Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council questions large variation in mobility-fee credits for annexed projects
Summary
Deputy Mayor Mary Gilbert asked why two annexed developments received very different mobility-fee credit percentages; staff said one project had already completed much of the eligible off-site work while annexation transferred remaining credits to the city.
Deputy Mayor Mary Gilbert pressed city staff during the consent-agenda discussion about why two annexed developments were receiving very different mobility-fee credit percentages — roughly 14% for one project and about 51% for another. “You said number 2 there's a 14% which was accredited for mobility fees…and the next development is a 51% mobility fee credit,” Deputy Mayor Gilbert said. “I would really like to look at what percentage we're giving in credit fees versus dollar volumes because I think we need to be at least more consistent across the board.” Tammy Rekke, the city’s mobility and special projects manager, answered that the smaller percentage reflected an annexed project that had already completed much of the transportation improvements while it remained in county jurisdiction. “That agreement is coming to the city because the area was part of the encumbrance annexations that we did back in May…a lot of that work has been completed already,” Rekke said, describing the 14% figure as representing the remaining eligible credits now being recognized by the city. Dan (city staff) and Melissa Dunklin, director of community development, added that the two consent items are different types of agreements: one documents remaining credits for a project that completed many improvements while under county permitting; the other ties credits to future obligations or different project responsibilities. The city manager and planning staff said they would provide more explanation and documentation for future council reviews so elected officials could compare percentages and dollar volumes across agreements. The consent agenda, excluding two pulled items, was later approved by a 5-0 roll call vote. Council members asked staff to present clearer, percentage-based breakdowns for mobility-fee credits on future items, particularly where annexations change which jurisdiction’s credits apply. The council did not change mobility-fee rates at the meeting; staff said the differences stem from prior county agreements and the remaining work now subject to city administration.
