM TIER DESCRIPTIONS
(See chart on page 12)
1. Full Subsidy Programs
• Serve targeted populations
➢ Seniors
➢ Teens
➢ Specialized populations
➢ Low income residents(scholarships)
• Basic health and safety
• Relatively low cost to operate programs :
• Higher fees would be a barrier to access to p�f ograms that have high commlinity benefit.
• Contributes to the livability of the community by�offering b�sic programs that have high
community benefit and programs would likely not ezisf i�:the City of Renton did not offer them.
2. Mostly Subsidized Programs
• Serve targeted populations � � .
• High benefitto+comtriunity
• Higher individu�l benefitthan full subsidy�pro�ra'ms
• Additional resources required,for example-staffing,supplies, and equipment costs
• Historically,fees have lieen char�ed for programs
• Etisetres availability of recreation and,leisure activities to all by reducing barriers to participation
3. Partial,Subsidy Programs
• Primarily serve youthl�teens,families and targeted populations
• Focus on health,fitness;introductory skills and developing life-long recreation habits
• Clear demand exists for"programs and the demand cannot currently be met by other recreation
providers in the area ..
• Market pricing or custorrier's ability to pay prevents full cost recovery
• May have higher staff and supply cost than Tier 2 programs
• Programs are not specialized; open to all who want to participate
• Benefit individuals and the community by providing access to programs and activities that
promote healthy lifestyles and make Renton a more attractive place to live and raise a family
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE COAVE
14
. COS'�COVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
4. Self-Sustaining Programs
• Meet a clear demand for recreation activity or program and improves livability in the Renton
community.
• Primary benefit is to the user or participant
• May be competitive in nature as opposed to instructional
• Do not specifically serve targeted populations in their program goals
• May have high cost to offer programs or activities(staff time_�nd supplies)
� Specialized in nature
• May be offered by private sector or other recreation pt�ytders_,near by
• Market and customer ability to pay allows for full cost recovery
• Participation in these activities, programs, and rentals limits availability of resources to the
general public
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
15
COST R�VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI[�VES
SECTION 5: DIRECT, INCREMENTAL, ONGOING
AND OVERHEAD COST DESCRIPTIONS
DIRECT PROGRAM COSTS
Direct program costs are those costs that are related to providirig recreation classes, programs,or
activities and would not be incurred if recreation programs, classes, or:activities were not offered.
There are two types of direct program costs:
Incremental Program Costs
• Incremental costs are specific to a program or�ctivity and fluctuate up or down based on the
number of offerings of that activity or program. These costs are variable and in�lude program
supplies plus contracted or part-time wages for staff.that teach classes or supervise programs.
�.:- ...-.
Ongoing Program Costs
• These costs are 'fixed' in that they sta�r ret�tively the same regardless of how many programs
are offered. Ongoing program costs incJude futl=.time recreation staff that organize and
supervise recre���oi'i=pragrams,the recreation brochure,and related supplies and services.
��:.� .�,., ,
;�>
�,,,,. .��,,,
OVERHEAD COSTS "`;��4,, �;.�;
�,�,,,�>;;: _. --.
�-_..;.:..-.,
Overhead��s�:are those costs��i���occur regardless if recreation classes, programs,or activities are
�„ ,.;::ary�v.., E�.. .
offere�l,:;yT�iese ct�s��,���clude suppor��administr�tipn,information technology,ongoing maintenance
costs and�apital impro'°uement costs. `�
<���. °�.�
�.�E;
.,�
•Y,
t�+j.:..
' ".
�.:..
� .
rF�> \
t �
y, ,',
RENTOI�
AHF.AD OF 'i'HE CURVE
• �t Recovery and Program Pricing Guidel�
SECTION 6: CURRENT COST RECOVERY ANALYSIS (FY 2010)
Figure 1 shows the current cost recovery levels for the entire Department, as well as a breakdown by
budgetarea.
