Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 05 2018 CMCITY OF CHUBBUCK COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 5, 2018 — 6:OOPM LOCATED AT CHUBBUCK CITY HALL 5160 YELLOWSTONE AVE. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor England PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Councilmember Hernandez INVOCATION: Pastor John Robinson from the Gate City Christian Church COUNCIL PRESENT: Ryan Lewis, Melanie Evans, Roger Hernandez, and Annette Baumeister. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin England, City Attorney Tom Holmes, Public Works Director Rodney Burch, Police Chief Bill Guiberson, Fire Chief Merlin Miller, Human Resource Director Scott Gummersall, Planning and Development Director Devin Hillam, City Clerk Rich Morgan, and Deputy Clerk Joey Bowers. Mayor England asked for a moment of silence for the passing of President George H.W. Bush. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 28, 2018. Councilmember Baumeister motioned for approval of the Study Session and Council Meeting minutes. Councilmember Hernandez seconded motion for approval of minutes. Roll Call: Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, Hernandez -yes, Evans -yes, motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, will conduct a public hearing at 6:00 PM on December 5, 2018 at Chubbuck City Council Chambers, 5160 Yellowstone Avenue, Chubbuck, Idaho, in accordance with Idaho Code 63-1311A, and with respect to the following items: to consider public comment regarding a Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee, Police and Animal Control Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee, and Emergency Services (Fire and EMS) Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee and the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee, Police and Animal Control Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee, and Emergency Services (Fire and EMS) Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee as well as adoption of an ordinance imposing the developmental impact fees and repealing sections 17.16.110, 17.16.130 through 17.16.240, amending 17.16.100 of the Chubbuck Municipal code, and adopting chapter 17.24 Impact Fee to provide an impact fee upon new development. The Land Use and Development Commission previously recommended approval of the proposal to 17.16 with a requested change to ensure that parks and land may still be obtained through the development process in accordance with adopted plans. Public Works Director Rodney Burch presented Dan Heiner, Brandon Jackson, Bryce Bybee, Doug Briscoe, Jason Mendenhall, Jason Dixon, Matt Millis, and Nelli Simmons as members of the impact fee advisory committee. This committee had a representative from the builders association and realtors association as required by state law. Mr. Burch stated that in October 2016 the Council directed City staff to move forward with a feasibility study about impact fees and a parks master plan. Since then the Impact Fee Committee had been working with Zions Public Finance on these fees. Mr. Burch went over how these fees were calculated, and stated that if the Impact Fee Committee could not clearly justify an expense it was not used in the calculations. An impact fee is a onetime fee on new development to pay the cost to maintain the already existing level of service. The Impact Fee Committee unanimously voted and recommended the implantation of the attached level of service impact fees. Land Use and Development Commission also recommend approval. Mr. Burch stated that state law requires the Impact Fee Committee to meet annually to review these fees. Councilmember Baumeister asked if the presented park fees would fix some of the issues created by the current park ordinance. Mr. Burch stated that he felt like this fee would apply an equal/level fee to all developers in the community. Mayor England declared the public hearing open for public comment. Joshua Ellis at 527 Taylor Chubbuck, ID, was neutral. Mr. Ellis stated that these fees would not stop building in Chubbuck, but felt like there was a point where the cost to build would make people look at other options elsewhere; and the City of Chubbuck is getting to that point. Mr. Ellis asked the Council to really look at and critique the presented numbers/fees and make these fees as low as possible before making a decision. Mr. Ellis also gave a history about the North West Sewer Interceptor fee (NWSI) and the related connection fee that he voted on while he was on the City Council. Jason Mendenhall at 4983 Pleasant View Chubbuck, ID, was in favor. Mr. Mendenhall is on the impact fee committee and stated that the committee did their due diligence in looking at, questioning, scrutinizing, and