EXHIBIT D
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study
Update
Prepared for:
City of Mountlake Terrace
October 3, 2016
Updated October 14, 2016
SE16-0475
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
Impact Fee Structure .......................................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: IMPACT FEE PROJECT LIST ......................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 3: COST ALLOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 5
Transportation Deficiencies ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Travel Growth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Cost Allocation Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
CHAPTER 4 - IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ...........................................................................................................10
Trip Generation Components ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Pass-by Trip Adjustment........................................................................................................................................ 10
Schedule of Rates ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Appendices
Appendix A: Defeciency Calculation
Appendix B: Cost Allocation Results
Appendix C: Land Use Definitions
List of Figures
Figure 1
Steps to Develop a Traffic Impact Fee Program ............................................................................................. 1
Figure 2
Transportation Impact Fee Projects ..................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3
Impact Fee Cost Allocation Concept ................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4
Impact Fee Cost Allocation Results ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5
Impact Fee Program Funding Sources ............................................................................................................... 8
i
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
List of Tables
Table 1: List of Transportation Capacity Projects..................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Mountlake Terrace Land Use Growth .......................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3: Impact Fee Schedule ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
ii
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The City of Mountlake Terrace developed its current transportation impact fee program in 2007. Since
implementation, the City has used its transportation impact fee program to partially fund the 212th Street
and 48th Avenue Signal design. In 2015, the City updated its Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element
and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2016-2021.
To reflect the new project list, as well as updated assumptions around future
growth, the City is updating its transportation impact fee program. This
Figure 1 Steps to Develop a
Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study documents the updated program,
Traffic Impact Fee Program
including a transportation impact fee rate schedule.
IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE
The key steps involved in the impact fee process are shown in Figure 1. Steps
include developing a list of roadway system improvements and costs and
allocating growth-related costs within the City. The remaining costs can be
charged as impact fees, which are displayed in the form of a fee schedule.
Each step is described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report.
1
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
CHAPTER 2: IMPACT FEE PROJECT LIST
Washington State law (RCW 82.02.050) specifies that Transportation Impact Fees are to be spent on “system
improvements.” System improvements can include physical or operational changes to existing roadways,
as well as new roadway connections that are built in one location to benefit projected needs at another
location.
These are generally projects that add capacity (new streets, additional lanes, widening,
signalization, new sidewalks and bike lanes).
During the City's 2015 Transportation Element Update and TIP Update, the City identified projects needed
to maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards and support planned growth. These capital
projects form the basis for the City's impact fee project list.
The resulting project list, shown in Table 1, includes 11 projects with a total cost of $39.7M. These projects
are also shown in Figure 2.
2
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
TABLE 1: LIST OF TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY PROJECTS
Number
Project
Description
Total Cost ($2016)
1
Main Street RevitalizationPhase 2
Reconstruct roadway, widen sidewalks and build
bike lanes
$10,935,000
2
Main Street RevitalizationPhase 1
Build and widen sidewalks and bike lanes, install
traffic signal at 236th Street & Gateway, prepare
for 236th Street & 58th Avenue signal
$12,168,000
3
236th Street & 58th Avenue
Signal
Install traffic signal to increase capacity
4
Gateway Connector
Build roadway from 236th Street to Gateway Place
5
228th Street & 73rd Place Signal
Install traffic signal to increase capacity
$555,000
6
220th Street & SR-99 Right Turn
Lane
Add right turn lane to westbound approach to
increase capacity
$268,000
7
220th Street Adaptive Signals
Install an adaptive traffic signal system from SR99 to I-5 to increase capacity
$480,000
8
220th Street and 58th Avenue
Roundabout
Install roundabout to increase capacity
9
212th Street and 48th Avenue
Signal
Install signal to increase capacity
10
52nd/53rd Avenue Connector
Build street connection to increase capacity
$2,800,000
11
244th Street Left Turn
Construction
Add left turn lanes from 56th Avenue to Cedar
Way to increase capacity
$5,572,000
$411,000
$4,806,000
$1,300,000
$411,000
Total
$39,706,800
3
Project #
Project
Main Street Revitalization - Phase 2
1
2
Main Street Revitalization - Phase 1
3
236th & 58th Signal
5
228th St SW & 73rd Pl W
4
Gateway Connector
6
220th St & SR 99 Westbound RT lane
w Edmonds
220th- SR 99 to I-5
7
8
220th & 58th Roundabout or Signal
9
212th & 48th Signal Construction
9
52nd/53rd Ave W Connector
7
8
220th St SW
66th Ave W
99
10
Mountlake
Terrace
5
44th Ave W
220th St SW
48th Ave W
228th St SW
Lake
view
3
Dr
2
Lake
Ballinger
1
236th St SW
Pl
way
Gat
4
244th St SW
11
Cedar Way
6
5
39th Ave W
244th Reconstruction (56th to Cedar)
56th Ave W
11
52nd Ave W
10
\\fpse03\Projects\2016Projects\SE16-0475_MountLake_Terrace_TIF\Graphics\GIS\MXD\fig0x_MLT_prjsMap (3).mxd
212th St SW
Figure 2
City of Mountlake Terrace Impact Fee Projects
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
CHAPTER 3: COST ALLOCATION
The City used an impact fee methodology that distinguishes between facility improvements that address
existing deficiencies and those needed to serve new growth. Figure 3 diagrams the process.
