City staff and consultants present large new park impact fee calculation; council to consider partial implementation options

Larissa Grundel, the city engineer, and consultants from FCS presented a recalculation of Duvall’s park impact fee at the Feb. 18 Committee of the Whole, showing a legally defensible maximum fee far higher than the city’s current schedule.

The consultants told the council the calculated PIF per residential equivalent is $11,170 and the modeled average single‑family dwelling charge would be about $34,430 under full implementation. FCS attributed the high number to an expansive 20‑year park, trails and open space project list (total project cost shown as roughly $72.2 million, of which $50.4 million was found eligible for PIF inclusion) and to Duvall’s relatively high current acres‑per‑1,000‑residents level of service. "This is the maximum calculation, not something you're required to charge at all," a consultant said, noting the council may adopt any amount up to the defensible maximum.

Consultants explained statutory constraints that shaped the calculation: impact fees must be tied to proportionate share of demand, credits are required for developer‑built improvements, fees are limited to capital projects listed in the comprehensive plan’s capital facilities element, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) may be capped at 50% of principal units’ charge, and jurisdictions generally must spend collected fees within 10 years or risk refund obligations. They also noted a 2023 statutory change requiring scaling so smaller dwelling units pay proportionally less, and they proposed a per‑square‑foot scaling with a 700‑square‑foot minimum and a 3,124‑square‑foot cap for the purpose of fee calculation.

To illustrate policy choices, FCS provided revenue and fee scenarios. Full implementation would maximize cost recovery (example: average single‑family $34,430), while a 79% implementation (the share Duvall used in 2017) would lower the charge to roughly $27,000; a "high‑priority only" list produced an approximate 49% implementation and a per‑unit fee near $16,800; the 2008 approach (roughly 35% of the calculated maximum) would yield about $12,000; and the current fee remains $10,002 for single‑family. Consultants stressed the council may adopt any level up to the calculated maximum and that indexing with construction cost inflators is customary to keep fees current.

Council members and staff pressed on several implementation questions: whether fee levels could deter development, how commercial development would be charged (consultants said they apply a reduced equivalency factor for employees and model nonresidential charges per 1,000 square feet), and how the city should assume grant matches when forecasting revenues. Staff said the typical assumption used in the analysis is 10% grant funding for eligible projects. Council members discussed the tradeoffs between maximizing cost recovery versus phasing to keep fees closer to market tolerance and to match staff capacity to spend and deliver projects. City staff recommended a middle path — not full maximum — while several council members argued for prioritizing the city’s interest in "growth pays for growth." No vote was taken; staff and consultants asked for council direction on preferred scaling, fee level and phasing to prepare an ordinance.

Votes or formal changes to the city PIF schedule were not made during the meeting. Next steps described by staff were finalizing the analysis, producing a written report and returning with an ordinance and recommended implementation approach.

Why it matters: Park impact fees shift capital costs for new parkland and trail construction to new development and therefore affect housing affordability, developer economics and city capital planning. The city’s choice of a fee level will influence revenue available for the 20‑year project list and the pace at which projects can be built.