Port Orchard adopts per‑bedroom park impact fee ordinance; council debate centers on revenue assumptions and multifamily data

The Port Orchard City Council voted to adopt an ordinance adding a bedroom definition to the municipal code and establishing a per‑bedroom park impact fee, with a per‑bedroom rate set at $1,616.73 and the new fee scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.

Director Nick Bond told council members that the ordinance implements 2023 changes in state law requiring jurisdictions to calculate impact fees using one of several alternative methods — for example, by square footage, number of bedrooms, or trips generated. Bond said state law also limits impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to no more than 50% of the fee for the principal unit; the ordinance language was drafted to ensure the city’s ADU fees comply with that limit. Bond recommended the per‑bedroom approach after a council work-study directed staff to bring forward that alternative.

Why it matters: the change alters how park impact fees are allocated across housing types. Councilmembers said the per‑bedroom method could shift costs between single‑family houses and smaller units, and they debated whether the selected averages would preserve prior revenue levels given incomplete bedroom data for multifamily permits.

Key provisions and timeline: as presented by staff, the ordinance adds Port Orchard Municipal Code section 20.182.075, adds a definition for “bedroom” to POMC 20.184.010, and sets the park impact fee at $1,616.73 per bedroom. Bond said the ordinance itself would take effect five days after publication; administrative systems and permitting forms would be updated so the new numerical fee would not be charged until July 1, 2025.

Council discussion and votes: Councilmember Wharton moved to approve the ordinance; Councilmember Fenton seconded the motion. Councilmember Chang raised the principal substantive objection: using available permit averages, she calculated the proposed rate schedule could produce roughly a $17,000 shortfall compared with historical receipts (about a 1% difference on a multi‑year average), and she said she would vote against the ordinance as presented. Other council members, including Councilmember Rose Pepe and Councilmember Teneri, supported adoption and said the city could revisit the fee schedule later if revenue tracking suggested a problem. After discussion, the council adopted the ordinance.

Staff analysis and data limitations: Bond told council that staff considered seven alternatives and multiple averaging periods; the department lacks per‑bedroom bedroom counts for multifamily projects without manual plan review, so the per‑bedroom conversion relies on averages and assumptions for apartments. Bond recommended erring on the lower side of fee estimates to reduce legal risk in the fee calculation. Councilmembers debated whether a two‑year average would better match recent activity than the four‑year average staff presented.

Implementation notes: staff said the new fee will be incorporated into permit forms and the permitting system before the July 1 effective date for the new rate. Bond also noted a forthcoming rate‑study and supporting materials included in the council packet.

Ending: The ordinance was adopted and will be published per statutory requirements; the city will update permitting materials and track revenue after the fee takes effect to determine whether adjustments are needed.