007-21 - Ordinance - Transportation Impact Fees Amending POMC 20.182
ORDINANCE NO. 007-21
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON,
REGARDING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES; AMENDING SECTION
20.182.060 OF THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT A NEW
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, CLARIFYING ADOPTION
PROCEDURES AND INDEXING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES TO CPI-U;
ADDING A NEW SECTION 20.182.125 TO THE PORT ORCHARD MUNICIPAL
CODE TO DESIGNATE THE CITY’S 6 YEAR/20 YEAR TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN FOR
TRANSPORTATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CORRECTIONS; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the State of Washington Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW and
related sections (“GMA”) requires the City to adopt a Comprehensive Plan that provides
adequate public facilities to serve development; and
WHEREAS, counties, cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan under RCW
36.70A.040 are authorized to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the
financing for public facilities, provided that the financing or system improvements to serve
new development must provide for a balance between impact fees and other sources of
public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees; and
WHEREAS, RCW 82.02.050 -.110 and WAC 365-196-850 authorize counties, cities, and
towns planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to impose impact fees for public
streets and roads, publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities, and school
facilities, and fire protection facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has adopted transportation, school, and park impact
fees, as codified in subsection 20.182.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code (POMC) and
Appendices A-C in Exhibit 1 of Ordinance 019-17; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that new development activity in the City of Port Orchard
will create additional demand and need for public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Port Orchard has previously adopted a transportation impact fee
program pursuant to the authority provided in Chapter 82.02 RCW; and
WHEREAS, in 2015 the City’s current transportation impact fee rate was established at
$2,552 per new PM peak hour trip, with a separate impact fee rate of $560 per new PM peak
hour trip applied to growth in the McCormick Woods PUD; and
Ordinance No. 007-21
Page 2 of 37
WHEREAS, this year the City Council adopted the City’s 6 Year/20 Year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 015-20); and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt an updated transportation impact fee
schedule to ensure that all projects on the current TIP receive appropriate impact fee funding
per RCW Section 82.02.050; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interests of the city of Port Orchard
to formally designate the TIP as the “capital facilities plan” for the purpose of identifying the
proposed transportation improvements reasonable and necessary to meet the future
development needs of the service area consistent with the city’s level of service policy, as
required by RCW 82.02.050; and
WHEREAS, the City contracted with Transportation Solutions, Inc. to prepare an
updated transportation impact fee rate study and recommended impact fee rate, which was
provided to the City in December 2020 (Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared an updated transportation impact fee schedule
based on the findings and recommendations of the study prepared by Transportation
Solutions, Inc., and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2021, the City Council held a study session on the updated
transportation impact fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2021, at its regular meeting the City Council held a public
hearing on this ordinance, considered the updated transportation impact fee schedule and
the public testimony, and reviewed the ordinance proposed for its adoption; and
WHEREAS, the transportation, parks and school impact fees are currently adopted as
appendices to Chapter 20.182 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to directly adopt the transportation, parks, and
school impact fees by ordinance, for ease of reference and use; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43,21C RCW, and the City’s environmental
regulations, Chapter 20.160 POMC; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Ordinance No. 007-21
Page 3 of 37
SECTION 1. The City Council adopts all of the “Whereas” sections of this ordinance as
findings in support of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Subsection 20.182.060 of the Port Orchard Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
20.182.060 Fee schedules and establishment of service area.
(1) 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,
shall be adopted by ordinance of the City Council 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. The impact fee
schedules may be revised at any time the city council deems just and appropriate.
(2) For the purpose of road and park impact fees, the entire city shall be considered one
service area.
(3) For the purpose of school impact fees, the entire boundary of the school district shall
be considered one service area.
(4) Transportation impact fees adopted by the City shall automatically increase annually
per CPI-U (All Urban Consumers Index) (1982-1984=100), not seasonally adjusted, for the
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area for that 12-month period from January 1st to December 31st
Indexed as the Annual Average, as is specified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United
States Department of Labor. Increases based on CPI-U shall take effect on March 1st of
the following year.
SECTION 3. A new subsection 20.182.125 is hereby added to the Port Orchard
Municipal Code to read as follows:
20.182.125 Designation of Capital Facilities Plan for Transportation.
The city designates the 6 Year/20 Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as the
City’s comprehensive capital facilities plan for the purpose of identifying the proposed
transportation improvements reasonable and necessary to meet the future development
needs of the service area consistent with the city’s level of service policy, as required by RCW
82.02.050. The TIP identifies the specific subset of transportation improvements in the impact
fee project list that forms the basis for the transportation impact fee program.
SECTION 4. Adoption of Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The City hereby adopts a
new transportation impact fee schedule which is included as a part of Exhibit A to this
ordinance, in accordance with POMC 20.182.060. This transportation impact fee schedule
Ordinance No.007-21
Page 4 ol 37
shall become effective on the effective date established in Section 9 below and shall replace
and supersede any previously adopted transportation impact fee schedule.
SECTION 5. Park and School I mpact Fees Unchanged. The park and school impact fee
schedules that were previously adopted by the City Council shall remain in effect and are
respectively shown on Exhibits B and C of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Sections 4 and 5 of this Ordinance are deemed of special effect and shall not
be codified.
SECTION 7. Severability. lf any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance,
SECTION 8. Corrections. Upon the approval of the city attorney, the city clerk, and/or
code publisher is authorized to make any necessary technical corrections to this ordinance,
including but not limited to the correction of scrivener's/clerical errors, references, ordinance
numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any reference thereto.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective February
23,2O2L. A summary of this ordinance in the form of the ordinance title may be published
in lieu of publishing the ordinance in its entirety.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, APPROVED by the Mayor and
attested by the City Clerk in authentication of such passage this 9th day of February 2021.
Robert Putaansuu, Mayor
C, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM Sponsored by:
€,<lq-f>--
illl
A
n
Charlotte A. Archer, City A oR,4
'<1
Scott Diener, Councilmember
Ordinance No. 007-21
Page 5 of 37
PUBLISHED: February 11, 2021
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2021
EXHIBIT A: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE WITH RATE STUDY (2021)
EXHIBIT B: PARKS IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE (EXISTING)
EXHIBIT C: SCHOOL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE (EXISTING)
e Exhibit A
Ordinance No. 007-ZtTransportati o n Solutions
INNOVATIVE I PRACTICAL I EQUITABLE
TnRruspoRTATroN lwtpRcr Frr Rarr Sruov
2O2O Upoarr
Frrunl Reponr
December 2020
Prepared for:
City of Port Orchard
Prepared by:
Transportation Solutions, lnc.
