023-15 - Ordinance - Relating to Impact Fees for New DevelopmentIntroduced by:
Drafted by:
Reviewed by:
Introduced:
Adopted:
ORDINANCE NO.023-15
Development Director
Development Director
City Attorney
November 10, 2015
November 10, 2015
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
RELATING TO IMPACT FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, REPEALING THE
CURRENT IMPACT FEE CHAPTER 16.70 POMC AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER
IDENTIFYING A SERVICE AREA, DESCRIBING THE MANNER IN WHICH
TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOL AND PARK IMPACT FEES ARE CALCULATED, THE
PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING CREDITS, VARIATIONS FROM THE IMPACT FEE
SCHEDULES, EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT LIST, ESTABLISHING
AN APPEAL PROCESS AND ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS
IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 16.70 TO THE PORT
ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt a new impact fee ordinance to be consistent with
State Law; and
WHEREAS, the City SEPA Responsible Official made a threshold determination that this
ordinance was exempt under WAC 197-11-800(19);
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Ordinance after taking testimony in a public
hearing during its regular meeting of November 10, 2015;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 16.70 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
Section 2. A new Chapter 16.70 is hereby added, which shall read as follows:
Chapter 16.70
IMPACT FEES
Sections:
16.70.010 Authority and purpose.
16.70.020 Applicability.
16.70.030 Geographic scope.
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 2 of 50
16.70.040
Imposition of impact fees.
16.70.050
Approval of development.
16.70.060
Fee schedules and establishment of service area.
16.70.070
Calculation of impact fees.
16.70.080
Credits.
16.70.090
Variation from impact fee schedule.
16.70.100
Payment of fees.
16.70.110
Time of payment of impact fees.
16.70.120
Project list.
16.70.130
Funding of projects.
16.70.140
Use and disposition of dedicated land.
16.70.150
Refunds.
16.70.160
Appeals.
16.70.170
Relationship to SEPA.
16.70.180
Park and transportation facility requirements in adjoining
municipalities/districts.
16.70.190
Necessity of compliance.
16.70.010
Authority and purpose.
A. This chapter is enacted pursuant to the City's police powers, the Growth
Management Act (chapter 36.70A RCW), the impact fee statutes (RCW 82.02.050 through
82.02.100), the State Subdivision Act (chapter 58.17 RCW) and the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA, chapter 43.21C RCW).
B. The purpose of this chapter is to:
1. Develop a program consistent with the City's parks, open space and
recreation plan, six -year road plan and the City's comprehensive plan (parks and transportation
elements) and capital improvement plan, for joint public and private financing of park and
transportation facility improvements necessitated in whole or in part by development in the
City;
2. Develop a program for financing of school facilities consistent with the
capital improvement plan of the school district, as such public facilities are necessitated in
whole or in part by development in the City;
school district;
3. Ensure adequate levels of service in public facilities within the City and
4. Create a mechanism to charge and collect fees to ensure that all new
development bears its proportionate share of the capital costs of off -site park, school and
transportation facilities reasonably related to new development, in order to maintain adopted
levels of park service, maintain adopted levels of service in the City's transportation facilities,
and to ensure the availability of adequate school facilities at the time of new development;
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 3 of 50
5. Ensure that the City pays its fair share of the capital costs of parks and
transportation facilities necessitated by public use of the parks and roadway system, and ensure
that the school district pays its fair share of the capital costs of school facilities; and
Ensure fair collection and administration of such impact fees.
16.70.020 Applicability and Definitions.
A. Chapter 16.69 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code includes the definitions for
this chapter and chapter 16.71 on concurrency management. The requirements of this Chapter
apply to all development in the City as "development" or "development activity" is defined in
Section 16.69.010 POMC.
B. Mitigation of impacts on parks and transportation facilities located in
jurisdictions outside the City will be required when:
1. The other affected jurisdiction has reviewed the development's impact
under its adopted impact fee/mitigation regulations and has recommended to the City that
there be a requirement to mitigate that impact; and
2. There is an interlocal agreement between the City and the affected
jurisdiction specifically addressing impact identification and mitigation.
16.70.030 Geographic Scope. The boundaries within which transportation and park
impact fees shall be charged and collected are the same as the corporate city limits. The
boundaries within which school impact fees shall be charged and collected are the same as the
boundaries of the South Kitsap School District No. 402 lying within the corporate city limits. All
unincorporated areas annexed to the City on and after the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this Chapter shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter. After the adoption of
interlocal agreements with other local and regional governments, the geographic boundaries
may be expanded consistent therewith.
16.70.040 Imposition of Impact Fees.
A. The City is hereby authorized to impose impact fees on new development.
B. Impact fees may be required pursuant to the impact fee schedule adopted
through the process described herein, or mitigation may be provided through:
1. the purchase, installation and/or improvement of park, school and
transportation facilities pursuant to Section 16.70.080; or
2. The dedication of land pursuant to Section 16.70.080.
C. Impact fees:
Ordinance No. 023-15
Paize 4 of 50
1. Shall only be imposed for park, school and transportation facilities that
are reasonably related to new development;
2. Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of park, school and
transportation facilities that are reasonably related to new development;
3. Shall be used for park, school and transportation facilities that will
reasonably benefit the new development;
4. Shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies;
5. Shall not be imposed to mitigate the same off -site park, school and
transportation facility impacts that are being mitigated pursuant to any other law;
6. Shall not be collected for improvements to state/county. park and
transportation facilities unless the state/county requests such improvements and an interlocal
agreement to collect such fees has been executed between the state/county and the City;
7. Shall not be collected for improvements to park and transportation
facilities in other municipalities unless the affected municipality requests that such impact fees
be collected on behalf of the affected municipality, and an interlocal agreement has been
executed between the City and the affected municipality for the collection of such fees,
8. Shall be collected only once for each development, unless changes or
modifications to the development are proposed which result in greater direct impacts on park,
school and/or transportation facilities than were considered when the development were first
permitted;
10. May be imposed for system improvement costs previously incurred by
the City and school district, to the extent that new growth and development will be served by
previously constructed improvements; and provided, that such fee shall not be imposed to make
up for any system improvement deficiencies; and
11. Shall only be imposed for park and school facilities on residential
development.
16.70.050 Approval of development. Prior to approving or permitting a development or
development permit, the Approving Authority shall consult with the Director and the
superintendent of the school district concerning mitigation of a development's impacts and
impact fees. .
16.70.060 Fee schedules and establishment of service area.
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 5 of 50
A. Impact fee schedules setting forth the amount of the impact fees to be paid by
developers are listed in the Appendices attached to the ordinance adopting this Chapter, and
incorporated herein by this reference. The Road or transportation impact fee schedule is in
Appendix A, Park impact fees are in Appendix B and school impact fees are in Appendix C.
B. For the purpose of Road and Park impact fees, the entire City shall be
considered one service area.
C. For the purpose of school impact fees, the entire boundary of the school district
shall be considered one service area.
16.70.070 Calculation of impact fees.
A. Director calculates the fees. The Director shall calculate the impact fees set
forth in Appendices A and B. The superintendent of the school district shall calculate the school
impact fees set forth in Appendix C. The City Council shall have the final decision on the
calculation of the impact fees to be imposed under this chapter as set forth in Appendices A and
B.
B. Factors used in impact fee calculations. The calculation of impact fees shall
include the factors identified in RCW 82.02.040 through RCW 82.02.070 and shall:
1. Determine the standard fee for similar types of development, which
shall be reasonably related to each development's proportionate share of the cost of projects
described in the Project List for each type of impact fee.
2. Reduce the proportionate share by applying the benefit factors
described in 16.70.080.
C. Proportionate share. In calculating proportionate share, the following factors
shall be considered:
Identification of all park, school and transportation facilities that will be
impacted by users from development;
Identification of the point at which the capacity of a park, school or
transportation facility has been fully utilized;
3. Updating of the data as often as practicable, but at least annually;
4. Estimation of the cost of construction the projects in the Project List
(see, Section 16.70.120 of this Chapter) for roads at the time they are placed on the list; the cost
of maintaining the City's level of park service as shown on Appendix B; and the costs relating to
the construction of school facilities, and to then update the cost estimates at least annually,
considering the:
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 6 of 50
(a) Availability of other means of funding park, school and
transportation facilities;
(b) Cost of existing park, school and transportation facility
improvements;
(c) Methods by which park, school and transportation facility
improvements were financed; and
5. An adjustment to the cost of the park, school and transportation
facilities for past or future payments 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.
16.70.080 Credits.
A. Credit Allowed. The Director, or, in the case of school impact fees, the
superintendent, shall reduce the calculated proportionate share for a particular development by
giving credit for the benefit factors described in this section.
B. Procedure for Obtaining Credit, Time to Request Credit. Requests for credits
against impact fees will not be considered unless the developer makes the request in writing,
concurrent with the submission of the application for the underlying development permit
triggering the impact fee.
C. Benefit Factors. The Director and/or superintendent will consider the following
benefit factors when determining whether an impact fee credit is appropriate:
1. Developer's dedication of land and/or construction of system
improvements. The value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of
any system improvements provided by the developer, to facilities required by the City that are
identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the City as a condition of
approving the development activity, as long as the following conditions are satisfied. For school
impact fees, the superintendent shall consider the value of any dedication of land provided by
the developer identified in the school district's capital facilities plan as long as the following
conditions are satisfied to the extent applicable:
(a) The system improvements are located on land owned by the
City, and
(b) A designated public owner is responsible for permanent,
continuing maintenance and operation of the system improvements; and
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 7 of 50
(c) The Director determines that the system improvements
correspond to the type(s) of park and transportation system improvements that are reasonably
related to the development as determined pursuant to this Chapter;
(d) The Director determines, after consultation with the school
district, as applicable, and after an analysis of supply and demand data, the parks, open space
and recreation plan, the six -year road plan and the adopted park and transportation plan, that
the proposed park and transportation system improvements better meet the City's need for
park and transportation system improvements than would payment of funds to mitigate the
park and transportation impacts of the development;
(e) In the determination of credit toward the impact fee, the
Director or the superintendent shall also consider the extent to which the proposed dedication
or conveyance meets the following criteria:
The land should result in an integral element of the City
park/road system;
ii. The land is suitable for future park, school and/or
transportation facilities;
iii. The land is of appropriate size and of an acceptable
configuration;
iv. The land has public access via a public street or an
easement of an equivalent width and accessibility;
V. The land is located in or near areas designated by the
City or County on land use plans for park, trail or recreational purposes, or, in the case of
schools, is appropriate located for school facilities;
vi. The land provides linkage between County and/or other
publicly -owned recreation and transportation properties;
vii. The land has been surveyed or adequately marked with
survey monuments, or is otherwise readily distinguishable from adjacent privately -owned
property;
viii. The land has no known physical problems associated
with it, such as the presence of hazardous waste, drainage erosion or flooding problems which
the Director or Superintendent determines would cause inordinate demands on public
resources for maintenance and operation;
ix. The land has no known safety hazards;
X. The developer is able to provide documentation, as
nearly as practicable, of the land's compliance with the criteria of this subsection, and of clear
title;
xi. The developer is able to provide and fund a long-term
method, acceptable to the Director or superintendent, for the management and maintenance of
the land, if applicable.
D. Requirement for System Improvement Plan by City. When the Director has
agreed to a developer's proposal to satisfy some or all of the impact fee through the purchase,
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 8 of 50
installation and/or improvement of park and/or transportation facilities, the developer shall
prepare and submit a system improvement plan to the Director for approval prior to recordation
of a plat or short plat for subdivisions, and prior to issuance of a building permit for all other
developments.
