Planning Commission approves utilities and capital facilities chapter amendments and removes schools, fire protection from impact-fee language

The Liberty Lake Planning Commission on Aug. 13, 2025, recommended that the City Council adopt the revised Chapter 10: Utilities, Public Facilities and Services with an amendment to policy language on growth-related impact fees that struck a reference to schools and fire protection.

Lisa, city planner, summarized the draft chapter as a consolidation of utilities and essential public facilities, an update of utility and capital-facilities goals and policies, and a capacity review done with utility purveyors and public safety providers. She told the commission the chapter leaves a placeholder for city facilities while the city completes a master facilities plan update and does not include parks or the 20-year capital facilities plan, which are separate elements.

Commission discussion focused on several items. One commissioner raised Policy 15 and 16 questions about communications facilities and view sheds, citing an existing communications tower in Legacy Ridge used for emergency broadcasting. Lisa said the city requires conditional-use permits for such facilities now and that existing towers installed when the area was unincorporated are legal nonconforming; she noted Federal Communications Commission standards limit antenna increases and the structure cannot be raised above its existing height.

On growth-related impact fees, a commissioner asked how the city could impose fees “for the benefit of the school or the fire department.” Lisa explained that the city itself cannot impose school impact fees and that school districts generally do not use state-authorized school impact fees in Spokane County because of timing and statutory constraints; she described the legal requirement that impact fees be proportionate to new development impacts and apply to developments going forward, not retroactively. Following discussion that the draft language may be misleading, Commissioner Del Foyer moved to strike the words “schools and fire protection” from policy 19; Commissioner Charlie Jenks seconded the motion and it passed by voice vote.

Commissioners also asked whether the city provides services directly or by contract. Lisa confirmed that fire and emergency services are provided through Spokane Valley Fire District under an interlocal agreement; she said solid-waste collection is currently provided under contract but that the city could choose different service models in future.

The commission reviewed a preliminary draft six-year capital facilities plan (CFP). Lisa described the CFP as a working draft prepared for early commission feedback, with the principal focus on 2026–27 and fiscal work to align projects with revenue and staffing capacity. She noted the CFP lists several large projects, placeholders tied to upcoming master plans (parks, pavement, sidewalks), a potential new city hall at the Lake Spokane Ridge site, and a library/community center placeholder using a conceptual cost estimate for an option favored by the community. Lisa said the city has used the TIF/LIFT program for economic-development reimbursement projects and noted the program’s approximate allocation of $1 million per year; she also said the city invested “close to $6,000,000” in the Kramer Parkway/Cramer Parkway overpass and received reimbursements through TIP and LIFT.

After discussion of the utilities chapter and the previously approved amendment to policy 19, a motion to recommend Chapter 10 (Utilities, Public Facilities and Services) to City Council with the amendment carried by voice vote. Lisa asked commissioners to consider serving as a Planning Commission representative on an ad hoc committee that will advise staff on a forthcoming 20-year capital facilities plan; she said the committee would likely meet four or five times and deliver feedback by October.

Why it matters: The amendment clarifies limits on local impact fees and aligns language with state law and current interlocal service arrangements; the six-year CFP review sets near-term project expectations and begins community engagement on a longer 20-year capital plan that will shape infrastructure priorities and grant strategies.

No contracts or budget appropriations were adopted at the meeting; the Planning Commission forwarded the revised chapter and the amendment to City Council for consideration.