Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harrisville council adopts parks impact-fee ordinance after public hearing, 3–2
Summary
After a public hearing and staff presentations, the Harrisville City Council adopted Ordinance 563 to raise the city’s parks and recreation impact fee for new residential development to about $5,949 per household; the measure passed on a 3–2 roll call vote.
HARRISVILLE — The Harrisville City Council on Tuesday adopted Ordinance 563, raising the city’s parks and recreation impact fee for new residential development to roughly $5,949 per household. The council approved the ordinance on a 3–2 roll call after a public hearing and a staff presentation of the impact-fee analysis.
City consultant Lee Johnson of Zions Public Finance and city planning staff presented an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) the council and the public could review. Johnson said impact fees are one-time charges on new development to cover capital costs associated with growth, limited by Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 36a. He described how the analysis converts the city’s current park service level — measured in improved acres per 1,000 residents — into a per-capita and then per-household fee.
The IFA presented to council calculates a per-capita park improvement cost of $2,023.56 and uses an estimated current household size of 2.34 (U.S. Census Bureau 2023 ACS estimate) to arrive at the recommended per-household fee just under $6,000. Johnson said that figure reflects the cost to preserve the city’s current level of park service as projected growth requires roughly 16 acres of parkland and associated facilities over the 10-year planning horizon.
During the public hearing several residents raised concerns about the fee’s size and the effect on housing affordability. Kevin Harris and other speakers asked council to consider lower amounts and to show line-by-line calculations tying the fee to typical home prices. Staff responded that the impact fee is charged at building-permit issuance, does not vary by market value or assessed property value, and is charged to residential development rather than commercial projects. Jenny, city planning staff, noted that current park impact-fee fund balances are credited against the new fee calculation.
Council discussion focused on comparability with nearby cities, the legal limits of what impact fees may fund, and the city’s choice to set the fee at the study’s calculated maximum rather than a lower amount. Staff reminded council that state law constrains impact-fee uses to system-level capital improvements for new growth and that any collected fees must be spent on qualifying projects within six years or returned under defined circumstances. There is a 90-day waiting period before the adopted fee takes effect.
Roll-call on the motion to adopt Ordinance 563 was: Council Member Christensen — No; Council Member Dullesing — No; Council Member Faucette — Yes; Council Member Jackson — Yes; Council Member White — Yes. The motion passed, 3–2.
The council packet includes the IFFP and IFA, which staff and the consultant said provide the legal and numerical basis for the fee and identify the system parks and planned new park facilities to be funded by the fee. Staff and the consultant said the ordinance sets the maximum legally permissible fee based on current assumptions and that the council may set a lower fee if it chooses; the next statutory review of the fee is recommended in six years.
Votes at a glance: Ordinance 563 — parks and recreation impact fee; outcome: approved, 3–2; key legal authority cited: Utah Code Title 11, Chapter 36a; effective after 90-day waiting period.