E. Statutory Benefit Factors. The Director or superintendent may consider any
applicable benefit factors, as described in RCW 82.02.060 (as it now exists or may hereafter be
amended), that are demonstrated by the applicant not to be included in the calculation of the
impact fee.
F. Amount of Credit. The credit against the impact fee shall be equal to the fair
market value of the purchased/dedicated property or equal to the cost of the completed system
improvements. In those situations in which a developer has not yet installed or constructed
system improvements and requests a credit for the system improvement(s), the City engineer
shall estimate the cost of the system improvements, which shall be the credit allowed to the
developer in the decision on the amount of the impact fee. If a credit is granted for a system
improvement that has not been constructed, the developer shall pay the full impact fee without
the credit, at the time established in Section 16.70.110. After construction and/or installation of
the system improvement, the developer may request the credit granted by the City engineer
under this subsection, and the City shall refund the difference of the impact fee to reflect the
credit, provided, that if the City and the property owner have entered into a development
agreement on or before the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, and the
agreement requires the construction of such improvements, the City may allow a credit to be
subtracted from the impact fee paid at the time established in Section 16.70.110.
G. PRDs, PUD's and Mobile Home Parks. A developer of a planned residential
development, a planned unit development, or a mobile home park may receive credit only for
park, school and transportation facilities provided in addition to those normally required under
SEPA for such developments, pursuant to the City's SEPA Ordinance (chapter 14.04 POMC).
H. Credit to Apply Proportionately to Units. The amount of credit determined
pursuant to this subsection shall be credited proportionately among all the units in the
development, and the impact fee for each unit for which a permit or approval is applied shall be
reduced accordingly.
I. Limits on Credit Requests. Applicants may not request that an impact fee credit
be provided for a proposed development based on taxes, user fees, assessments,
improvements, payments or other benefit factors applicable to property that is not included
within the proposed development. Credit to be paid back by the City or the school district to a
developer under this subsection shall not exceed the total amount of the impact fees paid by
the developer.
J. Local Improvement Districts. Applicants shall receive credit against the impact
fee equal to the amount of an LID assessment paid for transportation -related system
improvements identified by the Director as increasing transportation system capacity.
Ordinance No. 023-15
Paae 9 of 50
K. Appeals of Credits. The Director or superintendent shall issue a written decision
on the developer's request for a credit of the impact fee calculation, which shall explain why the
credit was granted or denied. The developer may request reconsideration and appeal the
impact fee amount and credit pursuant to Section 16.70.160. If the procedures in Section
16.70.160 are not timely followed to request an appeal of the credit, the Director or
superintendent's decision on the impact fee credit shall be final.
16.70.090 Variation from Impact Fee Schedule. With respect to the a transportation or
park impact fee, if a developer submits information demonstrating a significant difference
between the age, social activity or interest characteristics of the population of a proposed
subdivision or development and the data used to calculate the impact fee schedule, the Director
may allow a special calculation of the impact fee requirements for the subdivision or
development to be prepared by the developer's consultant, at the developer's cost, provided
that: the Director shall have prior approval of the qualifications and methodology of the
developer's consultant in making such calculation, and any time period mandated by statute or
ordinance for the Approving Authority's final decision on the development shall not include the
time spent in preparing the special calculation. Whether the Director accepts the data provided
by the special calculation shall be at the discretion of the Director.
With respect to a school impact fee, if a developer submits evidence demonstrating that
a development has obtained approval of an age -restricted development in accordance with
applicable federal regulations or that a development has recorded a covenant against the
development prohibiting occupancy of the development by a population who are not eligible to
attend schools within the school district, the superintendent may allow a special calculation of
the impact fee requirement for the development at the discretion of the superintendent of the
school district.
16.70.100 Payment of Fees.
A. All applicants for development shall pay an impact fee in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter which shall be calculated by the City or school district at the time that
the building permit is ready for issuance. Applicants/developers may choose to pay impact fees
or a portion thereof prior to the City's issuance of a building permit, but if the early payment is
less than the fee calculated at the time the building permit is ready for issuance, the
applicant/developer shall pay the difference. If the early payment is more than the fee
calculated at the time the building permit is ready for issuance, the City or school district shall
refund the difference.
B. The impact fee shall be recalculated if the development is modified or
conditioned in such a way as to alter park, school or transportation impacts for the
development.
C. A developer may. obtain a preliminary determination of the impact fee before
submitting an application for the development permit by providing the Director or
Ordinance No. 023 -15
10 of 50
superintendent with the information needed for processing together with the applicable fee.
Such determinations are provided to the developer as estimates only, and they are not binding
on the City, given the limited information needed to calculate the preliminary impact fee
amount and the fact that the City or school district annually updates the Project List and Impact
Fee Schedule. In addition, impact fees are not subject to the vested rights doctrine, and the fee
actually paid by the developer will be the impact fee in effect at the time of building permit
issuance, regardless of any preliminary determinations.
16.70.110 Time of payment of impact fees.
A. Payment of any required impact fees shall be made as a condition of the
issuance of a building permit, except as provided in Subsection D herein. School impact fees
shall be paid to the school district, and the developer shall present the receipt or proof of
payment from the school district to the City for issuance of the building permit.
B. Impact fees may be paid under protest in order to obtain the necessary
permits/approvals until an appeal of the fee amount is finally resolved.
C. When a subdivision or development is conditioned upon the dedication of land,
or the purchase, installation or improvement of park and/or transportation facilities, a final plat
or short plat shall not be recorded, and a building permit within such plat or development shall
not be issued until:
1. The Director has determined in writing that the land to be dedicated is
shown on the face of the final plat or short plat, or a deed conveying the land to the City, the
school district or special purpose district, as appropriate, has been recorded with the County
Auditor; and
2. The Director has determined in writing, after consultation with the
designated public owner responsible for permanent, continuing maintenance and operation of
the facilities that the developer has satisfactorily undertaken or guaranteed to undertake in a
manner acceptable to the Director or superintendent, any required purchase, installation or
improvement of school, park or transportation facilities.
D. Deferral of Payment of Impact Fees. Payment of impact fees for single family
attached or single family detached residential dwelling units may be deferred only until issuance
of certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification, pursuant to RCW 82.02.050(3), subject to
the following provisions:
1. Each applicant, in accordance with his or her contractor registration
number or other unique identification number, is entitled to annually receive deferrals under
this section for the first twenty single-family residential construction building permits per City.
Any single-family residential building construction permits beyond twenty for the same
applicant are subject to payment of impact fees at the time of building permit issuance as
required by subsection A above.
Ordinance No. 023 -15
Paize 11 of 50
2. A request for deferral must be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. Application for deferral must be made on a form provided by and
acceptable to the City and must include the following information and fees:
(a) Name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the
applicant.
(b) The specific address, legal description and tax identification
number of the single-family dwelling for which deferral is being requested.
(c) The building permit application number associated with the
requested deferral.
(d) The registration number or other unique identification number
for the contractor that will be building the structure.
(e) A statement by the contractor describing how may deferrals
have been granted during the current year for said contractor, describing how many have been
requested during the current year, and attesting that the number provided and/or requested is
less than twenty for the current calendar year.
(f) Applicable fees for processing the application and for future
monitoring of the deferred payment of impact fees are required in addition to fees required by
this Chapter. Deferral application fees shall include:
i. Minimum of four hours base administration fee, at the
hourly staff rate required by the development fee schedule adopted in the City's fee resolution,
and payable at the time of application submittal.
H. Minimum of four hours administration fee at the
current hourly staff rate to cover additional time spent processing of final payment of impact
fees, including but not limited to preparation of lien release documents, payable before the lien
release document shall be released to the applicant.
4. No more than one single-family dwelling may be included on a single
application for impact fee deferral.
5. Impact fees shall be calculated on the fees in place at the time that the
applicant applies for a deferral.
6. Impact fees deferred under this Section are due no later than the
following events, whichever occur first:
(a) Issuance of certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification
for the single family dwelling; or
(b) Eighteen (18) months from the date of the building permit
issuance.
7. An applicant seeking a deferral under this subsection must grant and
record a deferred impact fee lien against the property in favor of the City of Port Orchard. The
deferred impact fee lien must include the legal description, tax account number, and address of
the property, and must also be:
(a) In a form approved by the City Attorney which ensures that it is
binding on all successors on the title to the property after recordation;
(b) Signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 12 of 50
acknowledged as required for a deed, and recorded with the Kitsap County Auditor's office; and
(c) Junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of
construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of
impact fees.
8. The City may withhold a certificate of occupancy or equivalent
certification until the impact fees are paid in full. Upon receipt of final payment of all deferred
impact fees for a property, and upon payment of all applicable administration fees in the.City's
fee resolution, the City must execute a release of deferred impact fee lien for the property. The
property owner at the time of the release, at his or her expense, is responsible for recording the
lien release.
9. Foreclosure proceedings. If impact fees are not paid in accordance with
a deferral authorized by this Section, the City may institute proceedings to enforce the lien in
accordance with chapter 61.12 RCW.
10. Obligation to pay. The extinguishment of a deferred impact fee lien by the
foreclosure of a lien having priority does not affect the obligation to pay the impact fees as a
condition issuance of certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification.
11. Deferral process not subject to review proceedings. Per RCW 36.70E
.140(2), the processing of an impact fee deferral application is not subject to the project permit
review requirements of chapter 36.7013 RCW.
16.70.120 Project List.
A. The Director shall annually review the City's parks, open space and recreation
plan, the six -year road plan and the projects listed in Appendices A and B, and shall:
1. Identify each project in the comprehensive plan that is growth -related
and the proportion of each such project that is growth -related;
2. Forecast the total money available from taxes and other public sources
for park and transportation improvements for the next six years;
3. Update the population, building activity and demand and supply data
for park and transportation facilities and the impact fee schedule for the next six -year period;
4. Calculate the amount of impact fees already paid:
5. Identify those comprehensive plan projects that have been or are being
built but whose performance capacity has not been fully utilized;
B. The Director shall use this information to prepare an annual draft amendment
to the fee schedule in Appendices A and B, which shall comprise:
1. The projects in the comprehensive plan that are growth -related and
that should be funded with forecast public monies and the impact fees already paid; and
Ordinance No. 023-15
13 of 50
2. The projects already built or funded pursuant to this Chapter whose
performance capacity has not been fully utilized.
C. The City Council, at the same time that it adopts the annual budget and
appropriates funds for capital improvement projects, shall, by separate ordinance, establish the
annual project list by adopting, with or without modification, the Director's draft amendment.
D. Once a project is integrated into the Fee Schedule in Appendices A and B, a fee
shall be imposed on every development until the project is removed from the Project List by one
of the following means:
1. The City Council by ordinance removes the project from the Project List
and Appendix A and/or B, in which case the fees already collected will be refunded if necessary
to ensure that impact fees remain reasonably related to the park and transportation impacts of
development that have paid an impact fee; provided, that a refund shall not be necessary if the
Council transfers the fees to the budget of another project that the Council determines will
mitigate essentially the same park and transportation impacts; or
2. The capacity created by the project has been fully utilized, in which case
the Director shall remove the project from the Project List.
E. The school district shall annually review and update its capital facilities portion
of the City's comprehensive plan and submit such updated plan to the City by July 1' of each
year. The school district's updated capital facilities plan shall identify projects that are growth -
related, include the amount of school impact fees paid, calculate the impact fees as required by
chapter 82.02.050 through 82.020.90, and may include a proposed school impact fee schedule
adjustment to Appendix C, for adoption by the City Council.
