Planning Commission hears FCS presentation on Sammamish parks and transportation impact-fee update

Sammamish City Planning Commission met Nov. 6, 2025 and received a technical presentation from consultants at FCS Group and city staff on proposed updates to the city—s transportation and parks impact fees.

The presentation by John Guilarducci, principal at FCS, and Doug Gabbard, the project manager, walked the commission through the legal framework, a project list with eligibility percentages, and a scaling method required by recent state changes that ties charges to unit size, bedrooms or trips. David Pyle, Sammamish Community Development Director, introduced the consultants and said staff will return with code edits and implementation options.

Why it matters: impact fees are one-time capital charges developers pay when a new unit is built; state law and recent statutory changes require fees "to reflect the proportionate impact of new housing units" so smaller or multi-family units bear a smaller share. FCS—s draft calculation uses the city—s growth forecast of 2,100 dwelling units between 2025 and 2044 and converts forecasted vehicle trips into 2,477 PM peak-hour person-trip ends to establish the denominator for transportation fees.

What the consultants presented: FCS said total transportation projects listed as eligible in this iteration totaled roughly $32.2 million; after deducting the city—s existing impact-fee balances the net eligible amount shown in the presentation was about $29 million. Dividing that net eligible cost by the 2,477 PM person-trip growth produced a proposed rate of about $11,779 per PM peak-hour person trip. Applying industry trip factors yielded sample per-unit numbers in the mid-$16,000 to $17,000 range for a typical single-family dwelling before applying scaling.

For parks, FCS used a historical-investment approach: value of existing parks and improvements divided by current population gives a capital value per person, multiplied by forecast population growth and checked against a parks project list (CIP). That produced a blended parks fee per dwelling unit in the consultant—s slide deck on the order of several thousand dollars (FCS presented an example blended parks per-DU result of about $6,700 before scaling and adjustments).

Scaling approach: to comply with the statutory requirement, FCS proposed a floor and ceiling method that converts the blended fee into an impact fee per occupant and a per-square-foot rate. Smaller units below a floor (about 783 sq ft, equal to a 1-occupant unit in the consultants— model) pay the floor; units larger than a ceiling (about 2,653 sq ft, where occupancy flattens) pay a capped maximum. Examples shown in the presentation produced park rates around $3.13 per sq ft and transportation rates around $7.44 per sq ft; the ceiling limits the maximum charge regardless of how large a house is, because occupancy does not continue to increase indefinitely with square footage.

What commissioners and the public asked: public commenters and commissioners pressed multiple technical and policy points. Resident Paul Stickney asked whether the packet included stormwater charges (staff said stormwater uses a different statute), how average house size was calculated, and urged a citywide housing needs analysis before finalizing town-center policy. Resident Treisman urged the commission to define a "North Star" for what Sammamish wants in housing mix before the city—s rules and reviews remain the same.

Commissioners questioned the allocation percentages assigned to specific projects. A recurring allocation value in the consultant—s slides was 6.33% (the share of the city—s future customer base expected to arrive during the forecast window), and commissioners asked why some projects that appear to add capacity were not allocated a higher percentage to growth. FCS explained that allocation is based on who benefits from a project (existing users as well as future users), that the 6.33% figure represents the portion of total future users that would be new during the forecast period, and that FCS adopted a conservative approach to stay within legal precedent and defensibility.

Donated park land: commissioners asked how donated land (for example, the Big Rock site discussed in public comment) is treated. FCS said their valuation of the city—s parks used acquisition costs or city-paid values and generally does not include land donated with no acquisition cost; improvements that the city paid for are included. As a result, donated land typically is not counted in the acquisition total and therefore reduces the calculated parks value per capita used in the fee formula.

ADUs and statutory limits: consultants noted 2023 statutory language limiting impact-fee charges on new ADUs to no more than 50% of the principal dwelling unit—s fee; FCS said ADU charges in their model are scaled by square footage but capped to meet that statutory half-fee limit.

Implementation and policy options: staff and consultants discussed several controllable policy levers: (1) indexation (annual adjustment using CPI or a construction index such as ENR); (2) update cadence (many jurisdictions recalculate roughly every 4—5 years); (3) local waivers or reductions for deeply affordable housing (commissioners previously recommended waivers for projects meeting very low AMI thresholds); and (4) code cleanup to clarify timing, refunds/credits, and how to maintain defensible eligibility allocations. David Pyle said staff will return with code edits in January and that the council—s direction will determine final policy.

No final vote on fees tonight: commissioners did not adopt the fee schedule at this meeting. The commission approved the Oct. 16 meeting minutes and later moved and seconded an extension of the meeting by 15 minutes; the extension motion passed and the meeting was adjourned after further discussion. Staff said the next meetings will include a transportation-forecast presentation and code amendments; town-center work may be paused until the new council is seated.

Attributions and exact phrasing: speakers quoted in this article are identified by name and role as they appear in the meeting record. Examples of direct wording from the transcript: resident Miss Treisman said, "we don't really have this North Star of what it is that we do want," and Paul Stickney said the community should "see CHI before TC" (citywide housing needs before town-center decisions). Consultant John Guilarducci said impact fees are "one-time fees paid at the time of development" and that the statute now requires schedules "to reflect the proportionate impact of new housing units including multifamily and condo units based on square footage, number of bedrooms or trips generated." David Pyle told the commission staff will bring code revisions back in January and that the city will consider an update cadence and indexing options.

What remains unresolved: commissioners requested further detail on (a) the project's eligibility percentages for several named projects (staff will follow up with Public Works/DKS and report back); (b) how donated land and older acquisitions are incorporated into park valuations; (c) comparisons with other cities (Mercer Island and Kirkland were discussed); and (d) the fiscal trade-offs of fee waivers for affordable housing. Staff committed to revised code language, additional comparables, and a public hearing on any proposed ordinance/resolution changes.

Ending note: the presentation set a technical ceiling for defensible fee levels and described a required scaling approach that lowers fees for smaller units. The commission did not adopt fees at this meeting; it asked staff and consultants to return with code changes, more project-level justification for eligibility percentages, and options for indexing and update cadence before bringing a final fee schedule and an adoption recommendation to a public hearing.