Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals middle path on transportation impact fee package; consultant to finalize report for July
Summary
After reviewing project lists and per-trip cost calculations, council members signaled support for a mid-range package of projects between two consultant alternatives, asking staff to prepare a final preferred alternative for formal consideration in July.
The council discussed an update on transportation-impact-fee options during a June 10 meeting and signaled a preference for a middle package of projects that would produce a per-peak-PM-trip fee between two consultant alternatives.
Project alternatives presented by staff and the consultant varied in size and scope. "Alternative A" included a smaller set of projects and produced a lower per-trip fee (about $7,044 per PM peak trip in the consultant27s material), while "Alternative B" added a set of 12 further projects and produced a higher per-trip fee (about $8,900 per PM peak trip). To reach a midpoint, staff asked council members to rank the additional projects (the 12 items that differentiate A and B) and to identify a preferred bundle. Many of the higher-ranked items were downtown or Bay Street-area improvements; other proposals included the Sedgwick Corridor design, the Salmon Berry widening/culvert replacement and a roundabout at the base of Port Orchard Boulevard.
City staff reported the capital costs for the A-to-B difference totaled roughly $6.6 million for the seven higher-priority projects among the dozen; adding the more expensive items (listed by the consultant as projects 82012) would push the package substantially higher. After a short council round-robin, a plurality of council members indicated a preference for the staff27s "option 2" (the mid-range bundle described by staff). The city manager asked the consultant to prepare a final preferred-alternative report and to return to council in July for possible adoption; the consultant27s analyst is leaving the firm Friday, so staff asked for quick direction to complete the report.
No fee ordinance or new projects were approved that evening. Staff said any final fee depends on which projects are included and on final cost estimates; staff also emphasized that impact fees are charged to new development based on the number of new trips generated and that different development types (single-family, multifamily, commercial) will be charged according to trip-generation formulas in the adopted methodology.
Council members asked questions about the timing and feasibility of the candidate projects (state involvement on Sedgwick Road was noted) and whether it was more important to hit a numeric midpoint between consultant alternatives or to select projects most likely to be done. After discussion the mayor noted five council members had indicated support for the middle option; staff will direct the consultant to prepare a draft final report reflecting that preference and return to the council in July.