It is important to note that while Henry Moses Aquatic Center,Carc�:'�heatre, and the Senior Activity
Center all have their own separate budgets, Renton Community��n��"r"�and Recreation Services must be
combined for proper analysis. ,
Many of the expenses incurred by Renton Community Center programsa�e.;charged to Recreation
Services,while all of the revenue for both areas is credifed to the Renton Coinmunity Center Self-
Sustaining Budget.
It is also worth noting that the maintenance and other internal charges for Carco Th��#re are not taken
out of the Carco budget,they are charged to Renton Comi'ii'unity,�enter's Self-Sustaining Expense
Accounts. �`���, �
��.�.:
�<�.,.;
°;;;`.,„��,_.
'a=..
�,,� -:��,., ��--..
RECREATION DEPARTMENT 20�,0 FU���G ST RECOVERY#'ERCENTAGE
�
�,-�;��-�r� �;� ,�s x�;'a-
.�.�'�`,-�..=...,:
�_=-:_?-' ` ,�%_ ��;: ;':,:>�:. �1::`%�� PERCENTAGE
AREA °_< 2010 REVEISlt��'� ����{#.EXPENSES RECOVERED
-�,�:�
-d�g ;-, I
Renton Community Cente � � ,, �`-
Recreati ervices �ry• $ 1,362,846. , $ 2,740,677.87 50% II
1 ��.=a �v�`
't'��:��:
� ,;.�^ .,.�v,.-� ��<: ,.�,
Henrji� ` ses Aqua���=�enter �;.;:.. $ 5�4;440.62 $ 730,205.05 72%
�:iYK �.rR, `�2'::Z�.h
k 'Z� �.
Carco Theat �"F�.., �` �$ 53,457.25 $ 177,986.30 30%
��� �;�
Senior Activity Cen'���,;�.,, $ 131,962.49 $ 768,046.98 17%
��;�, �;��
Al) of Recreation: '`�;�;,�;„�'Z� $ 2,072,706.44 $4,416,916.20 47%
:�,;
Figure 1
RE NTO1�T
AHEAD OF THE CURVf,
17
�Recovery and Program Pricing Guidelin� .
PROGRAM PRICING
PRICING GUIDELINES
Recommended Fees
The purpose of the fee guideline is not to only determine specific pri�es, but to guide the development
of prices by the recreation staff members. It does this by creatin�;�sx recovery targets for separate
�;a,�,;.
Cost Recovery Tiers,or groups of programs with the same Iev��,t�f,+�X�ected cost recovery.
�;;'.''� W:
,�. .�
The recommended guideline is based on extensive discussions with the R��reation Manager and
.�=a�:
Recreation Supervisors, Recreation Coordinators,an ���r,;review of the 201.t�;:cost recovery results. In
����
2010,the Division recovered 47%of its direct and v�, "ead cost of all prograr�ts;'�vents, staff, and
�.,A� ..
rentals. The implementation of pricing for program��;based on the following pri��,��methods.
�.;_ .;
��.::
Determining Program Pricing :°,,�.,�:,-,�. �-m�:.
�;, �~�,�F,;X�,� .
The steps to program pricing assist in d���r�nining direct costs�cpnsisting of ongoing and incremental
-..�_,...,�. a�.:.
costs with the associated overhead costs�Y"�u�e�i. The process icler�t�fies the full-time staff and part-
�5;r. ���; .. ��..,:.
time staff costs with benefits, marketing co � con��a�ts, supplies,eq�i,pment,awards,facility room
�_� ,
costs,vehicle usage,field usage,field light us �� and i�'t er associated direct costs. Additional
�:��::;. ��:�, �=�.
information regardinyE,#I�Se#�-d{rect costs was dete mine��hrts�h research on facility cost, power usage,
5:..'�-?•:� y,�].::• i',v4�».,.,.
J,
a..:cv���5; '
and fleet costs. =-- �' - � �-�
-��,�.f� `�..., �- .
y�`}; �, �.�;
:�.
`ry.: ;,�r.; "3.`;':.