16.70.130 Funding of Projects.
A. An impact fee fund is hereby created for parks and transportation fees.
Separate accounts shall be established for each fee type. The school district shall be responsible
for the creation of its own impact fee fund and shall be solely responsible for the deposit of fees
in such fund, and the calculation/use/refund of such fees. The Director shall be the manager of
the City's fund. The City shall place park and transportation impact fees in appropriate deposit
accounts within the impact fee fund.
B. The parks and transportation impact fees paid to the City shall be held and
disbursed as follows:
1. The fees collected for each project shall be placed in a deposit account
within the impact fee fund, with the exception of school impact fees, which shall be collected by
the school district;
Ordinance No. 023-15
Paae 14 of 50
2. When the Council appropriates capital improvement project (CIP) funds
for a park or transportation project on the Project List, the park or transportation fees held in
the impact fee fund shall be transferred to the CIP fund. The non -impact fee monies
appropriated for the project shall comprise both the public share of the project cost and an
advancement of that portion of the private share that has not yet been collected in park or
transportation impact fees;
3. The first money spent by the Director on a project after a council
appropriation shall be deemed to be the fees from the impact fee fund;
4. Fees collected after a project has been fully funded by means of one or
more council appropriations shall constitute reimbursement to the City of the funds advanced
for the private share of the project. The public monies made available by such reimbursement
shall be used to pay the public share of other projects;
5. All interest earned on impact fees paid shall be retained in the account
and expended for the purpose or purposes for which the impact fees were imposed.
C. Projects shall be funded by a balance between impact fees and public funds,
and shall not be funded solely by impact fees.
D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use for ten (10)
years after receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary or compelling reason for fees to be held
longer than ten (10) years. The Director may recommend to the Council that the City hold park
or transportation fees beyond ten (10) years in cases where extraordinary or compelling reasons
exist. Such reasons shall be identified in written findings by the Council. =The superintendent of
the school district shall prepare written findings evidencing such extraordinary or compelling
reason for fees to be held longer than ten (10) years which findings shall be approved by the
board of directors of the school district.
E. The school district and the Director shall prepare an annual report on the
impact fee accounts showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned or received
and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. The school
district shall be responsible for compliance with RCW 82.02.070.
16.70.140 Use and Disposition of Dedicated Land. All land dedicated or conveyed
pursuant to this Chapter shall be set aside for development of park, school and transportation
facilities. The City or the school district to which land is dedicated or conveyed pursuant to this
Chapter shall make every effort to use, develop and maintain land dedicated or conveyed for
park, school and transportation facilities. In the event that use of any such dedicated land is
determined by the Director, Superintendent, eF the Geunpf to be infeasible for development of
park, school or transportation facilities, the dedicated land may be sold or traded for another
parcel of land. The proceeds from such a sale shall be used to acquire land or develop park,
school or transportation facilities.
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 15 of 50
16.70.150 Refunds.
A. A developer may request and shall receive a refund from either the City (for
parks and transportation impact fees) or the school district (for school impact fees) when the
developer does not proceed with the development activity for which impact fees were paid, and
the developer shows that no impact has resulted.
B. If the City or school district fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within
ten (10) years of the date the fees were paid or the date established by the findings adopted
under 16.70.130(D) on public facilities intended to benefit the development activity for which
the impact fees were paid. In determining whether impact fees have been encumbered, impact
fees shall be considered encumbered on a first in, first out basis. The City or school district shall
notify potential claimants by first class mail, deposited with the U.S. Postal Service at the last
known address of claimants. The request for a refund must be submitted to the City or school
district in writing within one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date
notice is given, whichever is later. Any impact fees that are not expended within these time
limitations and for which no application for refund has been made within the one (1) year
period shall be retained and expended on the indicated capital facilities. Refunds of impact fees
under this Section shall include interest earned on the impact fees. The School District shall be
responsible for compliance with this section and RCW 82.02.080 for school impact fees.
C. In the event that impact fees are refunded for any reason, they shall be
refunded by the City with respect to park and transportation fees (and the school district with
respect to school impact fees) and shall be returned with interest earned to the owners as they
appear of record with the County Assessor at the time of the refund.
D. When the City seeks to terminate any or all impact fee requirements, all
unexpended or unencumbered funds shall be refunded pursuant to this Section. Upon the
finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such
termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two
times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail to the last known address of the
claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one (1) year. At the
end of one (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, or, if applicable, the
school district, but must be expended on a project under the adopted plans of the City or school
district. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered
balances within an account or accounts being terminated. The school district shall be
responsible for compliance with this section for school impact fees under RCW 82.02.080.
16.70.160 Appeals.
A. Decision of the Director or Superintendent, Reconsideration and Appeals. The
Director or the Superintendent shall issue a written decision on the parks, school and/or
transportation impact fee amount as described in this Chapter. Because RCW 82.02.070(5)
allows the appeal of an impact fee determination to be handled separately from the processing
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 16 of 50
of the underlying permit application, this procedure is exempt from the permit processing
requirements in Title 23 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code (pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140).
1. Director's Decision..
a. Request for Reconsideration. In order to request
reconsideration of the Director's Decision, the developer shall make a written request to the
Director for a meeting to review the fee amount, together with a written request for
reconsideration. The request for reconsideration include the City's administrative fee, shall
state in detail the grounds for the request, and shall be filed with the Director within fifteen (15)
days after issuance of the Director's decision on the impact fees. At this meeting, the Director
shall consider any studies and data submitted by the developer seeking to adjust the amount of
the fee. The Director shall issue a written decision on reconsideration within ten (10) working
days of the Director's receipt of the request for reconsideration or the meeting with the
developer, whichever is later.
b. Appeal. A developer may appeal the amount of the impact fee
established in the Decision on Reconsideration of the Director to the hearing examiner. This
appeal must be filed with the City planning department within fourteen (14) days of issuance of
the Decision on Reconsideration. The hearing on the appeal of the Decision on Reconsideration
shall be consolidated with the processing of the underlying permit application, if at all possible.
An appeal of the Decision on Reconsideration may be filed even though there is no appeal of the
underlying permit. The hearing examiner shall conduct an open record hearing on the appeal of
the Decision on Reconsideration, and if it is not consolidated with the underlying permit, the
examiner's decision shall issue within ten working days of the hearing (unless a longer period is
agreed to by the developer).
2. Superintendent's Decision.
a. Request for Reconsideration. In order to request
reconsideration of the Superintendent's decision, the developer shall make a written request to
the Superintendent for a meeting to review the fee amount, together with a written request for
reconsideration. The request for reconsideration shall include the administrative fee, state in
detail the grounds for the request, and shall be filed with the Superintendent within fifteen (15)
days after issuance of the Superintendent's decision on the impact fees. At this meeting, the
Superintendent shall consider any studies and data submitted by the developer seeking to
adjust the amount of the fee. The Superintendent shall issue a written decision on
reconsideration within ten (10) working days of the Superintendent's receipt of the request for
reconsideration or the meeting with the developer, whichever is later.
b. Appeal. A developer may appeal the amount of the impact fee
established in the Decision on Reconsideration of the Superintendent to the hearing examiner
chosen by the District. This appeal must be filed with the Superintendent within fourteen (14)
days of issuance of the Decision on Reconsideration. The hearing on the appeal of the Decision
on Reconsideration shall not be consolidated with the processing of the underlying permit
Ordinance No. 023-15
Page 17 of 50
application. An appeal of the Decision on Reconsideration may be filed even though there is no
appeal of the underlying permit. The hearing examiner shall conduct an open record hearing on
the appeal of the Decision on Reconsideration and issue a decision within ten working days of
the hearing (unless a longer period is agreed to by the developer).
B. Burden of Proof in Appeals. In an appeal of the Decision of the Director or
Superintendent on Reconsideration, the developer shall bear the burden of proving:
1. That the Director or Superintendent committed error in calculating the
developer's proportionate share, as determined by an individual fee calculation, or if relevant,
as set forth in the impact fee schedule, or in granting credit for the benefit factors; or
That the Director or Superintendent based their determination upon
incorrect data
C. Appeals of Hearing Examiner's decision.
1. Appeals from the decision of the school district's hearing examiner on
the Superintendent's Decision on Reconsideration shall be to superior court as provided in
chapter 36.70C RCW.
2. Appeals from the decision of the hearing examiner on the Director's
Decision on Reconsideration shall follow the process for the underlying permit (i.e., if the City's
code provides that the hearing examiner's decision is a recommendation to the City Council,
then the City Council shall make the final decision; or if the City's code provides that the hearing
examiner's decision is final, then the hearing examiner's decision may be appealed to superior
court as provided in chapter 36.70C RCW).
16.70.170 Relationship to SEPA.
A. As provided in RCW 82.02.100, a person required to pay a fee pursuant to RCW
43.21C.060 for system improvements shall not be required to pay an impact fee under this
Chapter for the same system improvements.
B. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to limit the City's authority to deny
development permits when a proposal would result in probable significant adverse impacts
identified in an environmental impact statement and reasonable mitigation measures are
insufficient to mitigate the identified impact.
16.70.180 Park and transportation facility requirements in adjoining
municipalities/districts. Level of service requirements and demand standards different than
those provided in the City's comprehensive park plan shall be applied to park and recreation
facility impacts in adjoining municipalities/districts if such different standards are provided in an
interlocal agreement between the City and the affected municipality. Otherwise, the standards
Ordinance No. 023-15
18 of 50
contained in the City's comprehensive plan shall apply to park and transportation impacts in
adjoining jurisdictions.
16.70.190 Necessity of compliance. A development permit issued after the effective date
codified in this chapter shall be null and void if issued without substantial compliance with this
Chapter by the Director, the department and the Approving Authority.
Section 10 . Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on January 1, 2016
after posting and publication as required by law. A summary of this Ordinance may be
published in lieu of the entire ordinance, as authorized by State Law.
Section 11. Severability. Each and every provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed severable.
In the event that any portion of this Ordinance is determined by final order of a court of
competent jurisdiction to be void or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions thereof provided the intent of this Ordinance can still be
furthered without the invalid provision.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage this 10th day of November, 2015.
' � y
Timothy C. Matf hes, Mayor
ATTEST:
42� /-D � _ 4-6�
Brandy Rinearson, CIVIC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: SPONSORED BY:
Carol A. Morris, City Attorney �,.�`�� Q ° • . 0h'C,S;'%, ek Ashby, Councilmember
Y
SE Lo lb
6<<1,,111 UJ1A%1,,r
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
pt•c�t��`
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE STUDY
PREPARED BY:
TS1
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, INC.
