Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 9 20071 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 2 Planning and Development Committee 3 4 October 9, 2007 5 6 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in the 7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 8 9 Present: Absent: 10 Laurie Caskey - Schreiber None 11 Dan McShane 12 13 Also Present: 14 Sam Crawford 15 Carl Weimer 16 17 18 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 19 20 1. PRESENTATION ON THE CONCEPT OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES (AB2007 -354) 21 22 John Everett, Planning and Development Services Department, stated he would 23 present the overall concept of impact fees, particularly with schools. The Planning 24 Department and Planning Commission looked at related policy choices. He will bring 25 forward a Planning Commission - recommended draft ordinance at the Council's next 26 meeting. 27 28 Fleetwood asked if the Planning Commission considered a draft from staff. Everett 29 stated it did. 30 31 Impact fees are simple in concept, but implementation can be complex. There is no 32 perfect model for setting up impact fees. Every jurisdiction sets them up differently. He's 33 looked at various approaches from other jurisdictions and reduced it to major policy 34 questions he will bring forward at the next meeting. 35 36 Fleetwood stated he would like an overview of what they've done in the past and 37 what they can and can't do. 38 39 Crawford asked if impact fees can be collected at the time of the sale of the house, 40 as opposed to the time a building permit is issued. It makes a difference in terms of 41 financing. Everett stated he has not seen that approach used. He will look into it. He can 42 see administration challenges with that approach. A policy question they review is the time 43 at which the fee is collected. 44 45 Crawford stated that the longer the fee collection is delayed, the more it can be used 46 by the school rather than the bank. The construction loan has a higher interest rate than a 47 mortgage loan. The developer and homeowner will pay less if the fee is paid at the time of 48 purchase rather than the time of development. Everett stated they will explore that 49 question. There are different times the fee can be calculated and collected. He will 50 research the question to see how late other jurisdictions have deferred the fee collection. 51 52 He read from the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) on the definition of impact fee 53 and the intent of the impact fee. Calculation, imposition, and spending of the fees are Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2007, Page I 1 heavily regulated. The schools form the calculation of the fee according to their capital 2 facility needs and plan. The fee can vary according to school district. A school's capital 3 facilities plan shows the nexus between the cost for facilities and the need attributable to 4 new development. 5 6 The school district cannot collect fees for itself. It relies upon the cities and counties 7 in which it is located. Impact fee collection is optional for the jurisdictions and the districts. 8 The Blaine School District is not inclined at this time to collect impact fees. 9 10 Because it's optional, most jurisdictions with multiple districts within their boundaries 11 will create the opportunity and ability for a district to use that authority. Each district would 12 create a six -year capital facilities plan, within which is a calculation for impact fees to meet 13 the facility needs. The districts submit those plans to the County for review and adoption 14 into the County Comprehensive Plan as a sub - element of the County capital facilities plan. 15 That gives the County the authority to collect those fees on behalf of the school. A 16 jurisdiction may delay development approval until there is proof the developer has paid the 17 impact fee. 18 19 Crawford stated there is a difference between a developer and builder. He asked if 20 most fees are based on building permits. Developers are folks who subdivide raw land and 21 install infrastructure. One pays an impact fee to the City of Bellingham at the time someone 22 applies for a building permit. That is different. Everett stated that will be a policy question 23 to address. A sizeable percentage of jurisdictions collect at the time of platting. Others will 24 calculate at time of plat and put the fees on the face of the plat. 25 26 McShane stated the easiest approach would be to collect at time of application. 27 However, they could give a time window after which a building applicant would pay the fee. 28 29 Everett stated the Planning Commission talked about specific policy questions, such 30 as applicability, the timing of calculation and collection, who collects the fees, fee 31 adjustments, and the level of County involvement in school facility planning and fee 32 calculation. The County could be just a pass- through entity, or be more involved in the 33 review and approval of school capital facilities plans. There is a range of options. He will 34 submit a report on the choices and their ramifications, in addition to the Planning 35 Commission recommendation. 