challenging all the numbers. Mr. Mendenhall felt like the Council needed to decide whether to raise property taxes for everyone or use impact fees from new development to pay their fair share and to offset the costs to maintain the same level of current services. Mr. Mendenhall gave an example about EMS services already being pulled from one call/emergency to go to another call/emergency because of the difference in severity between the two calls/emergencies. Rebecca Berls at 5085 Kay St. Chubbuck, ID, was in favor. Ms. Berls stated as a member of the Land Use and Development Commission she challenged and questioned these numbers/fees; but the more she studied and looked at other cities, she agreed with the presented fees and recommend approval. Ms. Berls did have a concern with Idaho Law on refunds and recommended contacting the Idaho legislature to make a change to the law. Scott Briscoe at 558 W. 75 S. Blackfoot, ID, was opposed. Mr. Briscoe stated that he stopped building in Chubbuck due to the fees and required parks. Mr. Briscoe stated that it had been more economical for him to build in Pocatello, Blackfoot and Bingham County, and gave some examples of his building permit fees compared to Chubbuck's. Mr. Briscoe loves Chubbuck and thinks it's a great place to live, but feels like the fees are killing development in Chubbuck. Clark Anderson at 1080 Pinewood Chubbuck, ID, was opposed. Mr. Anderson has always lived and built in Chubbuck, but has started to build in the City of Twin Falls. Mr. Anderson stated that Twin Falls does have impact fees but even with the impact fees it still has cheaper building permit fees. Mr. Anderson stated that he will most likely continue to build in Twin Falls instead of Chubbuck due to the return on his investment between Twin Falls fees and Chubbuck's. Mr. Anderson recommended bringing in representatives from other cities to help bring down building permit costs. Tom Nelson 349 E. Corwin Inkom, ID, was opposed. Mr. Nelson asked if the proposed parks impact fee replaced the City's current cash in lieu fee, and if current developments will have to pay the impact fee and the current park fees. Mr. Nelson also asked about how the City would handle run off water moving forward. Mr. Nelson wondered if emergency services costs were being paid after those services had occurred. Mr. Nelson agreed that these fees would not stop development but it would limit who could live/build in Chubbuck and its growth. He also felt like the increase in property taxes would pay for these increases in services. Mr. Nelson presented the difference in building permit costs between Chubbuck, Idaho Falls, and Inkom. Wendy Briscoe at 12380 Jaxon Way Pocatello, ID, was opposed. Ms. Briscoe felt like since new development was built to current building and safety codes, it would not increase the demand for emergency services. Ms. Briscoe also felt like new development increases growth and higher property taxes. Ms. Briscoe presented copies of building permits from other cities for the Council to compare and analyze. Ms. Briscoe also wanted the Council to know how great and professional Chubbuck's City Staff was. Nick Jensen 790 Garden Dr. Chubbuck, ID, was opposed. Mr. Jensen felt like all these developers came to this meeting because Chubbuck is a great place to live, work, and build. Mr. Jensen stated that Chubbuck currently has the highest building permit fees that he could find in Idaho. Mr. Jensen did say that other city developers including the City of Twin Falls does put some of their fees into their lot costs, because land is cheaper in those areas. Mr. Jensen felt like the City of Chubbuck was doing great things and had a great vision for the future, but felt like there was a better way than always putting that cost on new development. Mr. Jensen also worried that these fees would push out first time home builders/developers, which in turn would decrease the growth in the City of Chubbuck. Derek Leslie 11072 Sage Hollow Pocatello, ID, was opposed. Mr. Leslie asked about the park fee. Mr. Leslie also stated that he was building two identical homes one in Pocatello and one in Chubbuck and showed the difference in building permit fees. Mr. Leslie asked why new development should be responsible to pay for a community park. Mr. Leslie also asked if the extra property taxes where factored into the impact fee calculations. Mr. Leslie felt like these high fees would impact growth and push people to Pocatello and the other surrounding areas instead of Chubbuck. Matt Spears 829 Wendy St. Chubbuck, ID, was opposed. Mr. Spears stated that these fees don't only hurt growth and the developers; but also the local subcontractors that have to travel further away for work. Darns