Kirkland council debates per‑square‑foot fire and park impact fees, weighs ADU exemptions and phased inclusionary rules
Loading...
Summary
Council received staff and consultant presentations on a study updating fire and park impact fees to a per‑square‑foot basis in response to changes in state law, largely endorsing the methodology while asking staff to return with an ordinance, stakeholder outreach and options for ADU treatment and phased inclusionary requirements.
Kirkland City Council members on March 18 heard a study‑session presentation and initial recommendations to change how the city charges fire and park impact fees, moving from per‑unit tiers to a per‑square‑foot method required by recent state statute changes, and discussed how accessory dwelling units (ADUs), redevelopment credits and inclusionary housing requirements should be handled.
The presentation, led by Kevin Pellstring, the city’s approved financial planning manager, and supported by the city’s development engineering manager John Burkhalter and consultants from FCS Group, explained that the state amended the impact fee statute in 2023 to require fees that reflect the “proportionate impact of new housing units” by square footage, bedrooms or trips. “Impact fees are one‑time charges on new development and redevelopment to provide key capital funding towards growth improvements that serve this growth in our community,” Pellstring said.
Councilors praised the proposed per‑square‑foot approach while pressing staff for additional detail and safeguards. Multiple council members — including Deputy Mayor Arnold, Councilmembers Falcone, Chisen and Black — said they were generally comfortable “adopting the fees as calculated,” subject to further review and outreach. Council directed staff to proceed toward drafting an ordinance that would implement the per‑square‑foot fire and park fees and to consult stakeholders, including the Lake Washington School District, before final adoption.
Why it matters: the change follows state guidance and could shift who pays how much, affecting schools, health care facilities, redevelopment projects and ADUs. Staff emphasized the update’s scale: consultants' recalculation shows the 2024 cost basis for fire improvements about 40% larger than the 2020 baseline, and an 82% increase for schools in one modeled example. The consultants showed a school reconstruction example in which the calculated fee rises from $0.63 to $1.14 per square foot, producing an increased charge of about $16,371 on a multi‑million‑dollar school project.
Key council concerns and staff follow‑ups
- ADUs: Staff recommended including ADUs in the new density calculations but limiting the number of ADUs to two per lot to avoid unexpected density increases. Councilmembers expressed concern about discouraging smaller owner‑built ADUs that can help affordable housing goals. Staff reported 2024 saw about 100 ADU permits issued and estimated that exempting ADUs last year represented roughly $600,000 in foregone park impact fees and about $86,000 in fire impact fees; several council members asked staff to return with phased options (including a 500‑square‑foot micro‑ADU exemption) and potential pilot timelines so homeowners and small builders would not be caught by a sudden change.
- Redevelopment credits: Staff proposed moving from a 1:1 replacement rule to a net‑change calculation (crediting the value of existing structures), which would cause some redevelopments to incur fees where they previously did not.
- Inclusionary housing and thresholds: Because state rules mean projects of certain sizes would trigger city inclusionary requirements, staff proposed a cautious approach for phase 1: require affordability starting at the first additional unit but include carve‑outs (for smaller unit sizes, for additions/renovations, and a delayed effective date) to avoid chilling middle‑housing construction. Council asked staff to return with concrete draft code text, an implementation timeline (including a possible “pioneer” or delayed vesting approach), and an explanation of how the proposal would affect projects already in the pipeline.
- Method details and forecasting: Council members asked for clearer definitions of square footage (code definitions of gross floor area vs. conditioned space), verification procedures at permitting, and comparisons with other cities that are implementing per‑square‑foot fees. Staff and consultants said they will present a draft ordinance, workflow changes for permit processing and improved forecasting for revenue impacts at a subsequent meeting; staff noted that large projects (over $100,000) historically produce about two‑thirds of impact fee revenue and that the per‑square‑foot approach would likely change revenue only modestly for large projects but would better match fees to structural size.
Quotations from the session
- "Impact fees are 1 time charges on new development and redevelopment to provide key capital funding towards growth improvements that serve this growth in our community," Kevin Pellstring, Approved Financial Planning Manager, said.
- "I would be in favor of adopting the fees as calculated unless the Lake Washington School District or another stakeholder has a strong opinion," Councilmember Tim Chisen said.
Ending note: Staff will return with a draft ordinance and revised materials (including an outreach plan and options for ADU exemptions and delayed inclusionary requirements). Council members repeatedly urged the city to engage the school district and local builders before final adoption so implementation timing and exemptions can be refined.
