Council backs studying square‑footage approach and park fees on commercial development for impact fee update

A consultant update on the city’s development impact fee study prompted the Sandpoint City Council to signal support for two major methodological changes under consideration — changing residential impact fees from a bedroom‑based schedule to a square‑footage basis and exploring whether nonresidential development should contribute to park impact fees.

Colin Maccawini of Tishler Bice told councilors the firm is updating Sandpoint’s 2012 study and that state law requires the city to document need, benefit and proportionality in a nexus study. The firm recommended calculating residential fees from square footage instead of bedrooms to capture more granular differences in demand, and asked whether the council wanted to explore assigning a portion of park demand to nonresidential development (commercial/industrial) because job inflow can increase park usage. The consultant recommended delaying consideration of a stormwater impact fee because the city lacks a recent stormwater master plan and has existing deficiencies that are not eligible for impact fee funding.

Why it matters: Impact fees set what new development pays to offset growth’s burden on infrastructure. Changing to square‑footage metrics and adding a commercial park component could shift the distribution of fees between housing types and business development. Council direction now will shape the consultant’s modeling, the advisory committee’s review and eventual ordinance drafting.

Council discussion and takeaways: Councilors generally favored both ideas. Several councilors suggested finer gradations than 1,000‑square‑foot bands — e.g., 500‑square‑foot increments — and asked the consultant to keep the model flexible. Councilors also asked whether a future stormwater utility might be set up so stormwater costs weren’t borne solely by impact fees; staff said they are exploring that separately and would report back.

Next steps: Tishler Bice will finalize capital improvement plan (CIP) inputs with department heads, test models using square‑footage groupings, and present draft fee results to the city’s impact fee advisory committee and planning commission before an ordinance is prepared for council consideration. A timeline for a final ordinance was not set.

Ending: The council’s preliminary direction will shape the consultant’s modeling work; any new fee schedule will still require findings demonstrating proportionality under state law and public hearings before an ordinance can be adopted.