Ellis 4470 Wasatch St. Chubbuck, ID, was opposed. Mr. Ellis gave a history about his experiences with the City of Chubbuck. Mr. Ellis stated that he is about to leave the City of Chubbuck and start building in the City of Pocatello because the fees in the City of Chubbuck are not cost effective. Con Jensen 4604 W. Burley Dr. Chubbuck, ID, was opposed. Mr. Jensen stated that these fees just get passed onto the homebuyer, which increases the cost of the home and those residents that can afford to purchase a home. Mr. Jensen also stated that these fees affect the number of employees that developers can employ for each project. Rebecca Berls at 5085 Kay St. Chubbuck, ID, was in favor. Ms. Berls stated that she moved from Pocatello to Chubbuck because of the great schools, and the lower property taxes. Ms. Berls also stated that she would rather pay a onetime higher building fee or impact fee to maintain lower property taxes each year; because in the long run that's more cost effective. Ms. Berls felt like these changes would allow developers to have more land to develop and therefor make a greater profit. Tom Nelson 349 E. Corwin Inkom, ID, was opposed. Mr. Nelson felt like paying an impact fee for a community park and installing water retention systems in developments would cost developers twice as much as just building a park that acts like a water retention pond when needed. Mr. Nelson felt like since property taxes have always paid for capital improvements that property taxes should continue to pay for those costs. Mr. Nelson also felt like that growth will pay for itself and the costs associated with the growth through its new property tax. Darris Ellis 4470 Wasatch St. Chubbuck, ID, was opposed. Mr. Ellis felt like new development pays its fair share through new property taxes. Mr. Ellis also felt like the Council shouldn't punish the developers because the Council wants to move from community parks to designation parks. Due to no more comment Mayor England closed the public hearing. Public Works Director Rodney Burch addressed the questions and concerns during the public hearing. Mr. Burch stated that impact fees maintain a level of service but are only directed to capital improvements, they are not to facilitate operations. Impact fees help pay for those capital improvements and the increased property taxes facilitate/maintain the operations of those improvements. Mr. Burch stated that cities will never be able to compete with County fees, due to the difference in services provided. Mr. Burch also stated that the impact fees will only affect those plats/parcels approved after January 1, 2019. Mr. Burch stated that the City of Chubbuck has a storm water ordinance that gives developers options to accomplish storm water retention without building a park. Mr. Burch also stated that the impact fee ordinance allows developers to still build a park/water retention pond (as long as it meets city standards) and in return receives credit towards the impact fee. Mr. Burch wanted it clear that the Parks Master Plan still encourages community parks. Mr. Burch also stated that this fee would replace the City's current cash in lieu ordinance. Mr. Burch felt like the economy drives the growth rate of a city, not the fees. Megan Weber a representative from Zions Public Finance stated that impact fees could only be used on existing parks if it added capacity to that park. GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. Adoption of Ordinance XXX Capital Plans and Impact Fees. (Council will discuss changes to 17.16 and adding 17.24 to City code). Councilmember Lewis stated that this was a new way of looking at growth and funding capital costs that come with that growth. Councilmember Lewis also stated that $5,490 of the City's building permit fee is for the NWSI connection fee to help pay back that debt, which is currently a huge burden on all the current tax payers each month. The NWSI was a forward thinking decision that has put the City in the right position for growth and development now and in the future. Councilmember Lewis wanted to revisit the NWSI to see what could be done with that debt. Councilmember Baumeister asked Joshua Ellis to give a history about the City's sewer connection fee and parks fee. Mr. Ellis stated that when the Council was looking at building permit fees, it was determined that growth would not be able to pay off the debt in the required time frame. The Council decided to add a line item to the utility bill to spread the debt among the current residents to be able to meet the debt requirements. But would continue to collect the $5,490 connection fee from new development until the City was made whole and the debt was paid. Councilmember Evans wanted to do more education