25C - AREA FEE STUDY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tiY : _ 4 /f~ pp ~."•i "`+3 •r t,.Y~±t+c4_ 'S. , t.~7"~al ~ i ` -ors ~4 ' 't G ~Jrt F . E ~ ~-~~T. ' r h~ =l'..~, "s Internal Boundaries. Once the needed model data have been assembled, the next step is to evaluate and possibly update the internal boundaries. If the data do not support a single zone structure, the internal boundary lines should be drawn #o combine areas with similar trip con#ributlon characteristics so that the differing fee levels will be justifiable, equitable, and defensible basod on the model data. In preparing this analysis, we have found that it simplifies the process (and makes the results more understandable) to convert land use in each subarea into equivalent single family dwelling units, based on relative trip generation between the land use categories. This way, the study participants can more readily understand the relative growth in each subarea, and are better able to relate the results to the magnitude of fee level implied in the calculations. When the final fee level recommendation is developed, it also makes it easier to convert the per-trip fee into an appropriate fee rate for each land use category. Fee Level Recommendation. When a traffic Impact fee has not been updated for 16 years, it can be challenging for staff to determine what is a fair and equitable level to recommend to the City Council. The nexus analysis usually Justifies a fee that is not only much higher than the currentiy- adopted fee but also seems to be well above a level that might be considered "reasonable". On ' ~ the other hand, the needed improvements may be costlier than those funded by programs of nearby peer Cities, so adopting a fee level that Is comparable to other programs may not generate ~ sufficient revenue to implement the needed Improvements. In past projects we have found that our experience in balancing these issues and recommending a zone structure and fee level can help staff reach a consensus on a program to recommend to the Council. In a case like this involving multiple agencies, it will be essential to have a staff consensus before going to the JPA Board and City Councils. So we will develop a recommendation based on the nexus analysis, a survey of peer Cities' fee levels, and input from the technical staff and development community participants in the study. Ta reach consensus between both Cities' staff on the recommended program, we will conduct a joint meeting/workshop of the technical team to review the zone alternatives, the nexus data, the peer Cities' survey results, and the recommended fee program. The earlier reviews and concurrence on land use assumptions and improvement cost estimates will make it possible to focus this discussion on the rationale behind the consultant recommendations, so #hat the meeting outcome can be a consensus fee program recommendation to take to elected offlclafs. Once we have developed consensus among the technical team, we will prepare the technical inputs required for the two Cities' ordinances. As explained in the pre-proposal meeting, the City d~ Attorneys' offices will take the lead in preparing the ordinances, and the traffic consultant will S5~ provide the needed technical input. _ z"" 13 I TL7701 S3 .09 ®S~ KimleyHom ~ and Associates, inc. 25C-23