06/30/2015 - Special - MinutesCity of Port Orchard
Council Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting of June 30, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Matthes called the meeting to order at 6:00 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: City Clerk Rinearson, Public Works Director Dorsey, City Treasurer Martin,
Development Director Bond, and City Attorney Morris were also present.
A. Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Matthes led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Discussion: Transportation Projects and Traffic Impact Fees
Public Works Director Dorsey presented the proposed transportation impact fee project list which
included Tremont Street Widening; SR 160 Corridor Pre-Design; Bethel Corridor Re-Engineering;
Anderson Hill/Clifton Intersection; Old Clifton/Campus Parkway Intersection; Bay Street Pedestrian
Seg. 3B; Sedgwick West; Bethel Corridor; SR 16d Roundabouts; SR 160 Corridor Final Design; SR
160 Corridor; Sidney Avenue South Widening; Pottery Avenue Widening; Old Clifton Shoulder &
Pedestrian; and Old Clifton/McCormick Woods Drive Intersection.
Community Development Director Bond explained the impact fee formula and stated the variables
can be adjusted, and when you do so, it changes the impact fee amount up or down depending on
if you are adding or taking away projects. You can also look into shifting the percentages (42% of
total trips are related to growth) however, if you lower this percentage it is risky, as you are
Minutes of June 30, 2015
Page 2 of 4
indicating the City is relying more on grant funding or you pass on the cost to the existing City
residents through the general fund or other revenue sources.
Councilmembers Putaansuu and Clauson voiced concerns of the City funding a State highway.
Public Works Director Dorsey stated the project was added by staff to be proactive based on
knowing what is going to be developed in that corridor and as an incentive rather than the
converse of a moratorium. Councilmember Cartwright is concerned that if the highway is on the
City's list, the State won't help with the funding.
William Palmer, planning consultant, provided the Council a letter he addressed his concerns
stating he is opposed to the impact fees and considers it an unfair tax and believes developers
would go somewhere else if we impose the impact fees.
Brian Petro, Windermere Commercial Real Estate, asks what the Council has planned for with the
increased value of property tax. What is the plan for that increased dollar amount? Port Orchard
has had no growth and you are pricing the developers out of our community. Plan transportation
with the money the City receives after the development is done.
Matt Murphy, Port Orchard Chamber of Commerce, feels that impact fees will stymie growth and
economic development. He states we need to help the businesses in Port Orchard succeed, not
charge them more taxes or more fees. He gave examples of what impact fees would be for some
small businesses.
Doug Skrobut asked the Council to check the figures in the table provided in the handout by the
Consultant, as they may have used unites versus population.
Dick Brown said you are trying to solve a three million dollar problem, with an eighty-six million
dollar solution. He would like to discourage the council from passing impact fees. The solution may
be to higher an economist to help determine what the citizens can afford.
Nick Whittleton noted citizens need to be considered, not just the developers.
Mike Eliason, Kitsap Realtors, spoke about impact fees in other local jurisdictions, and mentioned
if you divide what the impact fee is by the sale value of the home, you will get actual figures. Also,
the City can be divided into different areas. They are suggesting treating residential separate from
business, and doing SEPA for commercial projects. Keep in mind the City has competitors. He
applauds the Council for holding an open public meeting.
Teresa Osinski, Home Builders Association, thanked the council for holding this meeting. She is
struggling with a couple of the projects on the list, and asks how you can argue that the eighty-six
million dollars worth of projects, legally comply with our impact fee limitations. The City needs to
Minutes of June 30, 2015
Page 3 of 4
be careful that the projects with impact fees are actually related to development. Also, you want
to promote new construction within the City. Additional fees are not seen as value to the appraisal
market. She has spoken to many developers, and they have never responded they would go
somewhere and develop because that location has impact fees.
Elissa Whittleton has enjoyed the opinions from both sides of the fence. New construction does
bring impact, and we need to find a way to mitigate that. Her objection is to the split, which is
greatly weighted towards the developer, and leaving the citizen holding the bag. We should be self
sustaining when we bring in new construction. She could understand a fifty-fifty split between the
developer and citizens.
Gerry Harmon's objection was not to this meeting as she has learned a lot; however, her objection
was the emphasis that developers were the only stakeholders in this process. There is a lot coming
down on people. She encouraged the developers to come to more meetings.
Doug Skrobut, McCormick Land Company, noted they-are in favor of appropriate and reasonable
traffic impact fees to mitigate impacts of growth. They recognize that Tremont is an issue for the
City, and is a problem that needs to be solved. He would like to get more education on level of
service.
Public Works Director Dorsey spoke briefly about federal funding, service demand and
transportation.
Ms. Harmon recognizes many things have to be done because of how government is changing in
the State. She, as a citizen, resident, and stakeholder, is glad for impact fees, as long as they are
fair to the citizens who live here. She does not want to pick up the slack if developers don't want
to pay for impact fees.
Gary Anderson noted everyone has benefited from this meeting. This issue needs to be labored
over to a great extent to make sure the right decision is made. The best solution for impacts is to
encourage successful commercial development that can pave the way through sales taxes, not
impact fees. We need more residential development here to support commercial. Impact fees will
inhibit development in Port Orchard.
David Markley with Transportation Solutions (TSI), discussed traffic impact fees and maintaining
adopted levels of service.
Councilmember Ashby left the meeting at 8:48pm.
Council Direction: Council directed staff to continue this discussion at the July 21 Work Study,
beginning at 7:00pm.
3. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p .m .
~-c---
Brandy Rinearson, CMC, City Clerk
Minutes of June 30, 2015
Page 4 of 4