Fixed Incremental and Ongb'��Tt�g��� Co5,��.Y�.s,'t�_fot�,{.r. Renton Recre�ition Programming
'+uk3t'.C"•�"�.'�t?\�,.�„":�:. ��,�.�-.
� Bas � all field prepa'�'a�i�;n pef`�taic��rrence=$�0.00
�'���:���; ��. . �;F..,
• Sa ��#.,-and ot�ier�#�Id preparatioris per occ��r�ence=$35.00
. !� e-�-
• Ball'��I�lighting c'��r�e per hour=�$�,00
� �.�.
Vehicle� se,per mile cFi��rge=$0.55 `'�;;;;;,
�l,,:.,<:, ��,�
• Marketing�c`cists for progr�,�s are based �n the space used in the Recreation Brochure at$400 per
�,, :. �r�...
page• ��;:w:�.
. `�`; ,i��'�
Facility room cha���s per ho�i�;
1) Large Room =$1�i�/t}q�i�s,'
�;�.. ����;
2) Medium Room=$7. p�htiur
3) Small Room =$3.00/�ur
Rooms were calculated based on an$8.94 per square foot per year calculation. For example: large
rooms are Renton Community Center gyms and Carco Theatre; medium rooms are the Renton
Community Center Banquet Room and the Senior Activity Center Auditorium; and small rooms are
the classrooms at all facilities.
• Part-time employees regular benefit percentage= 17%
RE �TTON
ANEAD OF TEt� CU�VE
18
�st Recovery and Program Pricing Guide�
• Part-time employee PERS-eligible (Public Employee Retirement System) benefit percentage=20%
Applying Full-Time Employee Costs with Benefits
• Recreation Coordinator FTE_$94,000 per year(2011)
• Recreation Supervisor FTE_$110,000 per year(2011)
• Each Recreation Section allocates and distributes their time to rams, rentals,activities,and
events. Recreation Coordinators and Recreation Supervisor %and 25%respectively for
administration, (staff meetings, budget meetings,etc.)
• Each Recreation Supervisor uses a predetermined Facility erati ost, (set by the Facility
Division),for Renton Community Center,the Senio�Activity Center, a ..-�C.arco Theatre.
• City-wide events, (Fourth of 1uly, Renton River ,�,�. nd Clam Lights) are��?ported by Recreation
staff.These events are not expected to calcula "'��st recovery measures foi�'`��ff time. The smaller
�:
special events such as the Hoop Shoot, Polar B ar�3q, carnivals,etc. are appli�C��o the cost
t ry*� � �,
recovery model. �= .�,d �3,y� -
�'°f...�'t i.a��"'yY ''.`\1
�I�Y��`w ..
Pricin Factors �y4�``�
g �:: :_ ::
• Contractor and art-time instructor, ,ricin shpuld be based o ct and indirect costs and the
p P ... b . ...
ability to reach program minimums to m�et the:cost recovery go
• Incentive pricing need .to continue for residents thou�h preferred p ramming methods for early
registration, seaso G�� nd rental uses:`The Resideri�pnd Non-Resident Policy should apply to
all program and e ,,r%,s. . . .-
• An Administration F �`��,�$3.0 "II be assessed fqr all programs to be applied to Support Staff costs.
• Efficient expense line m e practices should be used to reduce the expense bottom line
which 'sts in accomplis , 'e cost recovery exp�ctation for a program and event.
• All ant monies ived will be credited as revenue against the overall cost recovery
��
of rogram : vent.
• Estab ' g partner s is strongly�encouraged to fill in identified gaps identified by the Parks,
w_
Recreatifi �`Open Space� " d Natural Re'sources Plan.
• Program life��� !G��le contin is described in stages of introduction/nurture,growth, maturity and
decline. If you"��`�introduc� � a new program,you may want to price the program a little lower to
generate interest. � he pr m is in the growth stage with waiting lists,the program price could
be raise d due to dem��", _. ' .e program is in t he dec line s tage, prog ra m m e r s s h o u l d l o o k a t m o v i n g
the program to less exp e facility,or eliminate the program altogether.