L6932 Woodinville-Redmond Rd NE
Suite 4206
Woodinville, WA 98072
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Table of Contents
t. lntroduction
Definition of lmpact Fees...
Statutory Basis for lmpact Fees
2. lmpact Fee Analysis
Methodology ...,.............
Cu rrent I mpact Fee Methodo1ogy,........,.,.,,......
Projects Eligible for lmpact Fees.............
Eligible Project Costs...............
lmpact Fee Calculation .,,............
Sample Transportation I mpact Fees....,........
3. Additional lssues for Consideration................
Anticipated Annual Revenues from I mpact Fees.......,,.,,..,..
Anticipated Grant Revenue ........,,.....
Anticipated Need for Other Public Funds,.,,......
4. Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Comparison
5. CreditsandAdjustments.....................
lmpact Fee Credits
lndependent Fee Calculation
Construction Cost lndex Adjustment
6. Conclusions
Appendices
Appendix A. Transportation lmpact Fee Project List
Appendix B. Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Schedule
Appendix C. Comparison of 2O19-2020 TIF Rates in Western Washington
List of Tables
Table L. lmpact Fee-Eligible Transportation lmprovement Projects ,........
Table 2. Transportation lmpact Fee Comparison for Typical Land Uses....
,,6
..6
..1
t
7
I
2
2
2
2
3
3
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
5
6
Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
1. lntroduction
This document summarizes the development of an updated transportation impact fee rate for the City
of Port Orchard. lt describes the existing impact fee rate, the basis for the fee, the rate methodology,
the impact fee project list, and the recommended fee rate.
Definition of lmpact Fees
lmpact 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, and streets/roads).
Transportation impact fees are collected to fund improvements that add capacity to the transportation
system, accommodating the travel demand created by new development, The Revised Code of
Washington (RCW) Section 82.02.050 identifies the intent of impact fees as the following:
r To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development;
r 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
o 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.
Stdtutory Bdsis for lmpoct Fees
Transportation impact fees are a financing mechanism authorized by the Growth Management Act
(CMA)of Washington State (see RCW 36.70A.070 and 82.02.050). 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.
lf 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, ratherthan project-by-project. This is a key difference between impactfees and
State 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
1Transportation Solutions, lnc,December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate U pdate
the funds collected from each development. This is necessary to assure that the funds are expended
only on eligible transportation system improvements and 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 below are consistent with the requirements of the GMA. The
procedures and recommendations described herein can be formally enacted by an impact fee ordinance
incorporating this memo by reference.
2. lmpact Fee Analvsis
Methodology
The conceptual basis for the transportation impact fee is that growth (i.e. new development) should pay
a proportionate share of the cost to provide future transportation capacity. This proportionate share is
calculated based on the estimated cost of growth-related transportation improvement projects
identified in the Comprehensive Plan and on an estimate of growth's share of capacity utilization for
each project. The impact fee analysis is limited to projects that provide capacity improvements needed
for growth, Projects related to maintenance, such as pavement overlays and physical obsolescence, as
well as improvements necessary to mitigate existing capacity deficiencies, are not eligible for impact fee
funding. 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 motorized and nonmotorized capacity enhancements.
Current Impact Fee Methodology
The Port Orchard transportation impact fee program was developed and adopted in 2015 as ordinance
number 023-L5 and later reorganized under ordinance number OIg-17. The impact fee methodology is
based on proportionate growth share of impact fee eligible project costs.
As of December 2020, the transportation impact fee rate is 52,552 per new PM peak hour trip, A
separate impact fee rate of 5560 per new PM peak hour trip is applied to growth in the McCormick
Woods PUD. This rate represents the difference between the citywide rate and a GEMl fee rate of
S1,992 per trip which was required per the McCormick Woods Development Agreement adopted in
2005.
Projects Eligible for lmpact Fees
Not all planned transportation projects and programs are eligible for impact fees. planned improvement
project are divided below into the following categories in order to establish a list of qualifying projects
that will form the basis for the Port Orchard impact fee rate:
r Project lmprovementso Planned Transportation Projects needed within 20 years
o Maintenance Projects
Proiect lmprovements
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 for the purpose of
2Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
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.
Planned Transportation Proiects
The Port Orchard 2O2L-2O4OTransportation lmprovement Program (TlP) identifies transportation
projects which are needed to serve traffic growth for the next twenty years. Projects with capacity
benefits are eligible for impact fee funding. Capacity-related improvements may include adding turn
lanes, lane widening or separating non-motorized modes, adding signals or roundabouts for intersection
capacity, or other improvements. The methodology for roadway capacity calculation is described in the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proportional share of these projects reasonably
related to growth are eligible for impact fees.
Maintenance Proiects
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 overlay, 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, lf the overlay or reconstruction provides increased lane width,
intersection improvements, or shoulder widening the cost of the expansion could be considered eligible.
Eligible Project Costs
lmpact fee eligible projects and their estimated costs are identified in Table 1. These costs include
various elements which are 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. TIP projects which are not capacity-related, or which are
considered maintenance projects/programs are not included in the TIF project list.
lmpact Fee Calculation
The impact fee was calculated based on the increase in PM peak hour vehicle trips resulting from
growth, the cost of improvements related to growth, and the City's transportation financing strategy, as
defined in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The calculation methodology is described below.
Local Fu ndins Responsibilitv
Roadway projects are generally eligible for state and federal grant funds. These funds are not
predictable and vary in amount by grantor. Additionally, cost-sharing agreements with Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Kitsap County are anticipated to reduce some of the City's
project cost responsibility.
This analysis assumes the City will be responsible for 50 percent of total impact fee-eligible project costs
over the 2O-year planning horizon, with the other 50 percent anticipated to be funded by grant and
intergovernmental revenue roadway projects.
3Transportation Solutions, lnc December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Exceptions were applied to the following projects which are anticipated to be fully funded by the City of
Port Orchard or by local development, with no grants or intergovernmental revenue:
r Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Phase L Design (Ttp #1.3)r Old Clifton Rd Design - 60% (TtP #1.5A)
o Old Clifton Rd & Campus Parkway roundabout (Ttp #1.5C)o Old Clifton Rd & McCormick Woods Dr roundabout (Ttp #2.08)o Glenwood Connector Roadway (per development agreement). Feigley Rd improvements (per development agreement)
Proportionate Share of Proiect Cost
Growth's proportionate share of each improvement project was calculated as the proportion of added
capacity which will be used by new development trips, per the Port Orchard travel demand model.