8250165T" AVENUE NE SUITE 100
REDMOND, WA 98052
CONTACT: VICTOR SALEMANN, PE
425.883.4134
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
SEPTEMBER 2015
Ta b I e of Contents
1. Impact Fee Rate Study Overview 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Definition of Impact Fees 1
1.3 Statutory Basis for Impact Fees 1
2. Impact Fee Analysis 3
2.1 Methodology 3
2.2 Current Impact Fee Methodology in Port Orchard 3
2.3 Other Impact Fee Methodologies 3
2.4 Projects Eligible for Impact Fees 4
2.4.1 Project Improvements 4
2.4.2 Planned Transportation Projects
2.4.3 Maintenance Projects and Programs
2.5 Eligible Project Costs
2.5.1 Planned Roadway Projects
2.5.2 McCormick Urban Village Development
4
4
2.6 Impact Fee Calculation
6
2.6.1 Growth Share of Project Costs
6
2.7 Proportionate Growth Share and Impact Fee Calculation for Planned Roadway Projects
8
2.8 Growth Share and Impact Fee Calculation for McCormick Woods Development
8
2.9 Resulting Transportation Impact Fees
8
3. Additional Issues for Consideration
9
3.1 Anticipated Annual Revenues from Impact Fees
9
3.2 Anticipated Grant Revenue
9
3.3 Anticipated Need for Other Public Funds
9
4. Impact Fee Rate Schedule
9
S. Future Impact Fee Updates
9
5.1 Future Impact Fee Updates
9
6. Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
10
6.1 Comparison of 2013 TIF Base Rates in Western Washington
10
7. Credits and Adjustments
10
7.1 Impact Fee Credits
10
7.2 Impact Fee Adjustments
10
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
1. Impact Fee Rate Study Overview
1.1 Introduction
This rate study summarizes the policy and technical development of a Transportation Impact Fee program for
the City of Port Orchard, Washington. The following technical segments will describe the impact fees, basis
for fees, rate methodology, proposed projects, analyses performed to determine impact fees, and rate
schedules.
1.2 Definition of Impact Fees
Impact fees are a comprehensive grouping of charges based on new development within a local municipality.
These fees are assessed to pay for capital facility improvement projects necessitated by new development
growth (including but not limited to parks, schools, streets/roads, etc.).
Transportation Impact Fees are collected to fund improvements that add capacity to the transportation
system, accommodating the travel demand created by new development in Port Orchard. The Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) Section 82.02.050 identifies the intent of impact fees as the following:
To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development;
To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which counties, cities, and
towns may require, by ordinance, that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of
the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development; and
To ensure that impact fees are imposed through established procedures and criteria so that specific
developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same impact.
1.3 Statutory Basis for Impact Fees
The purpose of this study is to establish the rates for impact fees for streets in the City of Port Orchard,
Washington.
Transportation Impact Fees are a financing mechanism authorized by the Growth Management Act (GMA) of
Washington State (see RCW 36.70A.070 and 82.02.050 et seq.). However, impact fees are not mandatory;
they are simply authorized by the GMA as a local option. State law imposes strict limitations on impact fees.
These limitations are intended to assure property owners that the fees collected are reasonably related to
their actual impacts and will not be used for unrelated purposes.
If impact fees are imposed, the funds collected from developments can be expended only on transportation
system improvements, which are: (a) identified in the comprehensive plan as needed for growth, and (b)
reasonably related to the impacts of the new development from which fees are collected.
Specifically, condition (a) requires that impact fees are not used on improvements needed to remedy existing
deficiencies. Those needs must be entirely funded from public sector resources. Condition (b) is satisfied if
the local government defines a reasonable service area, identifies the public facilities within the service area
that require improvement during the designated planning period, and prepares a fee schedule taking into
account the type and size of the development as well as the type of public facility being funded.
To achieve the goal of simplicity, impact fee calculations are applied on an average basis for the entire
transportation system, rather than project -by -project. This is a key difference between impact fees and State
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) mitigation, whereby pro-rata shares of specific project improvements are
collected.
Pre -calculated impact fees are easier to administer than traditional SEPA development mitigation, at the point
of development review. However, more complex administrative procedures are necessary to track the funds
collected from each development. This is necessary to assure that the funds are expended only on eligible
transportation system improvements, and also to assure that impact fee revenues are used within six years.
Fees not expended within six years must be refunded with interest to the current owner of the property.
The methodology and results described next are consistent with the requirements of the GMA. All calculations
are based on the adopted transportation facilities list described in the City of Port Orchard Comprehensive
Plan. The procedures described herein can be formally enacted by an impact fee ordinance incorporating this
report by reference.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
2. Impact Fee Analysis
2.1 Methodology
The primary basis for the impact fee is that growth should pay a proportionate share of the cost to provide
the future transportation capacity. This is developed by comparing the improvement costs for growth in the
Comprehensive Plan's adopted transportation facilities list to an estimate of capacity of the facilities used by
growth. The analysis strictly focuses on those projects that provide capacity improvements needed for growth.
The improvements for maintenance such as pavement overlays and physical obsolescence, as well as
improvements necessary to mitigate existing level of service deficiencies and not eligible for funding with
impact fees. However, agencies have been encouraged by the Department of Commerce to consider
multimodal transportation improvements and, to that end, shoulder widening, sidewalks, bike lanes and
parallel trails are reasonable to include as both vehicle and non -motorized capacity enhancements.
2.2 Current Impact Fee Methodology in Port Orchard
The City of Port Orchard does not currently have a Transportation Impact Fee This study will be the basis of a
program that implements Transportation Impact Fees for the City.
2.3 Other Impact Fee Methodologies
Other cities and counties employ various methodologies to compute impact fees. Some cities charge the full
cost of every project attributable to growth in their fee. This method assumes that existing residents get no
benefit from the projects, and growth creates 100% of the need for the projects. This is seldom true and is
not consistent with GMA requirements, but happens nevertheless.
Other agencies go through rigorous analyses to compute the growth share of every capital project to more
accurately capture the growth share of each project. The City of Sammamish chose this approach. This
approach requires significant analysis in traffic forecasting tools and proportionate share calculation. The
Sammamish example is interesting in that the resulting impact fee, the highest in the state, represented about
35% of the City's Capital Program cost. The recovery of expended costs on capital projects that serve growth
is rare, but was used in the City of Sammamish to recover the cost of the 228th Avenue Project. The City of
Newcastle adopted a similar approach to recover costs for the Coal Creek Parkway improvements.
Other agencies choose to set the impact fee by what they consider to be a rate acceptable to the market and
comparable to their neighbors so as not to discourage development. This method typically results in an
underfunded Capital Program that lags behind the impacts of growth and ultimately results in concurrency
failures.
Other cities use zone -based fee structures to capture the differences between commercial and residential
zones. This can create challenges when the impact fee on the north side of the street is 10 times higher than
the fee on the south side. This is why many cities use a single -zone structure.
Each method comes with advantages and risks. In general, the higher the fee, the more supporting
documentation is required.
Cities also allow various levels of adjustment for special conditions within their impact fee ordinances.
Deductions for trip length associated with certain land uses, reductions to trip generation in mixed -use areas,
and credits for provision for alternative modes or TDM programs are all utilized.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
2.4 Projects Eligible for Impact Fees
Not all planned transportation projects and programs are eligible for impact fees. The complete list of projects
is divided below into the following categories, in order to arrive at a list of qualifying improvements that will
form the basis for impact fees calculated for the City of Port Orchard:
• Project Improvements
• Planned Transportation Projects needed within 20 years
• Maintenance Projects
2.4.1 Project Improvements
Project improvements are transportation improvements necessary for a specific development that do not
provide significant system benefits. These are typically low -volume local streets that serve driveways and
parking areas. They may provide connections to other developments, but not forthe purpose of significant
system capacity. Other project improvements include safety improvements and new access connections
to existing arterials that serve only one development. Project improvements are typically required by
other development regulations or as SEPA mitigation for specific development impacts not anticipated in
the Comprehensive Plan. Project improvements are not eligible for impact fees. For the purpose of this
rate analysis, roadway extensions that connected existing developments, but were not significant
arterials, were considered project improvements that could be required under other City codes and
regulations, but would not be included in the impact fee calculation.
2.4.2 Planned Transportation Projects
The roadway projects identified in the Twenty -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are anticipated to be
needed to serve motorized traffic growth for the next twenty years. The roadway capacity provided is
accomplished by adding turn lanes to increase through lane capacity, by lane widening or separating non -
motorized modes, adding signals or roundabouts for intersection capacity, and other improvements to
increase the capacity of the roadway system for all modes. The proportional share of these projects
reasonably related to growth are eligible for impact fees.
2.4.3 Maintenance Projects and Programs
Maintenance programs, general studies, and non -capital activities are generally not eligible for impact
fees. A component of ongoing pavement preservation could be eligible for impact fees if it is
demonstrated that growth increases the magnitude of pavement reconstruction requirements. For
instance, if existing conditions require a two-inch asphalt overly, but added traffic from growth requires
a three-inch asphalt overlay to achieve the same pavement life, the cost of the additional inch of asphalt
could be attributed to growth. Also, if the overlay or reconstruction provides increased lane widths,
intersection improvements, or shoulder widening the cost of the expansion could be considered eligible.
The projects below are not included in the impact fee calculation list, because of their classification as
primarily maintenance projects. These projects will be each be more thoroughly evaluated to determine
if any portion of the project may be eligible for inclusion in the impact fee program.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Project Title
TIP Priority
Number
Project Description
Cost Budgeted
Arnold Creek Crossing
1.7
Replace wooden span under Bay Street for Arnold
$400,000
Creek culvert
Annual Residential Paving
19
.
May include repairing or replacing existing
$2,050,000
Program
pavement in residential areas
Annual Sidewalk
1.10
Repair and replace concrete sidewalks and curb
$60,000
Improvement Program
ramps as needed
Pavement Management
System/ADA Transition
1.11
Prepare a Pavement Management System and
$250,000
Plan
Transition Plan to inventory and rate all streets
Sidney Avenue (north of SR
16) Overlay
2.9
Overlay Sidney Avenue and construct a shoulder
$500,000
Cline Avenue Repairs
2.10
Replace sidewalk and parking strip on the west side
$250,000
of the road. The east side has been replaced
Total
$3,510,000
2.5 Eligible Project Costs
Project costs for each eligible group of impact fee projects in the City of Port Orchard are summarized below.
These costs include various elements, all necessary for the construction of transportation improvements
including design, permitting, right-of-way, construction, and construction management. Ongoing or future
maintenance is not an eligible impact fee cost. Some projects have been removed from the project list because
they are not capacity projects or are considered maintenance projects/programs.
2.5.1 Planned Roadway Projects
The cost of planned impact fee -eligible roadway projects identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan
totals $51,199,090 and is summarized below.
Project Title
TIP Priority
Project Description
Cost
Number
Budgeted
Tremont Street
Widen Tremont from two travel lanes to four
Widening
1.1
travel lanes with sidewalks and stormwater
$17,500,00
improvements.
SR 160 Corridor Pre-
1.3
The pre -design phase for this widening project
$100,000
Design*
with 3 lanes (incl. TWLTL), bike lanes, sidewalks.
Bethel Corridor Re
1'4
City sponsored re -engineering of previous
$750,000
Engineering
County Corridor Plan design
Anderson Hill/Clifton
1'S
Intersection improvements at Anderson Hill &
$1,000,000
Intersection
Old Clifton Road.
Old Clifton/Campus
1.6
Construct roundabout at the intersection of Old
$1,000,000
Parkway Intersection
Clifton Road and Campus Parkway.
Sedgwick West
2.1
Design/ROW phase for City -sponsored Corridor
$1,156,070
Design/ROW
Plan between SR16 and Bethel Rd
Sedgwick West
2'2
Construction phase of City -sponsored Corridor
$3,468,208
Construction
Plan between SR16 and Bethel Rd
Bethel Corridor
2'3
ROW/construction phase of City -sponsored
$24,000,000
ROW/Construction
Corridor Plan
SR160 Roundabout #1
2.4
Construction of a new roundabout located
$1,481,481
between Bravo Terrace and Geiger Rd on SR160
SR160 Roundabout #2
2.5
Construction of a new roundabout located
$1,481,481
between Geiger Rd and Ramsey Rd on SR160.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Project Title
TIP Priority
Project Description
Cost
Number
Budgeted
Sidney Avenue South
Widen to three lanes (incl. TWLTL), with bike
Widening
2.8
lanes, sidewalks, traffic calming, and
$6,261,850
stormwater improvements.
