Loading...
06/16/2015 - Work Study - MinutesCity of Port Orchard Council Meeting Minutes Work Study Session Meeting of June 16, 2015 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Matthes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken by the City Clerk as follows: Councilmember Cartwright Councilmember Chang Councilmember Childs Councilmember Clauson Councilmember Lucarelli Councilmember Putaansuu Mayor Pro-Tern Ashby Mayor Matthes Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff present: Public Works Director Dorsey, City Treasurer Martin, Development Director Bond, City Clerk Rinearson, Office Assistant Floyd, and City Attorney Morris, were also present. Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Matthes led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. Discussion: Kitsap Buildable Land Report Corrections Community Development Director Bond introduced Katrina Knutson, Senior Planner with Kitsap County. The issue before Council is the draft Buildable Lands Report that was released by the county was finished about 5 or 6 months ago. We have been moving forward with our Comprehensive Plan update, based on the assumptions that were in that report. As they were working through the utilities element, specifically on the sewer plan, we asked the county to do some supplemental analysis for us, to figure out what the capacity of the vacant redeveloepable land was for each sewer sub basin. When the county ran the analysis, they realized they had made a mistake in the initial Buildable Lands Report. It was not a significant mistake, but there are two ways of correcting it, and each alternative has different implications in term of what the City's adjusted capacity would be in a final Buildable Lands Report. The first alternative is to assess the City's buildable lands capacity using the maximum density allowed in an underlying zone. This would mean that the buildable portions of a property zoned R12 would have a capacity based on the maximum of 12 units per acre even though development within the zone is Minutes of June 16, 2015 Page 2 of 5 allowed and has been observed at lower densities. For R4.5, the report would assume maximum build out at 4.5 units per acre. The second alternative to assuming maximum density would be to assume achieved densities to determine the City's development capacity. This alternative involves reviewing recent subdivision and construction data for each zone (2006-2012) to determine on average, what development densities are being achieved in particular zones. In this case, observed development densities in the R12 zone have been 7.415 units per acre, well under the allowed density of 12 units per acre. Applying this methodology would reduce the City's population capacity from 12,184 to 10,358. The report would still indicate that the City has enough capacity to accommodate its expected growth of 8,235, but the City would have less surplus capacity on paper. Under this alternative and in the absence of any development within the GB or R20 zones, the City would rely on the maximum assumption under this scenario. The county is requesting we use the achieved densities for the zones for which we have data, which is going to lower the capacity of the city from 12,000 down to 10,000 residential population. The county is required statutorily to have their report in to the Department of Commerce by the end of June. They want to make sure the City Council does not have a preference for one alternative or the other, as they favor the achieved densities. Councilmember Clauson arrived to the meeting at 7:13 p.m. In response to Councilmember Ashby, Development Director Bond stated it is a capacity report studied with historical data to develop assumptions and methodology. Ms. Knutson stated with our urban growth area, we are utilizing achieved densities of about 6.8. As far as the other cities, they each calculate things a little differently. The countywide planning policies state it is the county's report, therefore all the jurisdictions should have similar land capacity methods. Council and staff continued to discuss the report, the two alternatives, and using the achieved densities. Council Direction: Council directed staff to contact the county and move forward with alternative 2 for report purposes. The county will then submit that to the Department of Commerce. 2A. Transportation Benefit District City Attorney Morris stated a Transportation Benefit District (TBD) is a quasi judicial municipal corporation which has independent taxing powers, and can impose taxes including a $20 license fee and vehicle tolls as authorized by the legislature. The district has the power of eminent domain; can contract for street and road improvements; and also impose special assessments. Minutes of June 16, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Ms. Morris briefly discussed the TBD establishment procedure, and noted once the TBD completes all the projects on their list, the district terminates its day-to-day operations and exists solely as a limited entity to oversee the collection of revenue. In addition, if Council decides to go ahead with a $20 license fee, there is a six month waiting period before the money starts coming in. In response to councilmember Cartwright, Ms. Morris stated we could do an interlocal agreement with the county to expand the boundaries of the TBD. Councilmember Childs noted he has objected in the past about moving forward with the mechanisms to fund transportation projects without selling the citizens on the need, and soliciting their support. As soon as we decided we had a problem, we should have been out telling people some of our ideas. Council and staff discussed public outreach and process and future projects relating to the TBD. Council Direction: Council directed staff to contact other cities and see how they imposed a TBD, and how they informed the public; and also look into how the City could do outreach to the citizens. 