The Port Orchard travel demand model was most recently updated and recalibrated in 2019. lt
incorporates trip generation data published in the /nstitute of Transportation Engineers (tTE) Trip
Generotion Manual, L0th Edition and calibrated to fit 2019 weekday PM peak hour traffic counts. The
travel demand modeltrip distribution and traffic assignment procedures were calibrated based on
regional and national guidance, including the Kitsap County travel demand model and Federal Highway
Administration travel demand model calibration guidance, in addition to local engineering expertise and
traffic counts.
To generate 2040 PM peak hour travel demand forecasts, the calibrated 2019 pM travel demand model
was modified to include housing and employment growth forecasts identified in the port Orchard
Comprehensive Plan. A total of 7,352 new weekday PM peak hour trips are anticipated citywide
between 2019 and 2040. These new trips were assigned to the transportation network, resulting in
traffic growth forecasts for each intersection and roadway segment on the TIF project list.
The proportionate growth share of TIF project costs was calculated by dividing the 2019-2040 pM peak
hour trip growth by the capacity contribution, in vehicles per hour, of each improvement project:
fProportionate Share ofProiect Cost] = ffi
The resulting proportionate share for each TIF project is identified in Table 1. Total project costs and
growth share are summarized below:
TotalTlF Proiect Cost 5145,963,474
Anticipated Grant & lntergovernmental Revenue $lg,sgl,qlq
Anticipated Citv & Developer (Non-G rant) Responsibility 567,266,000
Growth/Development Share of Project Cost $36,343,224
Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 20204
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Table 1. lmpact Fee-Eligible Transportation lmprovement Projects
DA Glenwood Connector Roadway 2,000,000 2,000,000 tol%2,000,000
7.I Tremont St Widening CN Phase 23,600,000 7,570,000 24%1,951,656
1.3 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 1 Design 1,211,000 1,211,000 24%293,489
Old Clifton Rd/Anderson Hill Rd
Roundabout 2,420,000 968,000 81%786,1r2
1.4
1.5A Old Clifton Rd Design - 60%562,000 562,000 \oo%562,000
1.5C Old Clifton Rd/Campus Pkwy Roundabout 1,600,000 1,600,000 700%1,600,000
I.7 Vallair Ct Connector 2,498,000 7,249,000 8%96,697
2.07 Sidney Ave (N) Widening 13,113,000 6,557,000 48%3,I44,444
2.02 Sedgwick Rd West Design/nOW r,444,000 722,000 rcl%722,00O
2.03 Sedgwick Rd West Constr 4,331,000 2,166,000 t00%2,165,500
Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 1
2.04A ROW/Constr.14,360,000 7,180,000 24%1,740,094
2.048 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 2 17,498,000 5,249,000 28%7,464,306
2.04C Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 3 6,111,000 1,833,000 5%97,776
234D Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 4 9,179,000 4,590,000 45%2,067,975
2.04E Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 5 11,059,000 5,530,000 100%5,529,s00
2.05 Sidney Rd (S) Widening 7,820,000 3,910,000 66%2,593,367
2.OG Pottery Ave (N) Widening 1,998,000 999,000 28%2t7,500
2.O7 Old Clifton Rd Shoulder & Ped. lmpr 3,372,000 1,686,000 700%1,6g6,ooo
2.08
Old Clifton Rd/McCormick Woods Dr
Roundabout 1,600,000 1,600,000 700%1,600,000
2.09 Melcher St Widening 749,000 375,000 7%25,279
2.1 Fireweed Rd Widening 468,000 234,000 5%17,700
2,I2 Sherman Ave Widening 656,000 328,000 5%16,400
2.73 Tremont St Widening Ph. 2 - PO Blvd 10,584,000 5,342,000 ro0%5,342,000
2.I4 Pottery Ave {S) Widening 5,245,000 2,623,000 16%4t5,tIg
2.16 Blueberry Rd Widening 749,OOO 375,000 22%80,518
2.77 Geiger Rd Widening 468,000 234,000 5%Ir,7OO
2.78 Salmonberry Rd Widening 281,000 141,000 27%28,803
2.79 Piperberry Way Extension 468,000 234,000 1r%25,665
2.21 Old Clifton Rd/Feigley Rd Roundabout 243,000 122,000 26%31,150
DA Feigley Rd lmprovements 76,474 76,000 100%76,474
Total L45,863,474 67,266,000 S4ol 36,343,224
lproject lD number in Port Orchard 2O27-2O4Ofransportation lmprovement Program. DA = development agreement project
2Portion of project cost which is anticipated to be funded by City of Port Orchard and developer funds (i.e. not funded by
grants or intergovernmental revenue)
3portion of added capacity which is used by growth (i.e. new development). Developer-funded projects are assigned 100%
growth share.
5Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
lmpact Fee Rate
The citywide transportation impact fee rate was calculated by dividing the sum of the growth share of
TIF project cost by the total citywide PM peak hour trip growth forecast, as shown:
Development share of project costs _ $36,343,224 _,citywide pM trip growth - = Mu-1,.-G = $4'943 / PM peak hour trip
Sample Transportation Impact Fees
Table 2 summarizes the fee rates which would be paid by severaltypical developments lf the above
calculated rate were adopted in an impact fee ordinance. A comprehensive transportation impact fee
rate schedule is included in Appendix B.
Table 2.lmpact Fee Comparison for Typical Land Uses
Single-Family Home 210 0,99 DU 2,552 4,894
t; a
; i r., .ll
l,
.,,it'
)11 a 1 '
r r ^- 'l;7r,,;r l
,...t.rrr tiri:
,^ rit'l .lir ttir:it ll
I 1 ,.,; l.t , '.iri,
Low-Rise Multifamily 220 0.55 DU t,592 2,769
Senior Attached Housing 252 0.26 DU 638 1,285
GeneralOffice 710 L.15 1,000 ft2 3,903 5,584
Shopping Center 820 2,51* 1,000 ft2 6,406 12,1,1O
Light lndustrial 110 0.63 1,000 ft2 2,476 3,L14
lLand Use Code and trip rates per lnstitute ofTransportation Engineers Trip Generotion Monual 70th Edition*lncludes 34% reduction for pass-by trips, per lnstitute ofTransportation Engineers Tri p Generatio n Hond book
3. Additional lssues for Consideration
Anticipated Annual Revenues from lmpact Fees
The anticipated annual revenue from the proposed transportation impact fee, based on the travel
demand growth forecast of 7 ,352 new trips by 2040, is shown below:
350 trips $+,s+z
t*.- * FM trip = $1'730'050 /Year
The transportation impact fee is anticipated to generate an average of S1,730,050 per year. This
represents a 20-year average and may be more or less in any given year.