Road is currently two -lanes without sidewalks.
Old Clifton Shoulder &
2.10
This project would widen the road to four lanes
$2,000,000
Pedestrian
and add street lighting, sidewalks, and storm
drainage.
Old Clifton/
McCormick Woods Dr
2.11
Signal improvements at the intersection of Old
$1,000,000
Intersection
Clifton Road and McCormick Woods Drive.
Total
1 $61,199,090
*Estimated cost based on similar projects
2.5.2 McCormick Urban Village Development
The above table includes four (4) projects that are at least partially funded by the impact fees associated
with the McCormick Urban Village Development Agreement. Refer to the table below for the four (4)
projects covered within the McCormick Development impact fee. The mitigation fees for the McCormick
Woods share of these projects are collected through pre-existing agreements and are, in some cases,
subject to credits for improvements already made to support the McCormick Urban Village Development.
TIP Priority
Cost
GEM's
Project Title
Number
Project Description
Budgeted
Proportionate
Share
Anderson Hill/Clifton
15
Intersection improvements at Anderson Hill
$1,000,000
$173,000
Intersection
& Old Clifton Road.
Old Clifton/Campus
1'6
Construct roundabout at the intersection of
$1,000,000
$371,000
Parkway Intersection
Old Clifton Road and Campus Parkway.
Road is currently two -lanes without
Old Clifton Shoulder &
2.10
sidewalks. This project would widen the
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
Pedestrian
road to four lanes and add street lighting,
sidewalks, and storm drainage.
Old Clifton/
Signal improvements at the intersection of
McCormick Woods Dr
2.11
Old Clifton Road and McCormick Woods
$1,000,000
$110,000
Intersection
Drive.
Total
$5,000,000
$2,654,000
2.6 Impact Fee Calculation
The impact fee for the City of Port Orchard has been computed based upon trip generation (the increase in
traffic) resulting from growth, and the cost of improvements related to growth.
2.6.1 Growth Share of Project Costs
The growth share of project costs for the City of Port Orchard has been computed based upon proportional
trip generation (the increase in traffic compared to current traffic) resulting from growth.
Growth share of the eligible project cost is defined as the proportion of the impacted roadway capacity
which will be consumed by twenty-year traffic growth, as forecasted by the calibrated citywide travel
demand model.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
The citywide travel demand model was developed in TransCAD software using existing land use and
roadway information provided by the City of Port Orchard, Kitsap County, and Puget Sound Regional Council
(PSRC). Trip generation was based upon rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual, 91 Edition and calibrated based on 2015 traffic counts and knowledge of local
conditions. The trip distribution and traffic assignment sub -models were calibrated based on local
knowledge and regional and national guidance, including the Kitsap County travel demand model and FHWA
calibration best practices. A model calibration plot and base year traffic flow graphic are presented in
Appendix C.
Future traffic conditions were forecasted by incorporating 20-year land use growth allocations provided by
Kitsap County and spatially distributing City and UGA growth totals based on zoning. A network plot
displaying twenty-year growth is presented in Appendix C.
The proportionate growth share of budgeted project cost was calculated by dividing 20-year average daily
traffic (ADT) growth by the total available capacity of each impacted road or intersection after improvement.
ADT was calculated by applying a reasonably estimated K-factor to the PM peak hour traffic volume which
was generated by the citywide planning model.
A citywide transportation impact fee rate was calculated by dividing the capacity -based growth share of
budgeted project cost by forecasted twenty-year PM peak hour trip growth citywide. The result is an impact
fee which charges added transportation demand proportionately to their capacity usage and which can be
revised as growth forecasts and planned projects change. The methodology can be described as follows:
[Growth Share of Project Cost] = [20-year ADT Growth] / [Total Available Capacity]
[Impact Fee Rate ($/PM trip)] = [Growth Share of Project Cost] / [Net new PM peak hour trips]
The following tables summarize the budgeted cost, eligible cost, growth share, and forecasted daily trip
growth for each of the roadway and multimodal projects identified in the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
Project Title
TIP
Priority
Number
cost
Budgeted
Growth
Share
Growth Share
Tremont Street Widening
1.1
$17,500,000
7.4%
$1,289,439
SR 160 Corridor Pre -Design*
1.3
$100,000
69.2%
1 $69,173
Bethel Corridor Re -Engineering
1.4
$750,000
38.9%
$291,509
Anderson Hill/Clifton Intersection
1.5
$1,000,000
44.5%
$445,420
Old Clifton/Campus Parkway
Intersection
1.6
$1,000,000
13.9%
$138,575
Sedgwick West Design/ROW
2.1
$1,156,070
46.1%
$533,072
Sedgwick West Construction
2.2
$3,468,208
46.1%
$1,599,214
Bethel Corridor ROW/Construction
2.3
$24,000,000
38.9%
$9,328,302
SR160 Roundabout #1
2.4
$1,481,481
72.8%
$1,078,882
SR160 Roundabout #2
2.5
$1,481,481
72.8%
$1,078,882
Sidney Avenue South Widening
2.8
$6,261,850
37.0%
$2,316,608
Old Clifton Shoulder & Pedestrian
2.10
$2,000,000
51.0%
$1,020,234
Old Clifton/ McCormick Woods Dr
Intersection
2.11
$1,000,000
49.9%
$498,698
TOTAL
$61,199,090
32.2%
$19,688,007
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
2.7 Proportionate Growth Share and Impact Fee Calculation for Planned Roadway
Projects
Impact fees were calculated based upon the growth share's costs identified in Section 2.6 above. The
proportionate growth share impact fee for planned roadway projects is based upon a conservative and
defensible fee established from the total project costs and estimated 20-year traffic growth is shown below:
Growth Share of Eligible Project Costs of $19,688,007 divided by 7,714 new PM trips =
$2,552.24 /PM trip
2.8 Growth Share and Impact Fee Calculation for McCormick Woods Development
As part of the McCormick Woods Development Agreement, developer GEM 1 has agreed to pay a fee of
$1,992.36 per PM peak hour trip for mitigation of transportation network needs associated with the
McCormick Woods development. The citywide impact fee of $2,456.73 considers the proportionate share of
all growth trips equally based on the traffic forecast generated by the calibrated citywide travel demand
model. This citywide fee should be reduced for trips in the McCormick Woods development in order to
credit GEM 1 for the fee required by the existing development agreement. In this way, growth trips
associated with McCormick Woods will pay only the difference between the citywide impact fee of
$2,456.73 per PM peak hour trip and the existing fee of $1,992.36 per PM peak hour trip. This yields:
Citywide Impact Fee of $2,552.24 /PM trip less McCormick Woods Development Impact Fee of $1,992.36/PM trip =
$559.88 /PM trip
2.9 Resulting Transportation Impact Fees
If the above calculated rates were adopted in an impact fee ordinance, the fees paid by several typical
developments are summarized below. The McCormick Woods fee reflects the amount due in addition to the
existing fee of $1,992.36 per PM peak hour trip per the Development Agreement.
Single-family home
$2,552.24
per unit
Apartment
$1,582.39
per unit
Assisted living
$561.49
per bed
General office
$3,802.84
per 1,000 square feet
Specialty retail center
$4,565.96
per 1,000 square feet
Light industrial
$2,475.67
per 1,000 square feet
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
3. Additional Issues for Consideration
3.1 Anticipated Annual Revenues from Impact Fees
Based on anticipated residential and employment projections for the City of Port Orchard, below is the
anticipated annual revenue from the proposed Transportation Impact Fees:
Estimated growth trips per year: 386 trips/year x $2,552.24 /PM trip = $985,165/year
3.2 Anticipated Grant Revenue
Roadway projects are generally eligible for state and federal grant funds. These funds are not predictable and
vary in amount by grantor. Fifty percent of the total project cost is a reasonable estimate for grants on
roadway projects.
3.3 Anticipated Need for Other Public Funds
Based on a growth share of 32.2% of total project cost and a 50% assumption for grants, the City will still need
to identity other revenue sources to cover approximately 17.8% of the cost of planned roadway projects.
4. Impact Fee Rate Schedule
The table in Attachment A establishes the effective Transportation Impact Fee for various land uses both
residential and non-residential in Port Orchard. It includes adjustments for pass -by trips.
5. Future Impact Fee Updates
5.1 Future Impact Fee Updates
The Port Orchard impact fee rate analysis generated in this report should be reviewed and approved or
updated in the following manner:
A. The schedule in Attachment A should be reviewed by the Council no later than three years
after the effective date of the approved ordinance, and every three years thereafter.
and
e. The schedule in Attachment A should be reviewed by the Council in conjunction with the
update of the Transportation Improvement Program.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
6. Transportation Impact Fee Comparison
6.1 Comparison of 2013 TIF Base Rates in Western Washington
To provide a relative comparison of the City of Port Orchard Transportation Impact Fees to those within the
State of Washington and on a national level, below are some road impact fee metrics from the Comparison of
2013 TIF Base Rates in 60 Cities and 5 Counties in Western Washington'. The Port Orchard rate of $2,552.24
per trip would be below the average impact fee, but far from the lowest in Washington.
Washington Average Transportation Impact Fee:
Washington Maximum Transportation Impact Fee:
Washington Minimum Transportation Impact Fee:
City of Poulsbo Transportation Impact Fee:
City of Gig Harbor Transportation Impact Fee:
Pierce County Transportation Impact Fee:
Kitsap County Transportation Impact Fee:
Proposed Bainbridge Island Transportation Impact Fee
$2,880
$14,707 (City of Sammamish)
$515 (Kitsap County)
$2,835
$2,102
$1, 742
$515
$1,632.47
Attachment B provides the Comparison of 2013 TIF Base Rates in 60 Cities and 5 Counties in Western
Washington documentation identified above.
'City of Bellingham, WA Public Works. "Comparison of 2013 TIF Base Rates in 60 Cities and 5 Counties in
Western Washington" (Chris Comeau, AICP, 2012)
7. Credits and Adjustments
7.1 Impact Fee Credits
An applicant may request that credit for impact fees be awarded to him/her for the total value of system
improvements, including dedications of land, improvements, and/or construction provided by the applicant.
Credits should be considered on a case -by -case basis and should not exceed the impact fee payable.
Claims for credit should be made before the payment of the impact fee. Credits for the construction should
be provided only if the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are listed as planned
transportation projects in the Rate Analysis and Impact Fee Ordinance. No credit should be given for code -
based frontage improvements or right -or -way dedications, or direct access improvements to and/or within
the subject development (project improvements) unless the improvement is part of a project listed in the Rate
Analysis and Impact Fee Ordinance.