36 37 Fleetwood asked how Mr. Everett has crafted a draft ordinance. Everett stated the 38 staff made suggestions. There are considerations for ease of implementation for the 39 administration. However, the staff just provided options to the Planning Commission on the 40 levels of involvement by the County. The Council will have the same conversation about 41 what is appropriate. 42 43 Fleetwood asked if the Planning Commissioners have heard from stakeholders. 44 Everett stated they have, at a public hearing, which included representatives from the 45 schools and the Building Industry Association (BIA). The Planning Commission came to a 46 good resolution. 47 48 Dennis Carlson, Lynden School District Superintendent, stated they've gone through 49 this process for the past two years. They've done the facilities study and a study on student 50 generation rates. They've established a value of how much each unit would cost for the 51 facility to serve those students. He brought that information to the Lynden City Planning 52 Commission and City Council. The City Council said that imposing an impact fee only within 53 the City of Lynden, not to residences outside the city limits, would not be equitable taxation Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2007, Page 2 on developers and builders. The City Council said to wait until the County has an impact fee ordinance, and then make the City and County fees the same, so there is no advantage for a builder one way or another. Fleetwood asked if their desire for uniformity would imply that they would have to try and have a uniform impact fee ordinance amongst all the school districts. Carlson stated the impact fee ordinance at the County could reflect each of the districts. Crawford stated the County's fee can be variable, based upon the school district boundary. Caskey- Schreiber stated the County is just putting in the framework for the districts to ask for the fees if they choose to do so. A repeated criticism of fees is that they won't pay for anything other than modular classrooms. From her discussions with the superintendents, they feel that's not the case. She asked for an example of how the funds can be applied. Carlson stated the request for impact fees has to be approved by the school board. The district's request to the City and the County would be the same. The RCW's require the fees to be expended within six years. Over the last six years, had they applied the proposed impact fees, they would have been able to build four new, not modular, classrooms onto one of their elementary schools. They can also pay for the upgrades to building infrastructure. Caskey - Schreiber stated the nice thing about this opportunity is that the districts aren't put in a political position. She fully supports this item. Crawford stated the Bellingham School District has chosen to use the impact fees only for modular classrooms. Four years of impact fees would buy four classrooms. There wasn't enough money to collect through the system. It can't be used as the sole source of capital facilities revenue. It made more sense to the Bellingham School District to purchase modular rooms than to do stick frame construction. As there is a growing school, districts tend to move the modular rooms around to relieve growth pressure and accommodate changing boundaries as needed. Bellingham has enjoyed the flexibility of moving modular rooms from one place to another to relieve pressure as other schools are built. Many school districts end up purchasing modular rooms with impact fees rather than doing any kind of school construction. It tends to be a natural outcome of this funding mechanism. Caskey - Schreiber stated that if Bellingham had the opportunity to collect impact fees on the urban growth areas (UGA's), the district may have had the vision to put it into structures more substantial than modular rooms. They may have been able to count on more revenue coming in than what they could from infill or redevelopment. Schools are now facing security challenges due to building design. They hope to use this funding to make more secure campuses. Carlson stated collect at or close to building permit issuance. Many times developers will have a plan for development, but that plan will change by the time it's built out. Allow the developers flexibility. It makes more sense to collect the fees when they know exactly what units will be developed. If collecting at the time of plat approval, there may be changes in what happens. Collections would be more equitable if done closer to the time of impact. Crawford asked about collecting at the time of purchase. Carlson stated he doesn't know why it shouldn't be that way. Make sure it's okay with the RCW. Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2007, Page 3 1 2 Crawford asked the cost of a new elementary school. Carlson stated it is about $175 3 to $200 per square foot. There is about 800 square feet per classroom. The next new 4 elementary school will be $10 million to $12 million. They plan to build a 100,000 square 5 foot middle school at a site it's considering now, at a cost of about $18 million. That site 6 will also accommodate a future elementary school. They have plans to add 22 new 7 classrooms to Fisher Elementary School, and remodel the rest. That will cost about $9 8 million. The voters will be approached March 2008 to purchase the land. At that time, 9 they'll go into final development of the design. They'll come forward in March 2009 for a 10 bond proposal for school construction. Given the projected State match for those two 11 projects, and the sale of the current middle school property, they project to be able to fund 12 construction to enlarge the high school. Altogether, they should be able to generate $65 13 million worth of building for a $40 million bond. 14 15 Jack Petree, 2955 Sunset Drive, Bellingham, stated that if the County will collect 16 impact fees for anything, it should consider a mechanism to make sure the fees are fair, 17 correct, and equitable. There must be demonstrable evidence for the fee level. They 18 assume each house built will contribute a certain number of children per home. However, 19 three school districts in the county have a declining number of students, despite the 20 increase in the number of homes. The levels being collected may not jive with reality. The 21 concept of impact fees is that development should pay for the cost associated with the 22 development. 23 24 Mary Dickinson, Building Industry Association Governmental Affairs Director, stated 25 she thanks Dr. Carlson for answering her questions. Mr. Everett worked with the building 26 community on the ordinance. The general consensus was that the school districts wouldn't 27 ask for the money if they didn't need it, that Whatcom County schools are something they 28 can all be proud of, and that Mr. Carlson has done a balanced job writing the ordinance. 29 They appreciate the Cities of Lynden and Ferndale for proposing impact fees equitably. This 30 was a collaborative, balanced approach. 31 32 Everett stated that when this was brought to the Planning Department in February, 33 they entertained the idea of quickly creating an interim ordinance. However, they didn't. 34 They must consider many policy choices. Don't jump in without careful consideration and 35 input from the various stakeholders. They are not rushing into the ordinance because 36 nothing really happens until the districts' capital facilities plans are adopted into the 37 Comprehensive Plan, by way of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 38 39 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.) 40 41 Everett continued to state that they've had time to make sure the ordinance proposal 42 is the best fit for this community's situation. 43 44 Crawford stated many landowners may be land rich and cash poor. He asked if they 45 can find out if any other jurisdictions allow flexibility for negotiation. A development could 46 generate $5 million in impact fees, for example, but could contribute a piece of land for a 47 school in lieu of paying the fee. Everett stated that provision has been used in other places 48 and is in the ordinance proposal coming forward. 49 50 51 52 53 Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2007, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. UPDATE ON RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCES WITH THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM RELATING TO LAND SUPPLY ANALYSIS, PROPOSED UGA ZONING, AND UGA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT OF THE BELLINGHAM SUBAREA (AB2007 -318) Rebecca Craven, Council Policy Analyst, stated the committee directed her to meet with City staff to explore possibilities and options regarding the issues related to the City's recommendation and this committee's resolution and recommendation. They met last week. They had a successful meeting. Relationships among the parties matter a lot. The first meeting was an introduction of all the members. They hope to resolve things at additional planned meetings. They talked some about the timeline. She made it clear that the County is under a Growth Management Hearings Board decision to complete its update by February 25, 2008. The City understands that. They will continue to meet. At the next meeting, they hope to look at specific options and issues. They also hope to bring forward a recommendation for amendments to the interlocal agreement and a recommendation for a simple extension. They hope to complete the substantive negotiations, and make further amendments to the interlocal agreement if the City and County reach resolution on the urban growth area (UGA) and underlying issues. The interlocal agreement negotiations can happen after that. The interlocal agreement will expire in December. They must extend it. The County staff would like to continue to meet with the City. They are working on it. The committee concurred to allow the staff to continue meetings. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN Them ting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Jill NixgtAj %N1tl".,Transcription CO -rrr a. p Gomm 4ji:p '4vit, Co. -cil Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON eth Flee ood, 4Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 10/9/2007, Page 5