Anticipoted Grant Revenue
Transportation improvement projects are generally eligible for state and federal grant funds. These
funds are not predictable and vary in amount by grantor. The financing plan in the Transportation
Element identifies a 50 percent grant and intergovernmentalfunding goal for roadway projects. This
assumption is applied in the impact fee rate calculation,
6Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Anticipated Need for Other Public Funds
The anticipated impact fee revenue does not fully fund the non-grant share of TIF project costs. The
anticipated need for other public funds is summarized below:
Total TIF Proiect Cost 5t45,863,474
Anticipated Grant & lntergovernmental Revenu e 578,597 ,474
G rowth/Development Share of Proiect Cost 536,343,224
Remaining Unfunded Commitment l2ot9-2o4ol $3o,922,776
The City will need to identify other revenue sources to fund the remaining unfunded revenue
commitment of $30,922,776 associated with the TIF projects. This represents an annual funding
comm itment of $ L,545,139.
4. Transoortation lmpa Fee Rate Comoarison
The City of Bellingham Public Works Department has compiled a list of transportation impact fee rates
for 79 public agencies in western Washington. The full comparison chart is included in Appendix B.
Provided below are current transportation impact fee rates for several agencies which are located near
Port Orchard. The updated impact fee rate of 54,943 per PM trip would be just above the western
Washington average rate, but far from the highest in western Washington.
Western WA Maximum Transportation lmpact Fee:
City of Poulsbo Transportation lmpact Fee:
City of Gig Harbor Transportation lmpact Fee:
Proposed Port Orchard Transportation lmpact Fee:
Western WA Average Transportation lmpact Fee:
City of Bainbridge lsland Transportation lmpact Fee:
Kitsap County Transportation lmpact Fee:
Western WA Minimum Transportation lmpact Fee:
Sr4,064 (City of Sammamish)
s5,397
S5,o2o
S4,943
s4,363
51,,681
SToo
$589 (City of Oak Harbor)
5. Credits and Adiustments
lmpact Fee Credits
An applicant may request a credit for impact fees in the amount of 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 shall 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/orthe facility constructed are listed as planned
transportation projects in the Rate Analysis and lmpact Fee Ordinance. Credits are not generally 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 lmpact Fee Ordinance.
7Transportation Solutions, lnc December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
I ndepende nt F ee Ca lculotio n
An applicant may submit an independent fee calculation for a 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,
Construction Cost lndex Adjustment
Transportation impact fees should be adjusted yearly to account for inflation. Annual adjustments will
be based on the All-Urban Consumers lndex (CPl-U) for the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area for the
previous 12-month period from December to December as specified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
United States Department of Labor. The CPI adjustment would take effect on March L.
5. Conclusions
The recommended transportation impact fee rate is $4,943 per new pM peak hour trip.
8Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard 2020Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Appendix A. Transportation lmpact Fee Proiect List
Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard
Transportation lmpact Fee Project List - 2020 Update
Cost
Estimate ($)
Local Growth GrowthProject NameID
Share ($)Share Share
DA Glenwood Connector Roadway 2,000,000 2,000,000 1000/o 2,000,000
1.1 Tremont St Wideninq CN Phase 23,600,000 7,570,000 24%o 1,851,656
1.3 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 1 Desrgn 1 ,211 ,000 1,211,000 24%293,489
1.4 Old Clifton Rd/Anderson HillRd Roundabout 2,420,000 968,000 810A 786,112
1.5A Old Clifton Rd Desiqn - 60%562,000 562,000 100%562,0001.5C Old Clifton Rd/Campus Pkwy Roundabout 1,600,000 1,600,000 100o/o 1,600,000
1.7 Vallair Ct Connector 2,498,000 1,249,000 80/o 96,697
2.O1 Sidney Ave (N) Widening 13,1 13,000 6,557,000 480/o 3,144,444
2.02 Sedgwick Rd West Design/ROW 1,444,000 722,000 100%722,000
2,03 Sedgwick Rd West Constr 4,331,000 2,'166,000 100% 2,165,5002.044 Bethel/Sedqwick Corridor Ph. 1 ROWConstr 14,360,000 7,180,000 24o/o 1,740,094
2.048 Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 2 17,498,000 5,249,000 280/o 1,464,306
2.04C Bethel/Sedqwick Corridor Ph. 3 6,111,000 1,833,000 5%97,776
2.04D Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 4 9,179,000 4,590,000 450A 2,067 ,975
2.04E Bethel/Sedgwick Corridor Ph. 5 11,059,000 5,530,000 1000/0 5,529,500
2.05 Sidney Rd (S) Widenin s 7,820,000 3,910,000 66%2,593,367
2.06 Pottery Ave (N) Wideninq 1,998,000 999,000 28%277,500
2.07 Old Clifton Rd Shoulder & Ped. lmpr 3,372,000 1,686,000 100% 1,686,0002.OB Old Clifton Rd/McCormick Woods Dr Roundabout '1,600,000 1,600,000 100% 1,600,000