7.2 Impact Fee Adjustments
An applicant may submit an independent fee calculation for the proposed development activity. The
documentation submitted should be prepared by a traffic engineer licensed in Washington State and should
be limited to adjustments in the trip generation rates used in the fee calculation. The impact fee per trip
should not be adjusted.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Attachment A - IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule — Residential
Impact Fee Per $2,552.24
Trip Rate:
Land Use Group
ITE Code'
ITE Land Use Category'
ITE Trip
Rate
% Pass
By Trips'
Net New Trips per
Development Unit
Impact Fee per Development
Unit °
Dwelling210
Single -Family Detached
1.00
0%
1.000
$2,552.24 per DU
Housing
Dwelling
220
Apartment
0.62
0%
0.620
$1,582.39 per DU
Dwelling
231
Low -Rise Condo / Townhouse
0.78
0%
0.780
$1,990.75 per DU
Dwelling
240
Mobile Home Park
0.59
0%
0.590
$1,505.82 per DU
Dwelling - Group
251
Sr. Housing Detached
0.27
0%
0.270
$689.10 per DU
Dwelling - Group
252
Sr. Housing Attached
0.25
0%
0.250
$638.06 per DU
Dwelling - Group
253
Congregate Care Facility
0.17
0%
0.170
I $433.88 per DU
Dwelling - Group
2546
Assisted Living (limited data)
0.22
0%
0.220
$561.49 per Bed
Dwelling - Group
6206
Nursing Home
0.22
0%
0.220
$561.49 per Bed
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition)
2 Trip generation rate per development unit, for PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street traffic (4-6 pm). Note:
Sq. Ft. rate expressed per 1000 SF (KSF).
3 Average Pass -by Rates, per Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) User's Guide and Handbook: an ITE
Recommended Practice, 2012. Additional pass -by rate adjusted based on local conditions and engineering
judgment.
' DU = Dwelling Unit
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule - Non -Residential Impact Fee per Trip Rate: $2,552.24
Land Use Group
ITE
ITE Land Use Category'
ITE Trip
% Pass
Net New Trips per
Impact Fee
Code
Rate2
B Tri s3
Development Unit
Per Development Unita
Education
520
Public Elementary School
1.21
0%
1.210
$3,088.21 per KSF
Education
522
Public Middle/Junior High School
1.19
0%
1.190
$3,037.17 per KSF
Education
530
Public High School
0.97
0%
0.970
$2,475.67 per KSF
Education
534
Private School K-8 (limited data)
3.27
0%
3.270
$8,345.82 per KSF
Education
536
Private School K-12 limited data
2.75
0% 1
2.750
$7,018.66 per KSF
Industrial
110
General Light Industrial
0.97
0%
0.970
$2,475.67 per KSF
Industrial
130
Industrial Park
0.85
0%
0.850
$2,169.40 per KSF
Industrial
140
Manufacturing
0.73
0%
0.730
$1,863.14 per KSF
Institutional
566
Cemetery
0.84
0%
0.840
$2,143.88 Per acre
Medical
610
Hospital
0.93
0%
0.930
$2,373.58 per KSF
Medical
630
Clinic (limited data)
5.18
0%
5.180
$13,220.60 per KSF
Medical
720
Medical/DentalOffice
3.57
0%
3.570 1
$9,111.50 per KSF
Office
710
General Office
1.49
0%
1.490
$3,802.84 per KSF
Office
715
Sin le Tenant Office
1.74
0%
1.740
$4,440.90 per KSF
Park and Ride
090
Park and Ride with Bus Service
0.62
0%
0.620
$1,582.39 per S ace
Port and Terminal
030
Intermodal Truck Terminal
0.83
0%
0.830
$2,118.36 per KSF
Recreation
411
City Park
3.50
25%
2.625
$6,699.63 per Acre
Recreation
420
Marina (limited data)
0.19
25%
0.143
$364.97 per Slip
Recreation
430
Golf Course
0.30
25%
0.225
$574.25 per Acre
Recreation
437
Bowling Alley
1.51
25%
1.133
$2,891.69 per KSF
Recreation
441
Live Theater (limited data)
0.02
25%
0.015
$38.28 per KSF
Recreation
444
Movie Theater
3.80
25%
2.850
$7,273.88 per KSF
Recreation
491
Racquet/Tennis Club
0.84
25%
0.630
$1,607.91 per KSF
Recreation
492
Health Fitness Club
3.53
25%
2.648
$6,758.33 per KSF
Recreation
493
Athletic Club
5.96
25%
4.470
$11,408.51 per KSF
Recreation
495
Recreational Community Center
1 2.74
25%
2.055
1 $5,244.85 per KSF
Retail - Automotive
853
Convenience Marketw/Gas Pumps
19.07
66%
6.484
$16,548.72 per VSP
Retail - Automotive
941
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop
5.19
42%
3.010
$7,682.24 per VSP
Retail - Automotive
944
Gasoline/Service Station
13.87
42%
8.045
$20,532.77 per VSP
Retail -Automotive
945
Gas Station w/Convenience Market
13.51
56%
5.944
$15,170.51 per VSP
Retail - Automotive
946
Gas Station w/Convenience Market and Car Wash
13.86
56%
6.098
$15,563.56 per VSP
Retail - Automotive
947
Self -Serve Car Wash
5.54
42%
3.213
$8,200.35 per VSP
Retail - Large
814
Variety Store
6.82
34%
4.501
$11,487.63 per KSF
Retail - Large
815
Free Standing Discount Store
4.98
17%
4.133
$10,548.41 per KSF
Retail - Large
850
Supermarket
9.48
36%
6.067
$15,484.44 per KSF
Retail - Large
854
Discount Supermarket
8.34
23%
6.422
$16,390.49 per KSF
Retail - Small
590
Library
7.30
0%
7.300
$18,631.35 per KSF
Retail - Small
816
Hardware/Paint Store
4.84
26%
3.582
$9,142.12 per KSF
Retail - Small
826
Specialty Retail Center
2.71
34%
1.789
$4,565.96 per KSF
Retail - Small
841
Automobile Sales
2.62
0%
2.620
$6,686.87 per KSF
Retail - Small
843
Automobile Parts Sales
5.98
43%
3.409
$8,700.59 per KSF
Retail - Small
848
Tire Store
4.15
28%
2.988
$7,626.09 per KSF
Retail - Small
851
Convenience Market
52.41
61%
20.440
$52,167.79 per KSF
Retail - Small
876
Apparel Store
3.83
34%
2.528
$6,452.06 per KSF
Retail - Small
879
Arts and Crafts Store
6.21
34%
4.099
$10,461.63 per KSF
Retail - Small
880
Pharmacy/Drug Store w/o Drive-Thru
8.40
53%
3.948
$10,076.24 per KSF
Retail - Small
881
Pharmacy/Drug Store w/Drive-Thru
9.91
49%
5.054
$12,899.02 per KSF
Retail - Small
890
Furniture Store
0.45
53%
0.212
$541.07 per KSF
Retail - Small
896
DVDNideo Rental Store
13.60
49%
6.936
$17,702.34 per KSF
Retail - Small
911
Walk-in Bank (limited data)
12.13
47%
6.429
$16,408.35 per KSF
Retail - Small
912
Drive-in Bank
24.30
47%
12.879
$32,870.30 per KSF
Retail - Small
925
Drinking Place
11.34
0%
11.340
$28,942.40 per KSF
Retail - Small
931
Quality Restaurant
7.49
44%
4.194
$10,704.09 per KSF
Retail - Small
932
High Turnover Restaurant
9.85
43%
5.615
$14,330.83 per KSF
Retail - Small
933
Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru
26.15
49%
13.337
$34,039.22 per KSF
Retail - Small
934
Fast Food w/Drive-Thru
32.65
50%
16.325
$41,665.32 per KSF
Retail - Small
936
Coffee/Donut Shop w/o Drive-Thru
40.75
49%
20.783
$53,043.20 per KSF
Retail - Small
942
Automobile Care Center
3.11
28%
2.239
$5,714.47 per KSF
Services
151
Mini Warehouse
0.26
0%
0.260
$663.58 per KSF
Services
310
Hotel
0.60
0%
0.600
$1,531.34 per KSF
Services
320
Motel
0.47
0%
0.470
$1,199.55 per KSF
Services
560
Church
0.55
0%
0.550
$1,403.73 per KSF
Services
565
Day Care Center
12.34
75%
3.085
$7,873.66 per KSF
Services
732
US Post Office
11.22
47%
5.947
$15,178.17 per KSF
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition)
2 Trip generation rate per development unit, for PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street traffic (4-6 pm). Note: Sq. Ft. rate expressed per 1000 SF.
3 Average Pass -by Rates, per Trip Generation Manual (9th edition) User's Guide and Handbook: an ITE Recommended Practice, 2012. Additional
pass -by rate adjusted based on local conditions and engineering judgment.
4 Sq. Ft. = Square Feet, VSP = vehicle servicing position
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Attachment 6
COMPARISON OF 2013 TIF BASE RATES IN 60 CITIES AND 5 COUNTIES IN
WESTERN WASHINGTON
A Comparison of 2013 TIF Base Rates in 60* Cities and S Counties in Western Washington
With Whatcom County Cities and Bellingham's Urban Village TIF Reduction Highlighted for Emphasis
(*City of Sommomish, WA $14,707 TIF base rate excluded from graphic]
(Data compiled Oecember 2012 by Chris Comeau, AICP, Transportation Planner, Bellingham Public Works)
Redmond
Ken mare
Lynnwood
Duvall
Fife
Bothell
Sultan
Puyallup
La Center
Covington
Sad. Wooley
Cam"
Buckley
Kent
Bonney Lake
Kirkland
Issaquah
Newcastle
Arlington
Auburn
Olympia
University Place
Maple Valley
Mill Creek
Bellevue
Enumclaw
Average WA TIF
Des Moines
Federal Way
Woodinville
Ferndale
Sequlm
Ridgefield
Median (50%) TIF
Snohomish County
Thurston County
Granite Falls
Stanwood
Washougal
Man, -
Gig Harbor
Milton
Lyndon
Bellingham
Mukllteo
Marysville
Burlington
Mount Vernon
Vancouver
Plerce County
King County
Lacey .
Bham Urban Villages
Snohomish
Yelm
Tukwila
Sumner
Edgewood
Edmonds
SeaTac
Burien
Everett
AnacorteS
Renton
Mount Lake Terrace
Oak Harbor
Knsap County
787
��==
2,880
7,854
-�-
���
l♦
III
900
50
il•
so S1,000 $2,000 $31000 $4,000 $510D0 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Appendix A
Ordinance No. 023-15
Attachment C - TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL
GRAPHICS
2015 Port Orchard Model Calibration
3500
y = 1.0154x + 4.2237
3000
2500
3
2000
1500
Q
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Counted Volume
3500
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
QLX)
x
M
N
O O
CL O
O. Z
Q
N
U
C
O
C
L
0
4-0
0
a
3
0
L
0
3
a
z
-a
m
s
u
L
0
L
0
a
Ln
0
N
Q Lo
x
co
N
O O
CL
a O
O_ Z
O
U
C
C
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
ORCHARD
Appendix E: Impact Fee Calculations
E.1 Introduction
This study of impact fees for parks and recreational facilities for the City of Port
Orchard presents the methodology, summarizes the data, and explains the calculation of
the fees. The methodology is designed to comply with the requirements of Washington
law. This introduction describes the basis for parks and recreational impact fees,
including:
• Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
• Statutory Basis For Impact Fees
• Methodology for Calculating Impact Fees
• Need for Additional Parks and Recreational Facilities
• Determining the Benefit of Parks and Recreational Facilities to Development
• Methodology and Relationship to Port Orchard City Parks Plan
• Level of Service and Calculations
E 1.1 Definition and Rationale of Impact Fees
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 the new development. New development is synonymous with
"growth."
Local governments charge impact fees on either of two bases. First, as a matter of policy
and legislative discretion, they may want new development to pay the full cost of its
share of new public facilities because that portion of the facilities would not be needed
except to serve the new development. In this case, the new development is required to
pay for virtually all the cost of its share of new public facilities.