Figure 3
Impact Fee Cost Allocation Concept
TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES
RCW 82.02.050(4) (a) requires that the capital facilities element of a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan
identify “deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development.” Future development cannot be held
responsible for the portion of added roadway capacity needed to serve existing development.
The City’s 2015 Transportation Element established a LOS standard that is based on intersection delay.
Intersections are considered deficient if average delay exceeds LOS D in most areas of the city, with some
exceptions allowing LOS E. Corridors that must meet LOS E instead of D are signalized intersections within
the 212th Street SW corridor, the 244 th Street SW corridor, and the 220th Street SW corridor from SR-99 to
5
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
I-5. As shown in Appendix A, none of the intersections in Mountlake Terrace currently exceed their
standard, thus there are no existing deficiencies based on vehicle LOS.
TRAVEL GROWTH
Information from the City’s 2015 Comprehensive Plan was used to evaluate the growth in Mountlake Terrace
housing units and employment. Information in the Comprehensive Plan is in 2013 numbers, but for the
purposes of this rate study, these numbers were brought forward using a straight line growth factor in order
to evaluate the growth from 2015 to 2035. Table 2 shows Mountlake Terrace land uses in terms of housing
units (single family and multi-family) and employment for the years 2015 and 2035.
Using these land use forecasts, it is estimated that 2,546 new PM peak hour vehicle trip ends would be
generated within the City during the 20-year period. This growth in vehicle trip ends was used to calculate
the impact fee rates.
TABLE 2: MOUNTLAKE TERRACE LAND USE GROWTH
2015
2035
Volume Growth
% Growth
Households
8,862
10,593
1,731
20%
Employment
7,384
9,486
2,102
28%
Source: City of Mountlake Terrace 2015 Comprehensive Plan, Fehr & Peers 2016
COST ALLOCATION RESULTS
The cost allocation process distributed the growth costs for each project based upon the travel patterns
between the different geographic areas within and outside the City limits. The Snohomish County travel
demand model was used for this analysis. A “select link” assignment procedure provided the origin and
destination information for each vehicle trip traveling through each project corridor. Trips that pass through
Mountlake Terrace, but do not have any origins or destinations internal to Mountlake Terrace, were not
allocated to Mountlake Terrace growth. Similarly, half of trips with only an origin or destination inside of
Mountlake Terrace are attributed to in city growth. That is, development in Mountlake Terrace would not
be charged for impacts by growth in trips passing "through" the City.
Figure 4 summarizes the cost allocation results. For discussion purposes, the dollar amounts shown in this
figure and the following text descriptions are approximate values expressed in million dollars. The actual
amounts used in the calculations are accurate to a single dollar.
6
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
Figure 4
Impact Fee Cost Allocation Results
Impact Fee Project
Total Cost
$39.71 M
Growth Costs
Existing Deficiency
$39.71 M
$0
City Growth
Outside City Growth
$9.03 M (23%)
$30.68M (77%)
Eligible Project Costs
Other Funds Needed
$30.68M
$9.03 M
Previously Collected
Impact Fees
$289,276
Impact Fees
$8.74 M
2,546 Trips
$3,432 per trip
7
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
The total cost of the projects on the list is $39.7 million, as previously shown in Table 1. This was divided
into growth costs and existing deficiencies; however, there are no deficiencies and that cost is $0. The
growth costs were further divided into ‘city growth’ and ‘outside city growth’ components using the
Snohomish County travel demand model. The details of this calculation are shown in Appendix B.
