Laserfiche WebLink
7, Agenda Subject: Impact Fee Deferral and Exemption Amendments Date: 6/14/2016 • <br /> Staff Report to Planning Commission <br /> in order to identify measures that minimize the costs of housing <br /> production and increase housing opportunities for low to moderate <br /> income households. <br /> Policy 4.8.2 Continue to make use of available public and private <br /> resources to subsidize housing costs for low income households and <br /> • special needs populations within the Everett Planning Area,within <br /> the financial capabilities of the city. <br /> Policy 4.8.6 Review existing programs and/or establish new <br /> programs for assisting low income households and special needs <br /> populations to afford safe and decent housing,within the financial <br /> capabilities of the city. <br /> Implementation Measure A.7. Reduce the use of impact fees for <br /> projects providing affordable housing or,within the financial <br /> capability of the City,subsidize impact mitigation fees for <br /> construction of low and moderate income housing units. <br /> Transportation Element: <br /> "A key GMA planning requirement is the concept of fiscal restraint in <br /> transportation planning....The Transportation Element proposes$425- <br /> 456 million in transportation investments over the next 20 years....The <br /> revenue sources assumed by the City include outside sources(e.g., <br /> WSDOT funding)and grants,and City sources,including general city <br /> funds, impact fees,transit fares,and gas tax receipts. If Everett were <br /> able to maintain this level of revenue,the City could afford around$360 <br /> million in transportation projects over the next 20 years,which is less <br /> than the total project costs identified." <br /> DISCUSSION <br /> The proposal for impact fee deferral and exemptions appears to be <br /> consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. In fact, multiple policies <br /> in the housing element address incentives,subsidies, new programs and <br /> reduction of impact fees. <br /> CONSISTENCY WITH The transportation element addresses the fiscal reality that the element <br /> identifies more needs than funding being available.The exemption of <br /> PLANS: impact fees for low-income housing would increase that gap, rather <br /> than narrow it.This does not create a consistency issue since there <br /> already is a gap, but the exemption has the potential to add to that gap. <br /> The single-family deferral proposal does not raise any consistency <br /> issues. <br /> Low-income Housing Exemption: <br /> IMPACTS AND The exemption of impact fees raises concerns for lost revenue <br /> CONSIDERATIONS OF necessary to address capital needs of our transportation system and <br /> PROPOSAL: schools. This becomes a balancing question with the need for <br /> affordable housing for very low-income populations. <br /> . Page 5 of 7 <br /> 30 <br />