Kalispell schedules June vote after work session on police and fire impact fees

City staff presented an update on proposed police and fire impact fee adjustments at a Kalispell City Council work session and the council agreed to consider the item for possible action at the June 2 regular meeting. Staff said the work session discussion was intended as policy direction ahead of any formal vote.

City Manager Russell explained the methodology: the fire impact fee is based on long-lived capital assets (engines, apparatus, and a planned fourth station in the 20-year horizon) while the police impact fee is based on additional space needs rather than equipment with a 10-year planning horizon. He said the staff recommendation would set the residential-unit component at $92 for law enforcement and $782 for fire.

Council members debated the policy trade-offs. Councilor Ted, who served on the impact-fee advisory committee, said he was "very dissatisfied" with the committee's mission because it focused on the maximum allowable fee rather than an assessment of need. Several councilors raised concerns about the effect of higher impact fees on housing costs and whether raising fees could reduce development activity and thus net revenue. Other councilors supported adopting the allowable amounts to align fee payers with the costs of growth, noting capital needs such as additional fire stations and apparatus.

Staff and councilors noted the legal and technical constraints: state law limits the permissible uses of impact fee revenues and requires regular evaluation; the advisory committee provides numbers but policy decisions about the final rates rest with council. City staff said other revenue sources such as the recently passed levy, general fund allocations, or grants (for example, CDBG community facilities grants) could offset capital costs if council chose lower fee levels.

Public commenters addressed the fee structure. Arthur Fratheim, who said he served on the impact-fee committee, urged council to review the proportionality among single-family, multifamily and commercial rates and noted the committee's past decisions had left some categories below the maximum allowable levels. He recommended council consider proportional adjustments to ensure business and residential rates align with their relative impacts. Resident Fran Taber warned that even small fee increases can tip marginal projects; she also suggested surveillance cameras in the parking lot matter discussed earlier to assist enforcement.

Council directed staff to place the impact-fee ordinance on the June 2 regular meeting agenda for potential adoption and to allow additional time for council review and public comment. No fee changes were adopted during the work session.

Staff noted water and sewer impact fees will be addressed later after facility planning is complete and emphasized that impact-fee proceeds are restricted to defined capital or service expansions under state law.