2.09 Melcher St Widening 749,000 375,000 70/o 25,279
2.1 Fireweed Rd Widening 468,000 234,000 5%11,700
2.12 Sherman Ave Widening 656,000 328,000 50/o 16,400
2.13 Tremont St Wideninq Ph.2 - PO Blvd 10,684,000 5,342,000 100%5,342,000
2.14 Pottery Ave (S) Widenins 5,245,000 2,623,000 16%415,119
2.16 Blueberry Rd Wideni ng 749,000 375,000 22%80,518
2.17 Geiqer Rd Wideni ng 468,000 234,000 50/o 11,700
2.18 Salmonberry Rd Widening 281,000 141,000 21%28,803
2.19 Piperberry Way Extension 468,000 234,000 11%25,665
2.21 Old Clifton Rd/Feiqley Rd Roundabout 243,000 122,000 26%31 ,1 50
DA Feigley Rd lmprovements 76,474 76,000 1000/o 76,474
Total 145,863,474 67,266,000 54% 36,343,224
Total Proiect Cost 5r4s,863,4i4
Local Share (Development + City)46%
Growth/Development Share ($) $36,343,224
2OL9-2040 PM Peak Hour Growth 7 352
2020 Transportation I Fee Rate p)943
Remain Unfunded Commitment 92 776
Annual Fundi Commitment 54 139
City of Port Orchard 2020 Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Appendix B. Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Schedule
Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
City of Port Orchard Traffic lmpact Fee Rate Schedule - Residential (2020 Update)
lnstitute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual (1Oth Edition)
2 Trip generation rate per development unit for PM peak hour of the adjacent street traffic (4-6 PM)
3 DU = Dwelling Unit
H RD
T ran spo rtati o n S olu ti onseINNOVATIVE I PRACTICAT I EQUITABLE
t
210
220
221
230
240
Single-Family Detached Housing
Lg"y:Ri:! Multifamily Housing (1-2 floors)
Mid-Rise Multifamily Housing (3-10 floors)
Mid-Rise Residentialw/ 1st Floor Commercial
Mobile Home Park
0.99
0.56
0.4A
0,36
0.46
DU
DU
DU
DU
DU
$2,768
$?:175
$1t779
$2,274
$4,894
251
253
254
Senior Housing Detached
Assisted Living
Senior Housing Attached
Congregate Care Facility 0,18
0.26
0.30
0.26
$1,285
$1,483
$1,285
260
270
Recreational Home
Residential PUD
0.28
0.69
DU
DU
$1,394
$3,411
Accessory Dwelling Unit (< 450 sf)
Accessory Dwelling Unit (> 450 sf)
0.56
0.28
DU
DU
$2,768
$1,384
lmpact Fee
per Unit
Base Trip
Rate2
% Primary
Trips
Net Trip
Rate
Rate per
unit3
ITE
Codei ITE Land Use Categoryl
1.87 .87030lntermodal Truck T
0.630
0.400
0.670
0.190
0.170
2.270
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF $11,221
$1,977
$3,3'1
lndustrial Park
Manufacturing
Warehousing
Mini Warehouse
Utilities
lndustrial
0,40
0.67
0.19
0.17
2.27
130
140
150
151
170
0.360
0.320
r00m
room
r00m
$1
$1,582
0.36
0.32
311
312
Suites Hotel
Hotel
0.270
0.280
1.250
2.220
1.640
3.580
1.160
1 4.600
13.730
16.430
4.210
3.820
3.450
6.290
acre
site
acre
tee
cage
KSF
KSF
KSF
screen
scfeen
field
court
court
KSF
KSF
$1,335
$1,384
$6,179
$1 0,s73
$8,1 07
$17,696
$5,734
$72,1 68
$67,867
$3 1,091
$81,21
$20,81
$1 8,
$1 7,
0.27
0.28
1.25
2.22
1.64
3.58
1.16
14.60
13.73
'r6.43
4.21
3.82
3.45
6.29
0.1411
416
430
432
433
434
435
437
444
445
488
490
491
492
493
Golf Course
Golf Driving Range
Bafting Cages
Rock Climbing Gym
Multi-Purpose Recreational Facility
Bowling Alley
Movie Theater
Multiplex Movie Theater
Soccer Complex
Tennis Courts
Racquet/Tennis Club
Health Fitness Club
Park
Park
Club
44%
1.190
0.970
0.1 40
2.040
1.860
0.490
4.893
0.460
0.050
0.480
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
acre
bed
KSF
student
$5,882
$4,795
$692
$1 0,084
$9,1 94
$2,422
$24,1 85
$2,274
$247
$2,373
1.37
1.19
0.97
0.14
2.04
1.86
0.49
11.12
0.46
0.05
0.48
520
522
530
537
538
540
560
565
566
571
575
Church
Day Care Center
Cemetery
Prison
Fire & Rescue Station
Elementary
Elementary School
District Offrce
/ Community College
Middle/Junior Hiqh School
High School
$17
$2,9 16
$16,213
0.59
3.28
3.53
970
0.590
3.280
3,530
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
610
620
630
640
Nursing Home
Clinic
Animal Hospital / Veterinary Clinic
1.150
2.450
1.710
3,460
1,710
11.210
2.820
'1.070
0.490
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
$17
$12,11
$55,4'11
$1 3,939
$5,289
$2,422
2.45
1.71
3.46
1.71
11.21
2.82
1,07
0.49
710
712
715
720
730
732
750
760
Park
Single-Tenant Office (<5,000 s0
Tenant Office (>5,000 sf)
Office Buildins
Office
Post 0ffice
Park
an
Office Complex
d Development Center
PORT AND TERMINAL
INDUSTRIAL
RECREATIONAL
INSTITUTIONAL
OFFICE
MEDICAL
LODGING
Traffic lm Fee Rate Schedule - Non-Residential
lnstrtute of Engineers,
Trip generation rate per development unit, for PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street traffic
1,000 square feet; VSP = Vehicle
(4-6 pm).
on local data, development context, and engineering judgment
Uof
DU = Dwelling Unit; KSF
Pass-by and diverted trip
servicing position
rates may be applied based
2rate data not available. Primary trip
of Port Orchard Traffic Schedule - Non-Residential LUC
of Engineers,
Trip generation rate per development unit, for PM Peak Hour of the adjacent street traffic (4-6 pm).
Average primary trip rates, per Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition), 201 7. Additional rates based on similar land use and engineering judgment.