• Minimum and maximum participation levels need to be set at appropriate cost recovery
expectations. A minimum number to hold a program is very important to covering all costs.
Maximum participation levels may be limited by facility space or instructor availability.
• Scholarships are fully supported by donations. A limited number of scholarships are available for
low to moderate income families who would like to participate in recreation programming, but are
unable to pay the program fees. To be eligible for a scholarship,total family income must not
RENTON
ANEAD OF THF. CURYF.
19
C�Recovery and Program Pricing Guideline� ,
exceed 80%of the King County median income as specified by U.S. Housing and Urban
Development. Please see the application for specific guidelines. Applications are available online or
at the Renton Community Center.
• Resident and Non-Resident Fee Policy—The City Council voted to establish a 20%Non-Resident Fee
on all Recreation Division programming and services beginning Winter Quarter, 2003. This action
was taken to partially compensate for the support provided for these services by the citizens of
Renton through their property taxes. Implementation of the Non-Resident Fee will decrease but not
eliminate the amount of subsidy provided by the Renton taxpayers:
➢ The Non-Resident Fee is not charged on fees less tha�i�,�.0.00.
➢ The Non-Resident Fee cannot be more than doubte�of tFie xesident fee on Coulon Beach
Park picnic shelters or Coulon Beach Park boat launch fees;'�clue to the grant funding source
that acquired the property.
Instructor Payments
Contractlnstructors—The majority of instructors/contractQrs sho�uEd be paid on a per student basis.
This translates to a negotiated rate pe .student multiplied by ttie total number enrolled in the class. In
�:::.;:.:.
determining the per student rate,the nurrib"erof students should be based on the minimum number of
students needed. All new instructors/cont'ractors:will be paid at or below a rate of 60% per student
enrolled, unless there is a strong justification for a fiigher rate. (Note: An Administration Fee is assessed
to assist in the cost rec , �.q��s�upport staff.) ':.-
��:�'��` ,:�
�T�: �^�_;
The advantages of payin�,at� instru�for or contracto'r on a per student rate encourages the instructor to
�;..
fill the class. y��� ,�-.,
`��:,
3$ ;;,..
��-:`;`��„ `+
Note: �:a�,. .�° .:
°�.
❖ �r�,�. lic Emplo ef`�SFRetirement`SyStem (PERS)=eligible part-time employee benefit percentage is
ba`� �d,,on emplo�j�'�contributionst�,PERS, Local, State,and Federal Income Taxes, along with
�n.�
Worke �s,,Compen��oEn Insurance and medical at 20%.
'�' Re ular �r#-time em`�0 ee benefits ercenta e is based on em lo er contribution to Local
g ��,,, P. ,Y p g P Y ,
State,and �deral Inco E Taxes,along with Worker's Compensation Insurance at 17%.
�'i�m ;;y.
R�.��:
Hourly Instructors—The���r�.`�`W hourly instructors on staff that are paid by this method.
The advantage of paying an h�iu�ly instructor is the ease of entering time in the payroll system. The
disadvantage of hourly instructors is the lack of incentive to fill classes beyond a minimum.
Ceiling Rate Instructors—These instructors are paid using a per student registration formula until the
class enrollment reaches a predetermined level of enrollment. Once the enrollment ceiling is
established, student registrations beyond that point are not applied to the payment of instructor.
RENTON
AHEAD OF FFiE CUIIVF,
2�
�st Recovery and Program Pricing Guide�
The advantage of paying a ceiling rate instructor decreases the expense paid out to the instructor when
a class enrollment is above the pre-determined ceiling for rate of pay. The disadvantage is much like
that for an hourly instructor which does not give the instructor incentive to fill classes above the ceiling
enrollment for the class. ,
InstruciorRaises—Increases in instructor pay must always be accotTipanied by an increase in price of
the program. This means the cost of the class to the participant,'iritjsf�increase for the instructor to
receive an increase in pay. However, an increase in participatibn�e��'�does not necessarily guarantee an
increase in pay to the instructor.
