Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose scaled‑back traffic impact fees and new concurrency tracking; council leans toward right‑sizing plan
Summary
Planning staff recommended a revised traffic impact fee methodology (Option 2) that phases and rightsizes large projects to reduce the TIF in Zone 1 from an initial estimate above $11,000 per PM peak trip; staff proposed new concurrency certificates and a tracking matrix to monitor intersections approaching 75% capacity.
Planning Manager Christy Schmidt and consultant staff briefed council on Nov. 18 on proposed updates to concurrency rules and the traffic‑impact‑fee (TIF) methodology tied to the city’s 20‑year capital improvement plan.
Staff said the package includes (1) an updated concurrency management section and a new concurrency certificate to reserve development trip capacity; (2) a revised TIF methodology using the latest ITE trip generation manual; and (3) a tracking matrix to identify intersections reaching 75% of level‑of‑service thresholds so collected fees can be programmed into the six‑year CIP.
Consultant scenarios showed a wide range of fees by traffic impact zone: an initial estimate for TIZ 1 (northeast city) produced TIFs in excess of $11,000 per PM peak trip under a full‑cost approach. Staff presented three options: Option 1 (full project funding), Option 2 (targeted cost reductions and phased delivery for several large projects — staff recommendation), and Option 3 (deeper fee reductions and removal of select projects). Staff recommended Option 2 as a balance between keeping projects fundable and limiting developer cost shock.
Council members asked for more detail on the traffic modeling, especially discrepancies between different analyses for intersections such as South Lake Stevens Road and Davies Road. Staff acknowledged a prior mismatch in datasets that has since been reconciled and agreed to return with clarifying model documentation. Council members also asked about affordability exemptions; staff modeled scenarios showing that a 100% TIF exemption for affordable housing over the 20‑year horizon would shift millions of dollars of subsidy onto other sources, while a targeted sliding rebate would lower developer costs with smaller long‑term impacts.
Staff said planning commission public hearings are scheduled and that the council will consider adoption in December. Council direction at the meeting favored the staff’s Option 2 approach and asked staff to return with additional modeling detail and concrete examples for council review before final adoption.