Using these data, the average percent of City growth responsibility equaled 23 percent. The City growth
percentage, applied to the $39.7 million project list, yielded an amount equal to $9.0 million to be funded
using impact fees and impact fee revenue previously collected for completed developments1. The remaining
$30.7 million would be expected to be obtained from city funds, grants or other outside sources, such as
reciprocal impact fees from Snohomish County.
Any fees collected from city developers to pay for reciprocal impacts to County roads would be assessed in
addition to the proposed City Transportation Impact Fees.
As shown in Figure 5, the impact fees would
constitute 22 percent of the total $39.7 million cost
Figure 5 Impact Fee Program Funding Sources
of the improvement projects. Previous impact fee
funds collected would contribute 1 percent. City
$289,276
matching funds, new grants, and other sources
would contribute the remaining 77 percent of the
total project costs.
$8,737,936
The final step in the cost allocation process dealt
with calculating the "cost per new trip end" within
Mountlake Terrace, derived by dividing the total
$30,679,588
eligible project cost by the total number of new PM
peak hour trip ends based in Mountlake Terrace. A
total of 2,546 new PM peak hour vehicle trip ends
are estimated to occur within the City between
2015 and 2035.
Impact Fees
Grants and Other City Sources
Previously Collected Impact Fees
1
The City has already received $289,276 in impact fees for recently completed developments
8
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
The analysis produced the following results.
Impact fee costs
$8,737,936
New PM peak hour trip ends
÷ 2,546
Cost per new trip end
= $3,432
9
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
CHAPTER 4 - IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the "cost per trip end" information to reflect
differences in trip-making characteristics for a variety of land use types within the study area. The fee
schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category. Table 3 shows
the various components of the fee schedule (trip generation rates and new trip percentages).
TRIP GENERATION COMPONENTS
Trip generation rates for each land use type are derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation (9th Edition). The rates are expressed as vehicle trips entering and leaving a property during
the PM peak hour.
PASS-BY TRIP ADJUSTMENT
The trip generation rates represent total traffic entering and leaving a property at the driveway points. For
certain land uses (e.g., general retail), a substantial amount of this traffic is already passing by the property
and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass-by trips do not significantly impact the
surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The resulting
trips are considered “new” to the street system and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The
“new” trip percentages are derived partially from ITE data and from available surveys conducted around the
country.2
SCHEDULE OF RATES
The impact fee schedule of rates is shown in Table 3, as well as the various components of the fee schedule.
In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories, as
defined in Appendix C. The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the
categories, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development’s projected trip generation.
Trip Generation Sources: ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition); ITE Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended
Practice (2014)
2
10
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
TABLE 3: IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
Land
Use
Code
Land Uses
Unit of
Measure
Basic
Rate PM
Peak
Trips/Unit
New
Trips
%
New
Trip
Rate
Impact Fee Rate
Industrial
110
Light Industry/ Industrial
Park
1000 SF
0.97
100%
0.97
$3,329
140
Manufacturing
1000 SF
0.73
100%
0.73
$2,505
150
Warehousing
1000 SF
0.32
100%
0.32
$1,098
Residential
210
Single Family
dwelling
1.00
100%
1.00
$3,432
