Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2005 Adjourned Meeting 1.5 4 ADJOURNED MEETING MAY 24, 2005 - 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. YAKIMA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. RoII Call Present: Council: Mayor Paul George, presiding, Council Members Ron Bonlender, Dave Edler, Neil McClure, Mary Place, Bernard Sims, and Susan Whitman Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Chris Waarvick, Public Works Director; Shelley Willson and Joan Davenport, Streets and Traffic Operations Manager and Supervisor; and Acting City Clerk Watkins 2. Study Session on Transportation Plan update — alternatives to measuring capacity and concurrency Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works, noted that this study session was at the request of Council and that they had been provided an example of a development fee ordinance for review. There has been talk in the past about going to the voters for utility tax increases to fund street repairs and arterial capacity improvements. The REET 2 (real estate excise tax) has been implemented and is mainly focused on neighborhood street maintenance and seal coating. Shelley Willson, Streets and Traffic Operations Manager, commented that because this study session was requested such a short time ago, they have not had the chance for the public to review any of the proposals and, therefore, they do not have a community feel yet. She then discussed the city's current capacity definition of 800 vehicles per lane per hour. This is the minimal capacity for compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA). Mrs. Willson related capacity to level -of- service and distributed a document that graded it on a range of A to F. This document can be used as a guide for peak traffic hours. Mrs. Willson said they had previously heard Council suggest looking at different options while maintaining 800 vehicles per lane as a baseline. We can increase that to 1000 vehicles per lane and maintain the level of service we currently have or develop what the consultant calls a tiered approach. The information supplied to Council gives the background for each approach. Mrs. Willson explained that with the way GMA is set up the decisions lie with Council, yet it is difficult to select an approach when there are so many available. The method we currently use for capacity started in the mid -90's to meet the minimum acceptable level by GMA law. It was the simplest approach allowing for a lower level of staff involvement. We have been criticized because it's ad hoc and, as such, developers don't know if they're going to have to do anything with regard to streets because of their development. Currently, only if a development triggers a SEPA review, might they have to participate in a signal. The way the current ordinance is written, the last development, no matter how large or small, that trips over our level of service would have to fix everything. We have no process in place to fix streets as we 15,5, MAY 24, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING go along. At a standard of 800 VPL (vehicles per lane), by the year 2025 our level of service would be denying growth. If we raise into 1000 VPL (Alternative 2), we would still have the advantage of it being easy for the staff to administer. But, there would continue to be a perception by citizens that we have traffic problems on 40 Avenue, th Avenue, Street, intersections 16 and First high traffic and volume Nob Hill corridors will Boulevard. increase. Operational Asa and communitysafety , we issues at would need to accept that conditions will be more congested and delays will occur. • Alternative 3 is a tiered approach. There are two ways that people are doing a concurrency ordinance that involve a partnership with private developers. One is by proportionate share and the other a distributed share. Proportionate share is based on where the development locates, on size and projects in the neighborhood of development. They are assessed a percentage of the cost of the total development. Mrs. Willson gave an example of a development at the western city limits where a developer may be able to build and not pay any share because there isn't any project close by. A developer coming in the door looking at a parcel would not know exactly what the city would require of them. Later, when we knew how many trips they would generate, where they would distribute near street segments and intersections, they would get tagged with a dollar amount. Collected money could only be spent on targeted projects close to the development. There has to be a city construction project on the six -year transportation list in the proximity of the project to pay a portion of their share. Council entered into discussion on impact fees and how they are handled in various other cities. During this discussion it was also clarified that the gas tax recently passed by the Legislature is already spoken for. Mrs. Willson and Mrs. Davenport then reviewed the complexity of the various tiered methods and that it would mean a change in the way we collect and process data. We don't have the staff to do that at this point. They emphasized that no matter which system we pick it's going to be important that it is tied together with the six year TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan). A number of examples were reviewed in detail utilizing the proposed alternatives emphasizing the complexities when they moved into the tiered approach. Some important points brought out during the discussion were: • Funds collected in the tiered approach would have to be earmarked for the associated projects on the TIP, and would involve a timeline. • It would be necessary to track the funds and they can only be used for capital improvements, not maintenance. • The proportionate share method is very restrictive on where you can use the collected funds. • The distributed share allows the funds to be spent on anything on the TIP. Council Member Edler asked for clarification; he understood we were holding this meeting because we are on the threshold of a capacity that requires us to do something immediately. He referred to a meeting held recently that included a lot of discussion on how we would measure this capacity. We need to look at major intersections and begin planning and engineering to increase the number of turn lanes, buying property to do those kinds of things. These are things we need to decide on in the near term. The impact fees seem like an issue that can be kicked around for 2 15 MAY 24, 2005 — ADJOURNED MEETING awhile. Shelley Willson clarified that we have to include the ability to fund all the projects in the 2025 plan when we adopt the plan. It is due September 2006. Discussion then took a change of direction into street maintenance. It was restated that impact fees can only be used on capital projects and cannot be used on maintenance. We are left to ourselves with regard to maintaining our streets. Council Member Place noted that the Legislature has not given us local options. Mrs. Willson clarified that the gap analysis done in May of 2004, based on 2003 costs for maintaining the street system, sidewalks, signs, and signals, showed a $2.8 million shortfall annually. Preventative street maintenance was dropped about ten years ago. She stated that over the next 20 years it is expected that $68 million will be needed for capacity, and $93 million needed for street renovation. Other points brought out during discussion: • Need to enforce better repairs by whoever makes street cuts and refills them • When major developers come into our community and look at our requirements, they say it looks easy because there are no impact fees. But we currently can't tell them what their costs are going to be, therefore, we aren't as business friendly as it first appears. • Local developers look at impact fees as an outrageous new charge Joe Walsh, Central Washington Home Builder's Association, was asked his opinion. He said speaking for housing development, with GMA mandates for affordable housing, you can expect them to lobby until they're blue in the face on no impact fees on housing. He suggested that this information be presented to the public and the development industry. Council Member Place asked the Traffic staff to identify what decisions need to be made prior to being able to present this information to the public. 3. Audience Comments None 4. Adjournment McCLURE MOVED AND EDLER SECONDED TO ADJOURN. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting adjourne at 9:00 a.m. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY / CO, NCI MEMBER DATE COON EMBER DA E ATTEST: -- 2f _ .�. � CITY CLERK PAU P. GEORGE, MA Ol'' R Minutes prepared by Linda Watkins. An audio and video tape of this meeting are available in the City Clerk's Office 3