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
On the other hand, local governments may use other sources of revenue to pay for the
new public facilities that are required to serve new development. If, RCW 82.02.050 (2)
prohibits impact fees that charge 100% of the cost, but does not specify how much less
than 100%, leaving that determination to local governments. However, such revenues
are not sufficient to cover the entire costs of new facilities necessitated by new
development; the new development may be required to pay an impact fee in an amount
equal to the difference between the total cost and the other sources of revenue.
There are many kinds of "public facilities" that are needed by new development,
including parks and recreational facilities, fire protection facilities, schools, roads, water
and sewer plants, libraries, and other government facilities. This study covers parks and
recreational facilities for the City of Port Orchard, Washington. Impact fees for parks
and recreational facilities are charged to all residential development within the City of
Port Orchard.
E1.2 Statutory Basis for Impact Fees
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 authorizes local governments in Washington to charge
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. Two aspects of impact fees that
are particularly noteworthy are: I) 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), and 2) the ability to charge small-scale development their
proportionate share, whereas SEPA exempts small developments. Four types of public
facilities can be the subject of impact fees: I) public streets and roads; 2) publicly owned
parks, open space and recreational facilities; 3) school facilities; and 4) fire protection
facilities (in jurisdictions that are not part of a fire district). RCW82.02.050 (2) and (4)
and RCW82.02.090 (7)
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) 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.
RCW82.02.050(3)(b) and RCW82.02.060(I )
Impact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(I)(a)) and for the
unused capacity of existing public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(7)) subject to the
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
proportionate share limitation described above. Additionally, the local government
must separate the impact fees from other monies, expend the money on CFP projects
within 6 years, and prepare annual reports of collections and expenditures.
RCW82.02.070(I)-(3)
E 2 Methodology for Calculating Impact Fees
Prior to calculating impact fee rates, several issues must be addressed in order to
determine the need for, and validity of such fees: responsibility for public facilities, the
need for additional park and recreational facilities, the need for revenue for additional
parks and recreational facilities, and the benefit of new parks and recreational facilities
to new development.
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 Port
Orchard is legally and financially responsible for the parks and recreational 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 82.82.090(7).
E 2.1 Need for Additional Park and Recreational Facilities
The need for additional parks and recreational facilities is determined by using standards
for levels of service for park and recreational facilities to calculate the quantity of
facilities that are required. For the purpose of quantifying the need for parks and
recreational facilities, this study uses the City's value of investment in parks and
recreational facilities per capita. As greater growth occurs, more investment is required,
therefore more parks and recreational facilities are needed to maintain standards.
E 2.2 Determining the Benefit to Development
The Washington State law regarding Impact Fees imposes three provisions 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)). 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.
Second, fulfilling 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 (direct benefit), use by persons or organizations who provide goods or services
to the fee -paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed
benefit). Impact fees for park and recreational facilities, however, are only charged to
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
residential development in the City because the majority of benefits are to the
occupants and owners of dwelling units. As a matter of policy, the City of Port Orchard
elects not to charge parks and recreational impact fees to non-residential properties
because there is insufficient data to document the proportionate share of parks
reasonably needed by non-residential development.
Lastly, the requirement that expenditures be "reasonably related" to the development
that paid the impact fee includes that fee revenue must be earmarked for specific uses
related to public facilities ensures that expenditures are on identifiable projects, the
benefit of which can be demonstrated and that impact fee revenue must be expended
within 6 years, thus requiring a timeliness to the benefit to the fee -payer.
E 2.3 Methodology and Relationship to the Port Orchard City Parks Plan
Impact fees for parks and recreational facilities in the City of Port Orchard are based on
the value per capita of the City's existing investment in parks and recreational facilities
for the population of the City. New development will be provided the same investment
per capita, to be funded by a combination of general and capital improvement fund
revenue and impact fees. The amount of the impact fee is determined by charging each
new development for the average number of persons per dwelling unit multiplied times
the amount of the investment per capita that is to be paid by growth.
E3. Level of Service Standard Calculations
The level of service, as defines as the capital investment per person, is calculated by
multiplying the capacity of parks and recreational facilities times the average costs of
those items. Within this calculation, there are two variables that benefit from further
definition explanation: The value of parks and recreational inventory, and the Service
population.
E 3.1 Value of Parks and Recreational Inventory
The value of the existing inventory of parks and recreational facilities is calculated by
determining the value of each park as well as each recreational facility. The sum of all of
the values equal the current value of the City's parks and recreational system
E 3.2 Service Population
The service population is the number of persons served by the inventory of parks and
recreational facilities. Port Orchard's service population consists of the City's current
2011 population of 1 1,144 as provided by the Washington State of Financial
Management. The forecast population for 2030 of is the projected population
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
estimated for Comprehensive Planning efforts and adopted by all Kitsap County
jurisdictions, through the County Wide Planning Policies. This figure is provided to
estimate future population growth within the existing City boundaries and is utilized in
calculating the annual portion of that growth rate for the Impact Fee calculations.
E 3.3 Calculation of Park and Recreational Capital Investment per Person
The City of Port Orchard's capital value per person is the standard the City uses to
ensure that each resident receives an equitable amount of parks and recreational
facilities. The City provides this value by investment in parks and recreational facilities
that are most appropriate for each site and which respond to changing needs and
priorities as the City grows and the demographics and needs of the population changes.
Attachment E I (at the end of this Appendix) lists the types of land and recreational
facilities that make up the City of Port Orchard's existing park system. Each component
is listed in the first column, along with the capital value of each type of park land or
recreational facility in the final column. The capital value for all City owned parks &
recreational facilities in the inventory comes to a total of $7,228,929. This total value is
divided by the service population of 1 1,144 for the City determines the current capital
value per person of $649. (Please reference Attachment E2: Figure E 1)
E 4 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITY NEEDS
This section calculates the value of parks and recreational facilities that are needed to
serve growth, reduced by the typical proportion of project values that are grant or
otherwise funded. Impact fees are related to the needs of growth through calculating
the total value of parks and recreational facilities that are needed for growth. The
calculation is accomplished by multiplying the capital investment per person times the
number of new persons that are forecast for the City's growth. (Please reference
Attachment E2: Figure E2)
E 4.1 Calculation of Total Value Needed For Growth
The calculations for the total value of Parks and Recreation Facilities needed to
accommodate the forecasted growth is a tabulation of the level of service standard for
capital investment per person from Figure E I times the total amount of population
growth forecast for the six year Impact Fee planning period. The resulting calculation
shows the total value of parks and recreational facilities that are needed to serve the
growth that is forecast for Port Orchard (Please reference Attachment E2: Figure E2).
The result of Figure E2 illustrates that Port Orchard needs parks and recreational
facilities valued at $1,928,434 in order to serve the growth of 2,973 additional people
(forecast at an annual growth rate of 495 per year) who are expected to be added to
the City's population during the six year Impact Fee planning period.
i Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
E 4.2 Total 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. The previous calculation showed the
total amount that is needed to invest in additional parks and recreation facilities in order
to serve future growth. The proportionate share of that investment to be paid by
growth is dependent upon the historic share of improvements provided by the City of
Port Orchard through grants or other revenue streams. The proportionate share for
development to pay for new facilities includes the City of Port Orchard historical use of
local sources, such as real estate excise tax, grant funding, and other revenues to pay for
part of the cost of parks and recreational facility capital costs. 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. The City's investment has averaged 50% of the cost of capital
improvement projects for parks and recreational facilities (Please reference Attachment
E2: Figure E3). The result of Figure E3 illustrates that Port Orchard expects to use
$964,217 in grants and other revenues to serve the total needs of additional parks and
recreational facilities to maintain the City's standards for future growth, with the
remaining $964,217 to be paid by growth as a proportionate share.
E5 IMPACT FEE PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
In this section the investment in additional parks and recreational facilities to be paid by
growth is used to calculate the park and recreational facilities growth cost per person
which is then used to calculate the impact fee per dwelling unit.
E 5.1 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
during the six year Impact Fee planning period (Please reference Attachment E2: Figure
E4). The result of Figure E4 illustrates the calculation of the cost per person of parks
and recreational facilities that needs to be paid by growth is $324 per person. The
amount to be paid by each new dwelling unit depends on the number of persons per
dwelling unit.
E 5.2 Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit
The impact fee per dwelling unit is calculated by multiplying the growth cost per person
by the number of 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
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
person into impact fees per dwelling unit. The number of persons per dwelling unit data
is based on the adopted 2008 Port Orchard Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3. Housing;
which sets an population household size of 2.5 persons per single family unit and a
calculation of 1.8 persons per Multi -family housing unit within the City of Port Orchard
(Please reference Attachment E2: Figure E5 and E6 respectively).
The resulting calculations of Figure E5 shows the calculation of the parks and
recreational facilities impact fee of $81 1 per single family dwelling unit. The resulting
calculations of Figure E6 show the calculation of the parks and recreational facilities
impact fee of $584 per multi -family dwelling unit. Impact Fee amounts, upon adoption
by City Council, are to be implemented and collected subject to the provisions of Port
Orchard Municipal Code Section 16.70.
E6. Summary
This study of impact fees for parks and recreational facilities for the City of Port
Orchard summarizes the methodology, presents the data, and explains the calculation of
the fees that result in the recommended amounts. Similar sized Cities within Kitsap
County have chosen to utilize much higher impact fee amounts, for example the City of
Poulsbo recently raised their Park Impact Fee from $500 to $1,195 per unit. The
proposed Park Impact Fees for the City of Port Orchard of $81 1 per single family
dwelling unit and $584 per multi -family dwelling unit, although consistent with the City
of Port Orchard level of service, still are well below the Washington State average of
$ 2,849 per single family dwelling unit and $2,147 per multi -family dwelling unit
respectively. (Sourced from the National Impact Fee Survey 2009, prepared by Clancy
Mullen, Duncan Associates, Austin, TX on December 20, 2009) The methodology
utilized for arriving at the City of Port Orchard impact fee amounts has been a
statewide standard incorporated for numerous Washington State cities and is designed
to comply with the requirements of Washington law.
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
Appendix B
Ordinance No. 023-15
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PARKS PLAN
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsap School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan
VII. DISTRICT FINANCE PLAN
The principal funding mechanism for school facility construction and modernization has
traditionally been voter approved bonds. More recently, school districts have been turning to capital
levies to support modernizations and elementary school new construction projects. Other funding
sources can include state funding assistance and development impact (mitigation) fees.
General Obligation Bonds
Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other major capital improvement
projects. A 60% voter approval is required for passage. Bonds are then retired over time through
the collection of property taxes.
The South Kitsap School District had an assessed valuation of $6,123,112,269 as of August 31,
2014. The limit for all outstanding bonds for SKSD is 5% of assessed value or $306,155,613. The
District had $5,645,481 of debt as of August 31, 2014, and therefore has a current bonding capacity
of $300,510,132.
State Funding Assistance
The source of State Funding Assistance, formerly State Match Funds, is the Common School
Construction Fund. Bonds are sold on behalf of the fund then retired with revenues accruing
predominantly from the sale of renewable resources (i.e., timber) from state school lands set aside
by the Enabling Act of 1889. If these sources are insufficient to meet the needs of the program, the
Legislature can appropriate additional funding, or the State Board of Education can ration project
funding on a priority basis.