among developers, realtors, and the Council before moving forward. Councilmember Evans asked Rodney Burch how the committee came to a unanimous decision when there was a representative from both the builders association and realtors association on the committee. Councilmember Evans stated that all the public surveys have showed that the community wants parks. Mr. Burch stated that when this committee was created that most of the board members attitude was to stop these fees from being implemented. But as the committee studied these out and looked at how to fund growth, it was determined that the only options where to raise property taxes as a whole or implement impact fees. Mr. Burch stated that the board determined that there was less of an economic risk/burden to implement the impact fee than to have a higher tax rate that will go on forever. Mr. Burch also stated that the builder/developer that sat on the board applied these changes to pay the impact fee to his current development and realized that he would have been money ahead, and could have added more lots to his development if he did not have to dedicate the ground and build a park. Councilmember Baumeister didn't realize that developers would still have the option to build a park. Councilmember Baumeister was concerned about the evidence presented and it showing that the City of Chubbuck's building permit fees are the most expensive. Councilmember Baumeister felt like the Council need to look at its goals/vision, and determine if the City needs to maintain the same level of service for parks that it currently has. Because parks are not something that the residents necessarily need, but want. Councilmember Baumeister also felt like the City was deficient for its Police and Emergency Services and need to figure out how to fix that first, because that was a service that residents needed. Councilmember Baumeister recommended bringing in other city representatives to help look at other options. City Attorney Tom Holmes felt like the parks impact fee was designed to apply an equal/level fee to all developers. Mr. Holmes stated that not all cities require a park but the City of Chubbuck's comprehensive plan, strategic plan, and ordinance requires either a park or cash in lieu. Mr. Holmes also stated that if you subtracted the NWSI fee from the City of Chubbuck's building permit fees the City of Chubbuck would be with every other City; if not less. But the City of Chubbuck has that debt and it has to be paid one way or the other. The Council decided to table a decision for more research and education. Councilmember Lewis motioned to table general business item #1 for further discussion. Councilmember Evans seconded motion to table a decision. Roll Call: Hernandez -yes, Evans -yes, Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, motion passed. 2. Approval of Changes to the Personnel Policy. (Council will discuss the updates to the Personnel Policy). Human Resource Director Scott Gummersall presented the changes to the City's personnel policy. Councilmember Evans motioned for approval of the updated personnel policy. Councilmember Hernandez seconded motion for approval. Roll Call: Evans -yes, Baumeister -yes, Lewis -yes, Hernandez -yes, motion passed. 3. Adoption of Resolution 2018-12 to Accept T.I.F Eligibility Study West of I-15. (Council will discuss acceptance of final eligibility study). Public Works Director Rodney Burch presented a resolution for the Council to accept the TIF eligibility study and direct the Chubbuck Development Authority to prepare the urban renewal plans. Councilmember Evans motioned to adopt Resolution 2018-12 to Accept TIF Eligibility Study. Councilmember Lewis seconded motion for adoption. Roll Call: Lewis -yes, Baumeister -yes, Hernandez -yes, Evans -yes, motion passed. CLAIMS: 1. City of Chubbuck claims for December 5, 2018 as presented to Mayor England and Council. Councilmember Lewis motioned for approval of the City of Chubbuck Claims. Councilmember Hernandez seconded motion for approval. Roll Call: Baumeister -yes, Hernandez -yes, Evans -yes, Lewis -yes, motion passed. ADJOURN: Mayor Kevin England adjourned at 9:15. oe- eputy Clerk Kevin England- Mayor 2018 Impact Fee Calculations LHUBBUCK ZIONS OD PUBLIC FINANCE, INC. December 5, 2018 Impact Fees Process - Chubbuck • October 2016 Council directed staff to pursue impact fee study • February 2017 contracted with Zions Public Finance to complete Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fee Study. • GIS department categorized EMS and Police responses by specific Land Use. • Parks Master Plan determined park assets and level of service • December 2017 —October 2018 Impact Fee Advisory Committee met to verify data, review CIPs, determine final recommendation • October 2018 Impact Fee Advisory Committee recommended acceptance of Impact Fee Ordinance. 