28. Concurrency & Impact Fee Ordinance Development Director Bond stated we have been discussing possibly using impact fees for funding capital projects. Council had asked staff to research impact fees and what it would take to implement them. The first thing they discovered was that we need to update our impact fee and concurrency ordinances, regardless if we want to do impact fees. He provided draft ordinances to the Council, showing it would create three new chapters in the code to replace the existing chapters; Definitions, Impact Fees; and Concurrency. We currently have park and school impact fees in place. The school district collects their impact fees directly, and the park impact fees is paid to the City and kept in a separate fund. In addition, the Concurrency Ordinance is required under the Growth Management Act. These are land use regulations designed to ensure that the necessary public facilities and services to support new development are adequate and available, based on adopted levels of service, at the time that the impacts of the development occur. Right now, our Concurrency Ordinance is inconsistent with State Laws, and we have been advised to fix this. City Attorney Morris noted how concurrency works; if you have a person who comes in who wants to develop a project in the City, but the project is so large you don't have the infrastructure in place, concurrency says you have to deny the permit for the project, unless there is some way for that developer to either come up with the money, or come up with other strategies in order to achieve concurrency. Minutes of June 16, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Public Works Director Dorsey stated it is about the level of service, and trying to maintain that level of service on the streets. Council Direction: Council directed staff to bring this item back for discussion in late July or August, without the traffic impact fee included. 2C. Transportation Impact Fee Public Works Director Dorsey reported when he came to the City in 2008, the City had a transportation improvement plan, financially unconstrained, with no transportation revenue source except for the general fund. Council directed staff to revise the proposed Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) rate of $3,822/ITE Trip as a function of the upcoming 2015 Transportation Plan Update. On March 24, 2015, and based upon a proposed 3-tier TIP6, TSI presented a new TIF rate of $2,607 /ITE trip. The current TIF rate proposal is $3,016.26 (including GEMl) and $2,841.13 (excluding GEMl). In response to Councilmember Ashby, Mr. Dorsey replied in the process of creating a separate Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) list, they had three different meetings with land owners within a specific corridor on Sedgwick. They were looking at the ability to provide concurrency for projects by adding them to the TIF list as an incentive for development, and allow the developer the means to get a credit for their impact fees. Development Director Bond stated we had a meeting with the county, and one of the challenges is it is very difficult for us to know what the county is doing. We are trying to get the County to keep us up to date on what projects are happening in the county. Right now, our only mechanism for insuring those projects don't negatively affect the City is through SEPA, and the City providing comments on county projects. City Attorney Morris stated we could also do an lnterlocal Agreement with the County. Council and staff briefly discussed proposed projects in the City and how they relate to the TIF, and to involve stakeholders in this discussion. Council Direction: Council directed staff to schedule a special meeting on Tuesday, June 30, 2015, for further discussion with the stakeholders. 2. Capital Improvement Budget City Treasurer Martin reported a proposal to write a general fund ongoing operating budget and a separate capital budget. The benefit to the City is that it is more transparent, you can actually break apart to see what your operations are ongoing, and knowing what your capital projects are. Minutes of June 16, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Council Direction: Council directed staff to prepare an operating budget and capital budget for the 2016. 3. Biennial Budgeting City Treasurer Martin reported on having a biennial budget, which is a two year budget, starting in 2017. If the Council wishes to move forward with this, an ordinance would need to be approved before June 2016. This would put the City on a two year budget cycle. The benefit to the elected officials is to free up their time, and really focus on the capital budget, rather than continually rewriting the budget every twelve months. There is a public hearing process for this . The State and many other cities are already on a biennial budget . Councilmember Clauson mentioned this should coincide with the elections cycle . Council Direction: Staff will bring this discussion to the Council next spring. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.