U
ITE
Coder ITE Land Use Categoryl Base Trip
Rate2
o/o Primary
Trips3
Net Trip
Rate
Rate per
Unita
lmpact Fee
per Unit
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
820
823
840
841
842
843
848
849
850
85'1
853
854
oEa
861
862
863
866
867
875
876
879
880
88'1
882
890
Free-Standin g Discount Superstore (w/ Grocery)
Free Standing Discount Store (w/o Grocery)
Hardware/Paint Store
Nursery (Garden Center)
Nursery (Wholesale)
Shopping Center
Construction Equipment Rental Store
ilding Materials and Lumber Store
Store
0utlet Center
Vehicle Sales
Parts Sales
Store
re Superstore
Store
and Crafts Store
Sales (New)
Sales (Used)
Pharmacy/Drug Store w/o Drive-Thru
Pharmacy/Druo Store w/ Drive-Thru
Marijuana Dispensery
Furniture Store
Market
Market w/Gas Pumps
Discount Supermarket
Discount Club
Sporting Goods Superstore
Home lmprovement Superstore
Electronics Superstore
Pet Supply Superstore
Offr ce Supply Superstore
Department Store
n oo
2.06
A aa
6.84
4.83
2.68
6.94
5.18
3.81
2.29
2.43
a aE
0.77
4.91
3.98
2.11
9.24
49.11
49.23
8.38
4.18
2.02
4.lo
3.55
2.77
1.95
4.12
6.21
8.51
1 0.29
21.83
0.52
66%
83%
74%
74%
74Yo
66%
66%
100%
100o/o
100%
44%
72o/o
64o/o
49Yo
17o/o
51%
63%
66%
60%
66%
66%
66%
66%
66%
4t%
38Yo
100%
0.924
0.733
1.524
3.074
4.514
4.009
1.983
5.1 36
3.833
2.515
1.51 1
2.430
3.750
0.770
2.160
2.866
1.5 1I
5.914
24.064
8.369
4.274
2.633
1 a1a
1.351
2.556
2.343
1.828
1.287
2.719
4.099
4.000
3.910
21.830
0.244
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
VFP
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
$3,62 1
$7,535
$15,196
$22,3 1 5
$19,816
$9,803
$25,385
$1 8,948
$1 2,430
$7,471
$12,01 1
$1 8,536
$3,806
$1 0,679
$14,1
$7
$29,231
$1
$41,3
$21,
$13,01
$6,
$6,
$12,
$1 1,581
$e,
$6,
$1 3,441
$20,25e
$19,771
$1 9,328
$1 07,906
$1,208
912
918
920
925
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
947
948
950
960
970
Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
Food w/o Drive-Thru
Food w/ Drive-Thru
Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru w/o lndoor Seating
Coffee/Donut Shop w/o Drive-Thru
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive-Thru
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive-Thru w/o lndoor Seating (Espresso Stand)
Bread/DonuUBagel Shop w/o Drive-Thru
Bread/DonuVBaqel Shop w/ Drive-Thru
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Stop
Automobile Care Center
Automobile Parts and Service Center
Gasoline/Service Station
Gas Station w/Convenience Market
SeltServe Car Wash
Bank
Salon
Print, and Express Ship Store
Place
Casual Restaurant
Restaurant
Car Wash
Truck Stop
Super Convenience MarkeU Gas Station
12.13
20.45
1.45
7.42
r 1.36
14.13
7.80
9.77
28.34
Jt.o I
42.65
36.3 1
43.38
28.00
19,02
4.85
3.1 1
2.26
14.03
13.99
5.54
77.50
ZI.I J
22.96
7.31
65%
65lo
66%
100%
57%
56%
57%
57%
50%
50%
57%
50%
11%
Eao/
50%
72lo
72%
58%
tz /o
58%
FOO/
58%
1 FO/
7.885
13.293
0.943
4.897
1 1.360
8.054
4.368
5.569
1 6.1 54
16.335
21.32s
20.697
21.690
9.1 66
15.960
9.510
3.492
2.239
1.627
8.1 37
1.679
3.213
44.950
13.'183
8.036
ketr
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
KSF
VSP
KSF
KSF
VFP
VFP
stall
stall
KSF
VFP
$6s,705
$4,659
$24,207
$56,1 52
$39,81 1
$21,59'1
$40,223
$8,298
$1 5,883
$222,188
$65,1 66
$39,722
$1
$1
$27
261
21$1 07,
$45,
$78,
$47,
$1 7,
$1 1,
RETAIL
SERVICES
Pass-by rates should be used with caution and refined using local data whenever possible.
pnmaryoDu Dwelling Unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet; VSP = Vehicle servicing position
City of Port Orchard 2020Transportation lmpact Fee Rate Update
Appendix C. Comparison ol2OL9-2020 TIF Rates in Western Washington
Transportation Solutions, lnc.December 2020
Comparison ol 2OL9-2O2O TIF Base Rates in 74 Cities and 5 Counties in Western Washington
With Bellingham and Whatcom County Cities Highlighted for Emphasis
[Based on inlormotion ovoiloble. Averoge includes both cities and Counties. See TIF rote toble on next poge lor odditional details.]
Data compiled Nov. 201e by chris comeau, alcP-crP, rrilsportatiilsP:::;:;"i:r;:::ir. rubllc works ccomeau@cob.ors or 1360177a-7e46
Sanrna.nisl
No(h Eend
Kenntore
l!saquah
Duvall
Lynnwood
Renton
La Center
E0rhell
Shoreline
Redmond
Shoreline
Canation
Newcaille
Fife
Marysville
tdmonds
Suckley
Crnras
Des Moines
Poukbo
geltev!e
Mounl Vernon
6ig Harbor
Poil Orchard (Propored)
Aub!rn
Xent
puyallup
Pierce County
Covington
Idse!vood
W WA Averagellt'
Sultan
Mercea lsland
Woodlrville
Milton
Federal Way
Bonney Lake
Maple Valley
Mount Lake-lerrace
Mill Creek
kirkland
Shetror
Tumwater
Ridgetield
Monroe
Stanwood
Sealac
WashouBal
ArlinBtoir
Clark County
Lake 5levens
rnumclaw
olympia
Univerity Place
Ferndale
BattleBround
Thurston County
Sedr0-Woolley (Proposed)
Anacortes
Burlington
5unrner
Port or.hard {fxi5tjlg)
6ranite Falis
Sequh
5nohonrish Couilty
€verett
Vancouver
Orting
Lynden
Bclhrghanr
Lacey
Mukilteo
Salrbridge lsland
5nohonrirh
Blrine
yelm
Tukwila
Burien
Kitsap County
Oak Harbor
-S2,m9-s2,731-52,665-$2,632-52,s52-52,500-52,491-S2,4s3-s2,400-
S2,1s3
-92,149-
52,111
-S2,02s
-
32,013
-
s1,875
-
s1,687
-
51,603
-
51,ss8
-
s1,497
-
51,244
-
s948I 97mr S589
s14,064
s11,630
s9,600
58,882
S8,7s6
$7,e44
57,820
97,S51
S7,406
57,397
57,3s7
57,224
S7,14l
S6,475
S5,413
$6,3m
S6,249
S6,074
$s,974
-Ss,s73
5s,397
5s,293
Ss,1oo
Ss,02o
S4,e43
54,89s
S4,518
S4,soo
54,479
54,461
s4,413
s4,363
S4,350
54,287
54,211
sd,190
$3,999
s3,995
S3,e85
53,985
53,eN
s3,81s
$3,736
S3,7os
93,683
$i,524
s3,s23
53,s08
$3,398
53,3ss
S3,333
S3,257
S3,219
S3,213
S3,199
93,163
53,024
s2,959
S4,mo $6,000 58,ooo Slo,ooo
Cost Per P.M. Peak Hour (4:00 - 6:00pml Vehicle or Person Trip
So l2,ooo $12,ooo S14,ooo S16,mo
PORT ORCHARD CITY PA
Exhibit B
Ordinance No. 007-21
ir 'lu
Appendix E: lmpact 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 lmpact Feeso Statutory Basis For lmpact Fees. Methodology for Calculating lmpact Fees. Need for Additional Parks and Recreational Facilitieso Determining the Benefit of Parks and Recreational Facilities to Development
. Methodology and Relationship to Port Orchard City Parks Plan
. Level of Service and Calculations
E1.1 Definition and Rationale of lmpact Fees
lmpact 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. ln this case, the new development is required to
pay for virtually all the cost of its share of new public facilities.