General Recreation Program Report
Recreation Program Budgets—need to follow the coSt.recovery guidelines to accurately reach the cost
recovery goal. Pre-Program Proposal information, Post Program Re,port information;'and Program
Summary Report information are required for all programswith,-supporting documentswith CLASS and
EDEN software reports.
�
Pre-Program Proposals will be required to repci�t the course/activitjT;jnformation marketing materials,
goals and objectives,facility,contract fees,cost recovery tier, and pro"posed budget. Programs should
use previous enrollment fi �res or minimum,e�irollment figures in the pro�5osed budget calculations.
� .� . .; ` `- .;.
Post Program Report .����Mbe rec� d to list all the firi�l numbers:of enrollment, registration fee,facility
use,vehicle use, cost re ery tier rketing materi�ls.used,direct costs with staffing, revenue
generated and program tar ` t+�d o � mes identified with supported documentation.
Progra �. r;Report will re .e course activity information,cost recovery tier, revenue,
enroll ' ntt; increm expense,o ing expense,and final financial information. This report will be
.�., ��::-;
suppo rte� ��r t he Pos t ,�ram Repo rt on documen ta tion.
�a: �`�°•
�s,. ,�«.
�.°��� ��:�;.
Refund Policy �=:r. '�:�.-
� �, ��:'
• Full refunds will�e: ade for �ty program cancelled by the City of Renton.
�;�.
'�xf.
• To be eligible for a re�u,,,r,�d,a��ten request must be received at least seven days prior to the start of
the program. The refui� e��arriount will be the class fee less a $10.00 Administrative Fee.
�::�:.
• No refunds will be issued for any program fees of$10.00 or less.
• If a request is made after the program has already begun, no refunds will be issued.
• No refunds will be issued to athletic teams, league play or tournament play, if the request is made
after the schedules have been completed.
• No refunds will be issued for inclement weather, unless it results in the closure of the facility during
the time of the rental.
�----
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURYF.
21
t�tecovery and Program Pricing Guidelin� .
• Picnic Shelter/Henry Moses Aquatic Center Canopy and Group Reservation cancellations must be
made at least 14 days in advance of the reservation date to be eligible for a refund. The amount
refunded will be 50%of the reservation fee.
• If the original payment method was cash or check,a check will be issued through the Finance
Department, or a credit will be applied on the account. Credit card payments will be refunded to the
account within seven to 14 days.
(The refund policy is reviewed yearly)
r,
�� .
RENTON
ANEAD OF THE CURYE
22
` COS�OVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
APPENDIX A
RECREATION PROGRAMMING TARGET OUTCOMES
In the box below,write the program or event being evaluated. Check off each planning outcome that is
supported by this program or event. Questions for consideration are included below each outcome along
with a space for your thoughts or comment on the particular out�Qj��;�
PROGRAM�EVENT: ' �
Outcome: Encourage people to try new things, develap new skills,and/or maintain
existing skills.
• Is the class structured to teach beginners/novj�es or a mix of skill levels?
• Is this a unique program that users cannot find'elsewhere?.
• Is the program associated with a current or new trend in;reGreation?
Outcome: Adding healthy activities to,participant lifestyles.'' ":�:'`�"
• Does the class involve healthy foo�:(garden, prep, shop)of:health education?
• Does the class or event engage participants in fitness or ez�tcise?
Outcome: Fostering a connection to the na#ur�l environment.
• Does the program.�upport environme�,��_I educa�ipn or nature inte�pretation?
• Do participants ir,1f�'i`�"�t with natural are�'s.or ob5etve�ntildlife?
Outcome: Creating positive activ'ities and fun environCnent for youth.
• Does the class proCj�tote positive self-esteem�a_nd team building for youth?
�:::
• Does the class engage y,qu�li':in,fitness or social activities?
Outcome• . 'litating gatherings:atit�btiiiging the community together.