220
Apartments (general)
dwelling
0.62
100%
0.62
$2,128
221
Apartments (1 or 2 floors)
dwelling
0.58
100%
0.58
$1,991
223
Apartments (3-10 floors)
dwelling
0.39
100%
0.39
$1,339
230
Condominium/Townhomes
dwelling
0.52
100%
0.52
$1,785
254
Assisted Living
beds
0.22
100%
0.22
$755
Recreational
435
Multipurpose Recreational
Facility
1000 SF
3.58
100%
3.58
$12,287
437
Bowling Alley
1000 SF
1.71
100%
1.71
$5,869
488
Soccer Complex
Fields
17.70
100%
17.70
$60,749
490
Tennis Courts
Courts
3.88
100%
3.88
$13,317
491
Racquet/Tennis Club
Courts
3.35
100%
3.35
$11,498
492
Health/Fitness Club
1000 SF
3.53
100%
3.53
$12,116
493
Athletic Club
1000 SF
5.96
100%
5.96
$20,456
495
Recreational Community
Center
1000 SF
2.74
100%
2.74
$9,404
100%
0.55
$1,888
Institutional
560
Religious Facility
1000 SF
0.55
11
Mountlake Terrace Impact Fees
October 2016
Land
Use
Code
Land Uses
Unit of
Measure
Basic
Rate PM
Peak
Trips/Unit
New
Trips
%
New
Trip
Rate
Impact Fee Rate
Office
710
Administrative Office
1000 SF
1.49
100%
1.49
$5,114
715
Office- single tenant
1000 SF
1.74
100%
1.74
$5,972
720
Medical Office/Dental
Clinic
1000 SF
3.57
100%
3.57
$12,253
Retail & Restaurant
814
Retail-Variety Store
1000 SF
6.82
66%
4.50
$15,449
931
Restaurant
1000 SF
7.49
56%
4.19
$14,396
SF= Square Foot
Source: ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition), Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice (2014), Fehr & Peers 2016
12
APPENDIX A: DEFECIENCY CALCULATION
EXHIBIT A: TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCY CALCULATION
Intersection
LOS Standard
Control Delay
LOS
1
244th St SW & Ballinger Way
E
30.6
C
2
Drwy/Gateway Blvd & 244th St SW
E
12.6
B
3
19th Ave NE/56th Ave W & 244th St SW
E
20.3
C
4
I-5 NB Ramps/Park & Ride & 236th St SW
D
11.3
B
5
58th Ave W & 236th St SW
E
41.9
E
6
56th Ave W @236th St SW
D
28.4
C
7
56th Ave W & 232nd St SW
D
6.3
A
8
56th Ave W & 230th St ZSW
E
22.9
C
9
56th Ave W & 228th St SW
E
24.2
C
10
19th Ave NE & Ballinger Wy
D
35.2
D
11
I-5 NB Ramps & 220th St SW
E
39.6
D
12
58th Ave W & 220th St SW
E
32.4
D
13
SR99 & 220th St SW
E
55.4
E
14
I-5 SB Ramps & 220th St SW
E
65.2
E
15
52nd Ave W & 212th St SW
E
41.0
D
16
48th Ave W & 212th St SW
E
40.6
E
17
44th Ave W & 212th St SW
E
44.1
D
18
70th Ave W & 220th St SW
E
47.6
D
19
66th Ave W & 216th St SW
D
14.0
B
20
I-5 SB Ramps & 236th St SW
NA
NA
21
Cedar Way/44th Ave W & 228th St SW
D
34.6
C
22
Cedar Way & 236th St SW
D
25.4
C
23
Cedar Way & 244th St SW
E
16.0
C
24
30th Ave NE/48th Ave W & 244th St SW
E
13.7
B
25
44th Ave W & 223rd St SW
D
3.1
A
Appendix A
Intersection
LOS Standard
Control Delay
LOS
26
58th Ave W & 230th St SW
E
12.6
B
27
58th Ave W & 232nd St SW
E
8.8
A
28
236th St SW & 65th Ave W
E
13.1
B
29
39th Ave W & 228th St SW
E
31.7
D
30
48th Ave W & 236th St SW
E
37.9
E
31
56th Ave W & 220th St SW
D
12.9
B
32
44th Ave W & Hawk Way
D
7.6
A
33
44th Ave W & 214thSt SW
D
3.2
A
34
64th Ave W & 220th St SW
E
78.7
E
36
66th Ave W & 220th St SW
E
50.7
D
43
48th Ave W & 221st St SW
E
10.3
B
44
66th Ave W & 228th St SW
E
12.7
B
48
228th St SW & 3rd Pl W
E
13.7
B
57
25th Ave NE/52nd Ave W & 244th St SW
E
18.7
C
61
52nd Ave W & 220th St SW
E
18.9
C
62
48th Ave W & 228th St SW
E
12.3
B
Source: City of Mountlake Terrace Synchro 9, Fehr & Peers 2016
APPENDIX B: COST ALLOCATION RESULTS
The cost allocation results are summarized in this appendix. Exhibit B illustrates how the impact fee
project costs (shown in Table 1) were divided into growth-related costs attributable to the City. In order
to determine this proportion, the Snohomish County travel demand model was used to identify the
portion of trip-making associated with existing and growth-related traffic. A technique called “select-link”
analysis was used to isolate the vehicle trips using each of the impact fee projects. Each project used a
specific select link. After the percentage of Mountlake Terrace trips and external trips were calculated, the
cost of each project was multiplied by the percent of new traffic due to growth within the City. This, as
well as the sum of the results, can be seen in Exhibit A.
