Kennewick staff present fire impact fee proposal for Southridge; council schedules April public hearing

Chief Michael and Chief Paul presented a draft plan for a fire impact fee at the Kennewick City Council workshop on March 11, asking whether council wished to implement fees tied to new development in the Southridge area or citywide.

Chief Michael said the proposal grew from growth in Southridge and the need for Station 6, explaining impact fees are charged up front, dedicated to capital facilities, and must be prescribed by ordinance under Washington State law. Staff presented two methodological models used elsewhere (Clark County and City of Redmond), then described the city’s approach: analyze call volumes by building use, derive a per‑unit cost basis (per home, per apartment unit, per bed in care facilities, per square foot for commercial/industrial uses), and apportion the capital facilities plan to new development. Planning staff calculated a proportionate‑share of 49.8% of the Station 6 capital cost as attributable to new development in the Southridge build‑out area.

Using the formula presented, staff showed example basis fees: $579 per single‑family home (based on current call patterns and the capital plan) and $795 per hotel room; a 90‑room hotel would face an impact fee of $71,610 under the proposed schedule. Staff estimated the Station 6 capital and apparatus package at about $15,000,000 and said the proportionate share recoverable from development would be roughly $7.5 million. Planning staff also provided a 10‑year illustrative revenue estimate for Southridge build‑out: approximately $3.8 million over ten years under current permit assumptions (staff noted this figure was preliminary and would be refined for council).

Council members raised questions about fee timing and vesting, geographic scope, fairness, affordability impacts and collection mechanics. Council member McShane noted that, compared with other jurisdictions, Kennewick's proposed single‑family fee is modest and that spreading costs to new development would avoid placing the full burden on existing residents. Several council members urged staff to return projections showing expected annual revenue under realistic build‑out scenarios, and to confirm how the ordinance would treat projects already under permit review or in the pipeline. Staff advised that ordinances may define an effective date and vesting rules (commonly keyed to building‑permit submission), and that existing development cannot be charged retroactively.

The council agreed to hold a public hearing on April 1 so the community could comment, and asked staff to provide additional analysis before that date: (1) projected revenues by year under plausible build‑out scenarios, (2) a citywide alternative for comparison, and (3) options for vesting and exemptions for projects already in review. Staff said April 1 was a reasonable target to present ordinance language and to hold the public hearing. Several council members also discussed an alternate fee or administrative penalty to discourage repeated non‑emergency calls from long‑term care facilities; staff described that as a separate, operational deterrent rather than an impact fee and said it would likely generate modest revenue while aiming to change behavior.

No formal ordinance or fee was adopted at the workshop; staff will return with ordinance language, refined revenue projections and a public hearing on April 1.