• f, ���`�sT�nt have a comri�tunity-wide, city-wide or regional audience?
=.=� �;-��x..
• � es this prog , /event appeal.to diversegroups?
• D he progra ,�vent provide opportunities for multiple generations or
°'�..
fa m i i+��?: :;:�.
Outcome: Promd`tir��individ ` nd community development.
• Does the progr�m provr w��or support life skills?
s�`�
• Does the prog`r`am/eve � .�'ovide opportunities for interaction with other
community mem�i�t"s�!,��=°
• Does the program/event provide opportunities to connect with City officials?
Outcome: Offering a range of options for different income levels and different abilities.
• Does the event/program serve seniors,special needs,or other targeted
vulnerable populations?
• Is this program affordable for the people it is designed to serve?
• Is this program offered where/when the users who need it can attend?
RENTON
AHEAD OF YHB CURYE
l�Recovery and Program Pricing Guidelin�
PROGRAM�EVENT: �
Outcome: Adapting to new demographics and preferences.
• Does the event/program support diverse demographic and cultural groups in
Renton?
• Does this program support underserved demographic or cultural groups?
• Is the program associated with a current or new trend in recreation?
Outcome: Offering programs that are responsive to community derrtands or interest.
• Do surveys or public input indicate the demand?
• Does current program demand exceed availability?
RETURN ON INVESTMENT � �
In addition to supporting program outcomes, each program.and event should maximiie�the impact of
community resources invested in it. Fpr:each category, circle tlie appropriate response.
'� ..
Number of people served (or who benefit�frori�:pro.gram/event) Some Many Most
Amount/Cost of Community Investment(Net�f any_.tiser fees) Low Med High
Facilities/Equipment Ne ,,��dato Support Progratn/Event,� : Existing New
,�'���
�Y, �Y�;:: ��,�:� .
•a:
`,,,,���y�.. �;�.
E.',�lY ...
� 4.�i4
�` �'��
,�.
���`4'xy',
�:�h'' _ �;.
-c'` :� '�`. : ' .
�
"=v;�,: '":,�'. .
,,�`. +.;Y�t ,
�'�.
�`t
4 '
�L. .
\ ' '�. .
Y
.;�, F;
�4n
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
24
COS�COVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
APPENDIX B
PROGRAM PROPOSAL AND BUDGET
. � .
� . �
Program Name ` Program ' ,
Supervisor
Start Date End Date � #of Weeks Age Grade
Start Time End Time Facility/Location
' Non Cost
Min.#Participants Max# ,. Resident Fee Resident Recovery
Participants s;ry:�;
;:��.; Fee Tier
�:.:-:,.,
Internet Registration
Internet �
' � Display �'�
� . • � • . .
,:��:
°,��::.> {�
<F�
��� `�' ���
:a�µ _9 "'y;'
� �• •. • � �
1 �
2 ;;�
,�,
3 �
. • •
1
2
3
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURV@
COST�VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI�NES '
. • .
_Outcome:Adding healthy activities _Outcome: Fostering a connection _Outcome:Creating positive
to participant lifestyles. to the natural environment. activities and fun environments
foryouth.
• Does the class involve healthy food • Does the program support • Does the class promote positive
(garden,prep,shop)or health environmental education or nature self-esteem and team building for
F;:::..,
education? interpretation? �;�;�s youth?
• Does the class or event engage • Do participants interact �� • Does the class engage youth in
participants in fitness or exercise? natural areas or observ�, �, �`e? fitness or social activities?
�� _
.'f:
_Outcome:Promoting individual and _Outcome: F 'tating gatherings,� :�Outcome:Adapting to new
community development. and bringin _ ,,, mmunity �t1�tr�ographics and preferences.
together. ���{�
• Does the program provide or support • Does the ev � ave a community- • Doe� Q event/program support
life skills? wide,city-wide o`r. ` ional�;� diverse��`�� raphic and cultural
• Does the program/event provide audience? ��.: .. �:;�`+°�' groups in R �on?