EXHIBIT B: LIST OF TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY PROJECTS
Project
Total Cost
Percent of
New Project
Traffic due to
Growth within
City
1
Main Street Revitalization - Phase 2 (56th)
$10,935,000
27%
$2,901,646
2
Main Street Revitalization - Phase 1 (236th)
$12,168,000
22%
$2,654,345
3
236th & 58th Signal
$411,000
27%
$109,061
4
Gateway Connector (236th to Gateway
Bridge)
$4,806,000
15%
$716,263
5
228th St SW and 73rd Pl W Possible Signal
$555,000
24%
$132,194
6
220th Street & SR 99 Westbound RT lane
w/Edmonds (R/W)
$268,800
18%
$47,662
7
220th SR99 to I-5 Adaptive Signals
$480,000
18%
$85,112
8
220th & 58th Roundabout or Signal
$1,300,000
27%
$355,791
9
212th & 48th Signal Construction
$411,000
47%
$193,592
10
52nd/53rd Ave W Connector
$2,800,000
23%
$653,989
11
244th Reconstruction (56th to Cedar Way)
Including Left Turns
$5,572,000
21%
$1,177,557
Total
$39,706,800
23%
$9,027,212
#
Source: City of Mountlake Terrace Project List, Snohomish County Travel Demand Model, Fehr & Peers 2016
Project Costs
Allowable for Impact
Fees
APPENDIX C: LAND USE DEFINITIONS
The following land use definitions are derived from the ITE Trip Generation (9th Edition). They have been
modified as appropriate for the City of Mountlake Terrace.
INDUSTRIAL
Light Industrial/Industrial Park: Industrial parks are a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse
facilities with a wide variation in the proportion of each type of use from one location to another. Industrial
parks include research centers facilities or groups of facilities that are devoted nearly exclusively to research
and development activities. Light industrial facilities include printing plants, material testing laboratories,
bio-technology, medical instrumentation or supplies, communications and information technology, and
computer hardware and software. (ITE # 110)
Manufacturing: Facilities were raw materials or parts are converted into finished products. (ITE # 140)
Warehousing/Storage: Facilities that are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, including vehicles.
They may also include office and maintenance areas. (ITE # 150)
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family: One or more detached housing units located on an individual lot. Also includes accessory
dwelling units and duplexes. (ITE # 210)
Apartments: A building or buildings designed to house three or more families living independently of
each other (ITE # 220, 221, 223)
Condominium/Townhomes: Ownership units that have at least one other unit within the same building
structure. (ITE # 230)
Assisted Living: Residential settings that provide routine protective oversight or assistance with activities
necessary for independent living. (ITE # 254)
RECREATIONAL
Multipurpose Recreational Facility: Facilities that contain two or more activities such as miniature golf,
batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, and go-carts. (ITE # 435)
Appendix C
Bowling Alley: Recreational facilities that include bowling lanes. (ITE # 437)
Soccer Complex: Outdoor facilities that are used for non-professional soccer games. (ITE # 488)
Tennis Courts: Indoor or outdoor facilities specifically designed for playing tennis. (ITE # 490)
Racquet/Tennis Club: Privately owned facilities that cater to racquet sports. (ITE # 491)
Health/Fitness Club: Facilities that primarily focus on individual fitness or training. (ITE # 492)
Athletic Club: Similar to health/fitness clubs but with the addition of team sports courts, such as tennis,
basketball, and volleyball. (ITE # 493)
Recreational Community Center: Public facilities that provide similar facilities to athletic clubs. (ITE # 495)
INSTITUTIONAL
Religious Facility: A building in which religious services are held. (ITE # 560)
OFFICE
Administrative Office: An administrative office building houses one or more tenants and is the location
where affairs of a business, commercial or industrial organization, professional person or firm are
conducted. The building or buildings may be limited to one tenant, either the owner or lessee, or contain
a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, and
company headquarters. Services such as a bank or savings and loan, a restaurant or cafeteria, miscellaneous
retail facilities, and fitness facilities for building tenants may also be included. (ITE # 710)
Single-Tenant Office: An office building for one tenant, sometimes containing cafeteria and related
services. (ITE # 715)
Medical Office/Dental Clinic: A facility which provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a routine basis
but which is unable to provide prolonged in-house medical/surgical care. A medical office is generally
operated by either a single private physician/dentist or a group of doctors and/or dentist. (ITE # 720)
Appendix C
COMMERCIAL-RETAIL
Retail: The rate is based on the “Retail-Variety Store” ITE trip generation, due it to being most like other
types of retail shops in Mountlake Terrace. (ITE # 814)
RESTAURANT
Restaurant The rate is based on the “Quality Restaurant” ITE trip generation, due it to being similar to other
restaurants in terms of new trips, and most similar to the types of restaurants in Mountlake Terrace.