Planning Comm MINS 07-01-2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 07-01-09.doc
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 2009 City Hall
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, Tim
O’Neil, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark,
Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Peter
Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety.
Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of May 20, 2009, were approved as written.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING – Traffic Impact Fee
Commissioner Long recused himself as he is the city’s project manager for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF).
He asked if it would be acceptable for him to remain in the audience to be available to answer questions.
Chair Pfeifer replied that would be acceptable.
Mr. Perez delivered the staff report. He explained that currently the city uses a concurrency analysis to
determine if traffic mitigation is necessary. The city uses a pro-rata share mitigation method (which can
result in fees ranging from zero up to $5,600 per trip) to arrive at the mitigation fee. For projects in the city
center, a set fee (as determined by the City Center Planned Action) is used. SEPA mitigation is used for
construction improvements beyond projects identified in the program and site-specific impacts. The city is
proposing a set TIF as opposed to the pro-rata share mitigation method. The concurrency analysis would
still be done and SEPA mitigation will not change.
Mr. Don Samdahl with Fehr & Peers/Mirai continued the presentation with information on the reasons to
have a TIF, state requirements, and how the proposed amount of the fee was developed.
Mr. Perez stated that the city worked closely with a Stakeholders Group. That group agrees with the city’s
proposal, with the exception of when the payment of the fee should be made. The Stakeholders Group
believes the payment of the TIF should occur at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
(CO). The city believes the fee should be paid at the time of building permit issuance. The pros and cons are
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 1, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 07-01-09.doc
as follows:
Certificate of Occupancy (CO)
Pros: - May lower financing cost for development
- Payment of mitigate fee coincide with timing of actual impacts
Cons: - Staff may be pressured to grant Certificate of Occupancy to projects that are completed with
exception of fee payment
- Projects often change hands during the construction process and the end user may not realize
that fees are tied to Certificate of Occupancy
- Increased staff time to: develop a new system, track deferred fees, and collect delinquent fees
- High delinquency rate as demonstrated in Pierce and Kitsap County
- Impact fee may be higher at time of collection than at building issuance
Building Permit Issuance
Pros: - Consistent with most or all of cities with impact fee program
- Minimal staff time to administer with high collection rate without institutional enforcement
- Predictability as impact fee would be assessed and payable at the same time
- Consistent with current practice for school impact fee
Cons: - May add financing cost for development due to financing charges
Commissioner O’Neil asked if under the current system, unused funds are returned. Mr. Perez replied that
funds are retuned if they have not been spent on the designated project within five years. Commissioner
O’Neil how much has been returned in the last ten years. Mr. Perez stated that he has been with the city
about 13 years. In that time the city has, on average, collected over a million dollars a year in traffic
mitigation. Of the total funds collected in those years, the city has had to return less than $10,000.
Commissioner O’Neil asked how often the TIF amount will be adjusted. Mr. Perez replied that it will be
adjusted annually for inflation and a new rate study will be performed every three years.
Commissioner Carlson commented that this is one of the best TIFs he has seen. He believes that in light of
the pros and cons, collection should be done at the building permit issuance. A number of other
jurisdictions collect a TIF and do so at the building permit issuance stage.
Commissioner Carlson expressed some concern with the projected Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
project cost of approximately $320 million. Does it reflect potential impacts from surrounding
communities, or just growth within Federal Way? Mr. Perez replied that it is based on historical averages
for growth within Federal Way. Growth in surrounding communities could increase the amount.
Vice-Chair Elder commented that she would prefer that the TIF be collected at the building permit
issuance stage in order to protect a new homeowner from a possible unexpected fee at the time of the CO.
Commissioner Medhurst asked if a contractor’s cost of improvements would offset the TIF. Mr. Perez
replied that it would depend upon the location of the project; whether it was on the Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP) and if so, it is possible that the cost of improvements could offset the TIF.
Mr. Perez stated that due to the current economic climate it is possible the TIF could be regarded as a new
fee, as opposed to a replacement of the current system. Because of this, staff recommends that
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 1, 2009
K:\Planning Commission\2009\Meeting Summary 07-01-09.doc
implementation of the TIF be deferred to July 1, 2010.
Commissioner Bronson noted that the current project map shows only one project on a state highway. Does
the state help pay for improvements on 99? Mr. Perez replied that city attempts to obtain state funds, but
the state focus is on major freeways and does not have much money for smaller highways.
Chair Pfeifer asked if other cities use our current system of the pro-rata share mitigation method. Mr. Perez
responded that some do use it, but more and more cities are moving to a TIF because of its predictability.
Chair Pfeifer asked if the TIF amount is more expensive than the current pro-rata share mitigation method.
Mr. Perez responded that while it would depend upon the project, the staff’s research showed that for
many projects the overall TIF cost would be lower than the current method. Specifically, the Rivera
Office/Medical building paid $258,019 under the current system, but under the proposed TIF it would
have been $129,500. The Fred Meyer fuel project paid $207,664, but would have paid only $83,030 under
the proposed TIF. Finally, the Sound Credit Union Bank, which is a city center project, paid $255,551, but
under the proposed TIF would have paid only $52,454.
Commissioner O’Neil commented that according to Staff Report Exhibit B, the amount of the TIF varies
greatly between cities. Mr. Samdahl responded that one reason for that is that the cities use different
methods to arrive at the TIF amount.
Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation
with collection of the TIF to occur at the building permit issuance. There was one abstain and six yes; the
motion passed.
The public hearing was closed.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Ms. Clark stated that the Planning Commission regularly scheduled meeting of July 15th has been moved to
July 22, 2009. At that time, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Plat and Land Use
Application Time Limit Extensions and Vesting Clarification.
AUDIENCE COMMENT
None
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.