12/5/2018 1 Impact Fees Overview A one-time fee charged to new development to offset the capital costs of public infrastructure associated with that new development • Impact Fees are an equitable way to plan and finance public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. • Impact Fees ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve newgrowth; • Ensure that new growth and development PAYS NO MORE than their proportionate share of the public facilities. Impact Fees Overview Development Impact Fees are regulated by Title 67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho State Code. Requires: - Implement Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) - Determine current level of service - Accurate Land Use assumptions Determine future demand on current systems Establish Advisory Committee (ongoing —annual review) - Impact Fee Ordinance (contents defined by Idaho Code) 12/5/2018 2 2018 Development Impact Fee Analysis 2018 Impact Fee Analysis covers: • Parks & Recreation Impact Fee • Police and Animal Control Impact Fee • Emergency Services (Fire and EMS) Impact Fee Parks Impact Fee Analysis • "Community" and "Neighborhood" parks are impact fee qualifying. — The City has more than 76.5 acres of park land, but only those 76.5 acres meet the definition of "impact fee qualifying". — Mini/pocket parks are not qualifying. — Park land that was donated to the City is not impact fee qualifying. If current residents didn't have to pay money for it, then future residents shouldn't have to either. • Park amenities that were donated are not impact fee qualifying. — All other amenities that the City funded (or received in lieu of fees that a developer owed the City) are impact fee qualifying. 12/5/201$ 3 Parks Impact Fee Analysis Level of Service • Parks Master Plan park inventory was used to determine the parks level of service — Current level of service is 5.22 impact fee qualifying park acres per 1,000 residents • Parks impact fees are assessed to residential units only. Not to businesses or any other land use types. — Park usage is driven by residential demand, not by businesses ImpactlFee Calculation Fee Per Unit Average Household Size/Total Single Family Residential (SFR) Units M$2,195 Gross Park Impact Fee per SFR Household Average_ Household Size/Multi Family (MFR) Units Gross Park Impact Fee per MFR Household Police and Animal Control Impact Fee Analysis • Police/Animal Control impact fees are based on the number of calls received by land use type (single family, multi -family, commercial, etc.) per year. • Table below shows the cost per police/animal control call ($296.35 per call), the calls per unit for each development type, and the resulting impact fee per unit: Police Cost per Call Calls per Impact Un it fee Residential per Unit Single -Family Residential Unit Multi -Family Residential Unit $ 296.35 296.35 0.781 $ 0.522 231.56 154.83 Non Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) Office (per 1,000 SF) Institutional (per 1,000 SF) $ 296.35 296.35 296.35 1.254 $ 0.161 0.229 371.61 47.72 67.92 12/5/2018 . 4 Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis • Emergency Services impact fees are based on the number of calls received by land use type (single family, multi -family, commercial, etc.) per year. • Table below shows the cost per emergency services call ($2,718 per call), the calls per unit for each development type, and the resulting impact fee per unit: MOM Emergency Services Calls per Impact Fee= Cali Unit per Unit Residential Single Family Residential Unit $ 2,718 0.101 $ 274.01 Multi -Family Residential Unit 2,718 0.090 243.45 Non Residential General Commercial (per 1,000 SF) $ 2,718 0.113 $ 308.13 Office (per 1,000 SF) 2,718 0.053 145.41 Institutional (per 1,000 SF) 2,718 0.016 43.73 2018 Development Impact Fee Summary • Parks & Recreation Impact Fee — $2,355 / SFU — $2,196/MFU • Police and Animal Control Impact Fee — $232 / SFU — $155 / MFU — $371 / 1000 5F Commercial — $48 / 1000 SF Office — $68 / 1000 SF Industrial • Emergency Services (Fire and EMS) Impact Fee — $274/SFU — $243/MFU — $308 / 1000 SF Commercial — $145 / 1000 SF Office — $44 / 1000 SF Industrial 12/5/2018 61 12/5/2018 Impact Fee Conclusion ' Entire Process has followed requirements of Idaho Code • Impact Fee Advisory Committee has reviewed accuracy of data and accepted the technical / financial analysis provided Zions Public Finance • Impact Fee Advisory Committee has review and accepted the contents of the Impact Fee Ordinance and unanimously recommend adoption by City Council • City Council to establish Impact Fee Policy by acting on proposed Impact Fee Ordinance 0