'�';-=�*,'r
opportunities for interactions with ?;'y.,Does this program/event,fippeal to • Does the program support
other community members? '.V'� groups? "���, :.,, underserved demographic or
• Does the program/event provide •# oe .��µ rogram/event p�ovide cultural groups?
opportunities to connect with City op �un t� r multiple �'`;.;�:{, • Is the program associated with a
officials? gen��ions o���`' 'lies? �� =:� current or new trend in
��;:.
frR��: , �::;, recreation?
_Outcome:Encoura � eople= b,try _Outco ; � ir ng a�r` e of _Outcome:Offering programs
�..
new things,develop ne 'lls,andJor options for "rent inco � rlevels that are responsive to community
'�.�.,
maintain existing skills. .�- .4 ��:,,:_ and different lities. demands or interest.
• Is this class structured to teae�t;;, :.: ;;y ,�• Does the even� rogram serve • Do surveys or public input
���:k,'" P
beginner � v�c�or a mix of skill'.,��;�'-Y'`�`' '�rs,special ne��s,or other indicate the demand?
levels?;?-� �'�``�"-�;_,: tar t��d:�ulnerable populations? • Does current program demand
,.:. �' �W.'.... �r:.
4'4'v`.. . 'a;Ti`.".'a
• Is th�i�` ``nique prog A1�that users \ ;: :,• Is the p� r m affordable for the exceed availability?
cannot r Isewhere? ��_ $ �p' ople it i�s�esigned to serve?
• Is the pro rp associate ���th a •�s`'�ttis program offered
�`_ �, ;
current or new�ir nd in recre��fon? whei�Jwhen the users who need it
�-.,
5 can attend?
._. ,";
. . . . .
,�,� ,:
RENTON
AHFAD OF THE CURYE
. •
COS�COVERY AND PROGRAM PRICING G�LINES
• � .
. .
-. . . .
Facility Fee Small$3/hr Note:Facility costs are based on$8.94/sq ft
Facility Fee Med.$7/hr
Facility Fee Lrge.$14/hr
Sports Field Prep$15/ea
Sports Field Lights$4/hr
Total $0.00 $0.00
.�
�
Part Time Staff ~.,. Note:#staff @$/hr x hrs/wk(x)#wks
Contracted Staff/Services
Total $0.00 $0.00 K
. . •.
Equipment
Awards
Miscellaneous
Total $0.00 $0.00 �:�:
.�
Note:Mileage based on$.55/mile
Total $0.00 $0.00 .
. .
,�.,
Total $0.00 $0.00
.
` �-. Note: Marketing costs include brochure,flyers,
Brochure�$�Q/page/Qtr ��;,,
. M,_�., �_��, reader board,etc...
Total $0.00 $0.00
. . • .
-.
.- . Note:%of FT employee program duties:
�`��. Tier#1 apply 0% Tier#2 apply 20%
Total $0.00 $0.00 Tier#3 apply 30% Tier#4 apply 100%
. .-
$0.00 $0.00
RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CUAVE
J
. �
COST R�VERY AND PROGRAM PRICING GUI�IES
.
. . .
Program Fees Note:Resident fee(x)#participants
Spnsorships Non-resident fee(x)#participants
TicketSales
Miscellaneous
Total $0.00 $0.00
. . • - - - . •. � . =
$0.00 $0.00 �
• ' � • ' • •
-. . . .
Total Revenue $0.00 $0.00
Total expenses >,;K;'4. �0.00 $0.00 ::
:�{.r,���..,,y;;,
„:�
. � .• . . . .
� $0.00 $0.00 _
r+���;.. ��'�:' �34'r , ' �
�`'`,�;"' 'y "
t��^t
4;
•~+6,t s��..
t
d�
b�r..5� ^�' .
Y :
�f.. :
Y.
fJ,
4�'F.Y�� .Y
���:✓..
'�.
�,�:
� RENTON
AHEAD OF THF. CURVE