Council liaison outlines new transportation impact fee and utility rate pressures, cites $10 million reservoir project

Council member Johnson, serving as the council liaison to the Planning Commission, briefed commissioners Jan. 21 on two council priorities: a newly adopted transportation impact fee and proposed utility-rate changes driven by several large projects and cost pressures.

“ This will help growth pay for growth as it is supposed to,” Council member Johnson said of the transportation impact fee, which the council adopted recently. Johnson summarized how the fee is calculated: it is based on the estimated number of trips generated per development unit and varies by use. As examples cited in the packet, a hospital would pay $6,212 per 1,000 square feet and a hotel would pay $4,904 per room.

Johnson said the impact-fee project list includes potential upgrades over the next two decades — some paid primarily by the city and some receiving substantial state assistance — including intersection upgrades on Snoqualmie Parkway and work on the SR‑202 “bridal” (the packet used the phrasing “202 bridal”) that may require rebuilding or repair.

On utilities, Johnson said the city is attempting to rebalance billing across customer classes and is planning rate increases for several reasons, including an expensive near‑term project to replace a water-retention pond by the golf course with a contained tank or reservoir. Johnson described the project as “very expensive up to something like $10,000,000.” He said the replacement is driven by a state requirement to contain the water source used seasonally for irrigation because of possible contamination risks; staff identified the Washington State Department of Ecology as the regulator prompting the change.

Commissioners asked several clarifying questions. Commissioner Morusiak asked whether a hotel planned on tribal land would be subject to the city’s impact fee; Johnson replied, “not within the city limits. So I do not believe that they would pay,” and suggested staff could confirm. Commissioner Koka asked what specific contamination risk the state had identified for the irrigation water; Johnson said he would check staff records and suggested staff return with more details at the next meeting. Vice Chair Tessman asked about the analysis underlying the decision to shift costs among customer classes; Johnson said the city contracted with a firm named FCS to perform a cost-of-service study and to produce charts showing which classes were over- or underpaying relative to cost.

Johnson told the commission the council had sent the utility-rate topic back to the parks and public-works committee for detailed review of projects and timing, and that staff would try to smooth the curve of increases where feasible.

No formal council actions were taken at this commission meeting; the liaison’s report was for information and to invite questions. Commissioners asked staff to provide more information about the reservoir project, the Department of Ecology requirements, and the consultant analysis behind the proposed rate-structure changes.