Page E-1 Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
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. ll 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. lmpact fees for parks
and recreational facilities are charged to all residential development within the City of
Port Orchard.
E1.2 Statutory Basis for lmpact Fees
RCW 82.02.050 - 82.02.090 authorizes localgovernments 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: l) the ability to charge for the cosr 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: l) 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)
lmpact 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 tovernments must develop impact fee
rate catetories for various land uses. RCW 82.02.060(6) lmpact 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(3Xb) and RCW82.02.060( I )
lmpact fees can be charged for new public facilities (RCW 82.02.060(l)(a)) and for the
unused capacity of existing public facilities (Rcw 82.02.060(7)) subject to rhe
Page E.2 Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
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( r)-(3)
E 2 Methodology for Calculating lmpact 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.
ln 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. ln 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).
E2.1 Need forAdditional 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.
E2.2 Determining the Benefit to Development
The Washington State law regarding lmpact Fees imposes three provisions of the
benefit provided to development by impact fees: l) 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 seryices
to the fee-paying property (indirect benefit), and geographical proximity (presumed
benefit). lmpact fees for park and recreational facilities, however, are only charged to
Page E-3 Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
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 ro the benefit to the fee-payer.
E2.3 Methodology and Relationship to the Port Orchard City Parks Plan
lmpact 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 averate 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 lnventory
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
201 I population of I l, 144 as provided by the Washington State of Financial
Management. The forecast population for 2030 of is the projected population
Page E-4 Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
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 lmpact Fee calculations.
E 3.3 Calculation of Park and Recreational Capital lnvestment 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 I l, I 44 for the City determines the current capital
value per person of $649. (Please reference Attachment E2: Figure El)
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. lmpact 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 El times the total amount of population
growth forecast for the six year lmpact 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 serye 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 lmpact Fee planning period.
Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
E 4.2 Total lnvestment 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 serye 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
Srowth 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
ln 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 cosr 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 trowthduring the six year lmpact 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 9324 per person. The
amount to be paid by each new dwelling unit depends on the number of persons per
dwelling unit.
E 5.2 lmpact 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
Page E-6 Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
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 I 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. lmpact 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 lmpact Fee from $500 to $1,195 per unit. The
proposed Park lmpact Fees for the City of Port Orchard of $81 I 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 lmpact 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.
Page E-7 Port Orchard City Parks Plan 2011
INTENTIONAL BLANK PAGE
CITY OF PORT ORCHARD COMPREHENSIVE PARKS PLAN
Exhibit C
Ordinance No. 007-21 Appendix C
Ordinance No, 023-15
Scrrrth Kitsan School Disfricl 2Ol5 Cenital Facil ities Plen
VN. DISTRICT FINAFICE PLAF{
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 Obllsation Bonds
Bonds are typically used to fund construction of new schools and other major capital improvement
projects, A 60Vo 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 57o of assessed value or $306,155,613. The
District had $5,645,48I of debt as of August 31,2014, and therefore has a current bonding capacity
of $300,510,132.
State Fundlne3ssistance
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 acctuing
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 district.s 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
Sorrth Kitsan District 2015 Canital Faci Plan
New Development Mitigationfi mpact Fegs
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 43.2IC RCW, and the Growth Management Act, Chapter
36.704 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 Mitieatio4 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 prouided fbr
potential new students.
a
r SEPA Mitieation. SEPA provides that localjurisdictions may condition the approval of anew development to the mitigation of specific adverse environmental impacts which are
identified in SEPA envfonmental documents. See RCW 43.21C,060. Under SEpA, the
"built environrnent" includes public schools. ,see wAC 197 -rr-444(2) (d) (iii).
r G,MA Mitieatio4. Development impact fees have been adopted by Kitsap County and theCity 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 ensurp thlt its interests
are considered when new developments are proposed that will generate additional students.
Six-Year Finance Plans
The Six'Year Capitat Finance Plan (Table 12) portrays how South Kitsap School District intends to
fund improvements to school facilities for the years 2015 through 202e,
4tJ
Appendix C
Ordinance No.023-15
South Kitsan School District 2015 Caoital Plan
Sources:
CFP Balance/Impact Funds (Aug 20l )
Impact Fee Collections 2015-2020 (est.)
Transfer from General Funds
State Matching Funds (est.)
Sale of General Obligation Bonds
Improvements to Existing Facilities
Uses:
CFP Balance/Impact Funds (Aug 2020 est.)
Improvements to Existing Facilities
Construction for Enrollment Growth
Site Acquisition
Construction of Support Facilities
Interim Classroom Space
Program Changes
Balance:
Table 12
Capital Finance Plan (2015-2020)
,000,164$
$
$
$
$
I
I ,43 8,680
0
0
0$ 4.750"000 $7,188,844
$ 378,769$ 4,750,000$0$ 1,760,075$0$ 300,000$0 $ 7.188.844
$0
4t
Appendix C
Ordinance No.023-15
Snrrlh Kitcan Di.strict ?.Ol 5 Canital Fnni Plan
VUI. I}NFI.'NDED NEED CALCULATION
The calculation of the South Kitsap School District unfunded need in suppor.t of jurisdictional
school impact fee collection is provided on the spreadsheets that follow. This calculation recognizes
projected costs anticipated over the life of the six-year plan including acquisition costs for interim
housing and debt service payments on a 56 acre school site that was purchased in 2005.
The "Unfunded Need Total" on the last line of the SKSD Impact Fee Calculation document
portrays the cost of addressing new home construction related eruollment growth identified within
the six-year capital construction plan. This value is greater than the actual school impact fees
specified and collected under respective Kitsap County and City of Port Orchard impact f'ee
ordinances.