School districts may qualify for state funding assistance for specific capital projects based on an
eligibility system. Eligible projects are prioritized using seven different criteria. Funds are then
disbursed to districts on a percentage basis that is based on a formula that compares each district's
assessed valuation per pupil relative to the entire state assessed valuation per pupil. This percentage
is known as the Funding Assistance Percentage, formerly State Match Ratio.
The base to which this percentage is applied is the cost of construction as determined by the
"Construction Cost Allocation" multiplied by the "Eligible Area". The Construction Cost
Allocation (CCA) is used by OSPI to help define or limit its level of financial support for school
construction. It is a budget driven value that is not intended to fully reflect the actual cost of school
construction in Washington State. The Eligible Area portrays either the square footage of new
space required to address unhoused students for an enrollment project, or the building square
footage approved for upgrade or replacement for a modernization project.
State funding assistance is available to assist districts with construction costs for enrollment and
modernization related school construction projects but cannot be used for site acquisition, the
purchase of portables or for normal building maintenance. Because the availability of state
assistance funds may not always keep pace with the enrollment growth or modernization needs of
all of Washington's school districts, assistance funds from the state may not be received by a school
district until two or three years after a school project has begun. In such cases, a district may be
required to "front fund" meaning it must be prepared to finance the entire project with local funds.
The State's share of the project funding is then provided to the district later in the form of a
reimbursement. In some cases projects may not receive any state assistance at all. State funding
assistance is not guaranteed.
39
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsap School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan
New Development Mitigation/Impact Fees
The authority for local jurisdictions to condition new development on the mitigation of school
impacts is provided for under the State Subdivision Act, Chapter 58.17 RCW, the State
Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the Growth Management Act, Chapter
36.70A RCW. These state statutes seek to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to
meet the demands of new growth by authorizing permitting jurisdictions to condition development
approval on the implementation of mitigation measures that enable local jurisdictions to meet the
infrastructure demands of new development.
Subdivision Act Mitigation RCW 58.17.110 requires the permitting jurisdiction to find
that proposed plats adequately provide for schools and school grounds. The proposed
development must provide land sufficient to ensure that such facilities are provided for
potential new students.
SEPA Mitigation. SEPA provides that local jurisdictions may condition the approval of a
new development to the mitigation of specific adverse environmental impacts which are
identified in SEPA environmental documents. See RCW 43.21C.060. Under SEPA, the
"built environment" includes public schools. See WAC 197-11-444(2) (d) (iii).
GNU Miti!ation. Development impact fees have been adopted by Kitsap County and the
City of Port Orchard as a means of supplementing traditional funding sources for the
construction of public facilities needed to accommodate new development. The City of
Bremerton does not impose an impact fee on new development. The District participates in
the permit review processes of jurisdictions within its boundaries to ensure that its interests
are considered when new developments are proposed that will generate additional students.
Six -Year Finance Plans
The Six -Year Capital Finance Plan (Table 12) portrays how South Kitsap School District intends to
fund improvements to school facilities for the years 2015 through 2020.
40
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsap School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan
Table 12
Capital Finance Plan (2015-2020)
Sources:
CFP Balance/Impact Funds (Aug 2014)
$
1,000,164
Impact Fee Collections 2015-2020 (est.)
$
1,438,680
Transfer from General Funds
$
0
State Matching Funds (est.)
$
0
Sale of General Obligation Bonds
$
0
Improvements to Existing Facilities
$
4,750,000 $7,188,844
Uses:
CFP Balance/Impact Funds (Aug 2020 est.) $ 378,769
Improvements to Existing Facilities $ 4,750,000
Construction for Enrollment Growth $ 0
Site Acquisition $ 1,760,075
Construction of Support Facilities $ 0
Interim Classroom Space $ 300,000
Program Changes $ 0 $ 7,188,844
Balance: $ 0
41
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsap School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan
VIIL UNFUNDED NEED CALCULATION
The calculation of the South Kitsap School District unfunded need in support of jurisdictional
school impact fee collection is provided on the spreadsheets that follow. This calculation recognizes
projected costs anticipated over the life of the six -year plan including acquisition costs for interim
housing and debt service payments on a 56 acre school site that was purchased in 2005.
The "Unfunded Need Total" on the last line of the SKSD Impact Fee Calculation document
portrays the cost of addressing new home construction related enrollment growth identified within
the six -year capital construction plan. This value is greater than the actual school impact fees
specified and collected under respective Kitsap County and City of Port Orchard impact fee
ordinances.
42
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsap School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan
Description
Grade Span
Value
Units
Comments
Student Generation Factor-SFH
Elementary
0.32
Students/Residence
2007 Kendrick Demographic Study
Student Generation Factor-SFH
Jr, High
0.10
Students/Residence
2007 Kendrick Demographic Study
Student Generation Factor-SFH
Sr. High
0.10
Students/Residence
2007 Kendrick Demographic Study
Student Generation Factor-MFH
Elementary
0.18
Students/Residence
2007 Kendrick Demographic Study
Student Generation Factor-MFH
Jr, High
0.09
Students/Residence
2007 Kendrick Demographic Study
Student Generation Factor-MFH
Sr, High
0.09
Students/Residence
2007 Kendrick Demographic Study
Facility Acreage
Elementary
14.00
Acres
District Average
Facility Acreage
Jr. High
22.00
Acres
District Average
Facility Acreage
Sr. High
42.00
Acres
Plan for New High School
Cost per Acre
All
$115,000
Cost/Acre
Market Estimate
Facility Size - New Construction
Elementary
550
Students/School
District Standard
Facility Size - New Construction
Jr, High
900
Students/School
District Standard
Facility Size - New Construction
Sr. High
1800
Students/School
Plan for New High School
Facility Size - Temporary Construction
Elementary
24
Student/Classroom
District LOS
Facility Size - Temporary Construction
Jr. High
26
Student/Classroom
District LOS
Facility Size - Temporary Construction
Sr. High
26
Student/Classroom
District LOS
Permanent Sq, Footage (Total)
Elementary
507894
Square Feet
State Study & Survey
Permanent Sq. Footage (Total)
Jr. High
286193
Square Feet
State Study & Survey
Permanent Sq. Footage (Total)
Sr. High
345474
Square Feet
State Study & Survey
Portable Sq, Footage (Total)
Elementary
45900
Square Feet
Portables Inventory
Portable Sq, Footage (Total)
Jr. High
18900
Square Feet
Portables Inventory
Portable Sq, Footage (Total)
Sr. High
10800
Square Feet
Portables Inventory
Facility Cost - New Construction
Elementary
Cost/School
Facility Cost - New Construction
Jr. High
Cost/School
Facility Cost - New Construction
Sr. High
Cost/School
Facility Cost - Temporary Construction
Elementary
$300,000
CostlPortable
Standard Dbl Portable including Site Costs
Facility Cost - Temporary Construction
Jr, High
$300,000
CostlPortable
Standard Dbl Portable including Site Costs
Facility Cost - Temporary Construction
Sr. High
$300,000
CostlPortable
Standard Dbl Portable including Site Costs
Boeckh Index Area Cost Allowance
All
$206.70
Costlsq, ft,
OSPI .2015
SPI Footage
Elementary
90.0
Sq. Ft./Student
OSPI - 2015
SPI Footage
Jr. High
121.3
Sq. Ft./Student
OSPI - 2015
SPI Footage
Sr. High
130.0
Sq, FUStudent
OSPI .2015
State Match Ratio
All
59,98%
Percent
OSPI .2015
Average Assessed Value - SFH
All
$201,260
Cost/Unit
Kitsap County Assessor SFH 2O15
Average Assessed Value - MFH
All
$100,630
Cost/Unit
Kitsap County Assessor SFH 2O15 @ 50%
Capital Bond Interest Rate
All
0.00%
Percent
Years Amortized
All
10
Years
Property Tax Levy Rate - Capital Construction
All
$0.00
Costl$1000 A.V.
43
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsap School District 2015 Capital Facilities Plan
School Site Acquisition Cost:
CALCULATIONS
((Acres X Cost per Acre)/Facility Capacity) X Student Generation
Factor
Facility
Cost per
Facility
SGF SGF
Cost per
Cost per
Acreage
Acre
Capacity
SFH MFH
SFH
MFH
Elementary 14
$115,000.00
550
0.32 0.18
$936.73
$526.91
Jr. High 22
900
0.10 0.09
$0.00
$0.00
Sr. High 42
$115,000.00
1800
0.10 0.09
$268.33
$241.50
$1,205.06
$768.41
School Construction Cost:
((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity) X Student Generation Fa(ctor) X Pei manent/Total Sq. Ft.)
% Perm/ Facility
Facility
SGF
SGF Cost per
Total Sq. Ft. Cost
Size
SFH
MFH SFH
Elementary
92%
550
0.32
0.18 $0.00
Jr. High
94%
900
0.10
0.09 $0.00
Sr. High
97%
1800
0.10
0.09
$0.00
Temporary
Facility Cost:
((Facility Cost/Facility Capacity)
X Student Generation Factor) X (Temporary/Sq. Ft)
% Temp/
Facility Facility
SGF
SGF
Total Sq. Ft.
Cost Size
SFH
MFH
Elementary
8%
$300,000.00 48
0.32
0.18
Jr. High
6%
52
0.10
0.09
Sr. High
3%
52
0.10
0.09
State Match Credit
Area Cost Allowance X SPI Sq.
Ft X State Match X Student
Generation
Factor
Boeckh
SPI State
SGF
SGF
Index
Footage Match %
SFH
MFH
Elementary
$206.70
90.00
0.32
0.18
Jr. High
$206.70
121.30
0.10
0.09
Sr. High
$206.70
130.00
0.10
0.09
Tax Pavment Credit
Average Assessed Value
Capital Bond Interest Rate
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling
Years Amortized
Property Tax Levy Rate
Present Value of Revenue Stream
NEED SUMMARY
School Site Acquisition Cost
Permanent Facility Cost
Temporary Facility Cost
State Match Credit
Tax Payment Credit
UNFUNDED NEED TOTAL
Cost per
SFH
$165.77
$0.00
$0.00
$165.77
Cost per
SFH
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
SFH
Cost per
MFH
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost per
MFH
$93.24
$0.00
$0.00
$93.24
Cost per
MFH
$0.00
$0.00
MFH
$0.00
0.00% 0.00%
10
10
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI FAMILY
$1,205.06
$768.41
$0.00
$0.00
$165.77
$93.24
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,370.83
$861.65
44
NOTICE OF CITY OF PORT ORCHARD
ORDINANCE
The following is a summary of an Ordinance approved by the Port Orchard City Council at their regular Council
meeting held November 10, 2015.
ORDINANCE NO.023-15
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, RELATING
TO IMPACT FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, REPEALING THE CURRENT IMPACT FEE
CHAPTER 16.70 POMC AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER IDENTIFYING A SERVICE
AREA, DESCRIBING THE MANNER IN WHICH TRANSPORTATION, SCHOOL AND PARK
IMPACT FEES ARE CALCULATED, THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING CREDITS,
VARIATIONS FROM THE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES, EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF THE
PROJECT LIST, ESTABLISHING AN APPEAL PROCESS AND ADOPTING THE
TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER
16.70 TO THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE.
Copies of Ordinance No. 023-15 are available for review at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Port Orchard.
Upon written request a statement of the full text of the Ordinance will be mailed to any interested person without
charge. Thirty days after publication, copies of Ordinance No. 023-15 will be provided at a nominal charge.
City of Port Orchard
Brandy Rinearson
City Clerk
Published: November 20, 2015