42
Appendix C
Ordinance N0.023-15
Sorrth Kitsan School Di ?Ol5 Cnnitel Fecilitie.c Plnn
De$cdption
Stdent 0eneration Factor.SFll
$tudent Oemntion Faclor.SFll
Studerrt Gernration Factor-EFll
Student Generalion Factor.lt,l FH
$tudenl 0eneration Faclor.MFll
Studer{ 0eneralion Factor.MFll
FacilityAueage
Facility Acreage
Facility Acreage
Cost perAue
Facility Size' llew Oomtruction
Facility $ize . I'lew Comtruclion
Facility S[e - New Constnntion
Facility She . Temporary Construclion
Facility Size. Temporary Conshudion
Facili$ Size . Temporary Consttudion
Pertnanerrl $q, Footage (Total)
Permanent 8q, Footage ftotal)
Pumarnnt $q, Foolage [foH]
Porlabh $q. Foolage (Total)
Portable $q, Foolage (Tolal)
Portable Sq Footage (Total)
Facili$ Cnst . I'lew Construction
Facility Co$ . I'lew Construclion
Facility Cosl. llbw Conslrudion
Facility Cosl - Iemporary Construdion
Facilily Cosl. Iemporary Constrdion
Facilily ftsl . Iemporary Construdion
Boeckh ldexl Area Cost Allowane
$Pl Footage
$PlFmtage
SPlFmlage
State li4atch Ratio
Average Assessed Value. SFH
Average Assessed Value. MFH
Capital Bord lnterest Rate
Years Amorthed
Prcpeily Tu Lery Rate. CapitalConstruction
Grade$pan
Elemeilary
Jr, High
$. Htgh
Elemeilary
Jr, Hlgh
sr, Hhh
Elementary
Jr, lligh
$, llbh
Ail
Elementary
Jr, lligh
$, High
Elementary
Jr. lligh
Sr.r{gh
Elemer{ary
Jr, High
$, Hrgh
Elementary
Jr, High
$, Huh
Elementary
Jr, High
$, lligh
Elementary
JL Hrgh
$r, llqh
Ail
Elementary
Jr, High
$, Hbh
All
All
Ail
Ail
Ail
Ail
Unitl
$ludenl$RestCenm
SludentdResidenm
SludentslResi'dence
$tudertl$Residettce
$tudentdResiienrm
SludentdResidene
Aues
Aues
Aues
Cost/Acre
Studenls/$chool
Students/School
Sludettl$/$chool
$tudenl/Classroom
StudentCIlasroom
$tuderil/Classmom
Squae Feet
Squue Feet
$quare Feel
$quueFeet
$quare Feet
Square Feet
Cost/ScMl
Co$t/Schml
Cosl/School
Cosl/Portable
Cost/Podable
Cost/Portable
Coslisq, fl,
Sq, FL/Student
Sq, Ft,/Student
Sq, Ft,lStttdenl
Percent
Costltjttit
Cost/Un'lt
Pucenl
Years
Costl$lm0A,V,
Value
0,32
0,10
0,10
0,18
009
0,09
14,00
22,00
42,00
$1 15,000
550
s0
1800
24
26
20
507894
286193
345474
45900
10900
10000
Comnntllg
200i Kendrick Demographic Slrdy
2007 hndrhk Denngraphic Slldy
2007 Kendrhk Denngraphic $tudy
2007 Kendrhk Derugtaphic Study
2001 Kedrick Demgraphic Sludy
2007 Kendrick Denpgrahic Sludy
O{slricl Average
DistrictAverage
Planfor l'{ew lllgh School
MaketEslimale
District $landard
0istrht Slandard
Planlot [bw llfih Sclnol
Di$tilctLOS
DhtrhtLOS
DhtrhltOS
ttate Study & Survey
$tate $tudy& Suruey
State $tudy & $urvey
Podables lnventory
Poilables lnventory
Portables lrltnntory
Standard Dbl Porlable includinq $ile Cosls
$tandard Dbl Poflable including Site Costs
Standard Dbl Porlable including Site Costs
Kitsap County Assesmr SFH 2015
Kitsap County Assessor $Fll 20.l5 @ 50%
$300,000
$300,000
$300,000
$200.70
90,0
121,3
130,0
59.s8%
$201,200
$100,030
0,000/o
10
$0,00
0$Pl .2015
osPr.2015
osPr.2015
o$Pr .2015
osPt.2015
43
Appendix C
Ordinance No. 023-15
South Kitsao District 2015 Canital ties Plan
School Slte Acoulsltlon Cost:
f(Acres X Cosf per Acre)/Facillty Capacirfl X Sludent Generation Factor
Cost per FacllltyAcre Capacity
$115,000.00 550
900
$1 1 5,000.00 'r800
CALCUI.ATIONS
Cost p€r
SFH
$936.73
$0.00
$268.33
$1,205.06
Cost per
SFH
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Coet per
SFH
$165.77
$0.00
$0.00
$165.77
Cost por
SFH
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
SFH
0,00%
10
$0.00
$0.00
SINGLE FAffILY
$1,205.06
$0.00
$1 65.77
$0.00
$o'oo
$1,370.83
Cost per
MFH
$526.91
$0.00
$241.50
$768.41
Cost per
MFH
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Goat per
MFH
$93.24
$0.00
$0.00
$93.24
Cost p€r
MFH
$0.00
s0.00
$0.00
MFH
0.00%
10
$0,00
$0.00
MULTIFAIIIILY
$768"41
$o.oo
$93.24
$0,00
$0.00
$861.65
Elementary
Facllfty
Acreage
14
22
42
SGF
SFH
0.32
0.10
0.10
SGF
MFH
0.18
0.0s
0.09
High
High
Jr.
Sr.
School Constructlon Cost:
((Facility QosuFaeilily capacity) X student Generation Farctor) X permanent/Totat sq. Ft.)
%Perrnl Facllity Facllity SGF SGF
Total Sq. Ft. Cost Slze SFH MFH92% 550 0.32 0.18940/o 900 0.10 0.0997% 1800 0.10 0.09
Elementary
High
High
Jr.
Sr
T€mporarv Faclllty Cost:
(Facility cosaFacillty capacity) X student Generation Factor) X (Temporary/sq. FI)
Elementary
% Temp/ Facillty Facillty
Total $q. Ft. Cost Size8% $300,000.00 4860/0 523% 52
SGF
SFH
0.32
0.10
0.10
SGF
MFH
0.18
0.09
0.09
High
l-figh
Jr.
Sr,
State Match Credlt
Area cost Allowance X sP/ $q. Ftx state Match x sfudsnf Generation Factor
Elementary
Boeckh
lndex
$206.70
$206.70
$206.70
Tax Pavment Credit
Average Assessed Value
Capital Bond lnterest Rate
Net Present Value of Average Dwelling
Years Amortized
Property Tax Levy Rate
SPI StAtE SGF SGFFootage Match % SFH MFH90.00 0,32 0.18121.30 0.10 0.09130.00 0.10 0.0s
Present Value of Revenue Stream
NEED SUMMARY
School Site Acquisitlon Cost
Permanent Facility Cost
Temporary Facility Cost
State Match Credit
Tax Payment Credit
UNFUNDED NEED TOTAL
High
High
Jr.
Sr
44