Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to revisit parks impact‑fee policy after business meter triggered a large fee for Starbucks
Summary
A developer’s request for a 2‑inch water meter for a Starbucks site triggered a large parks/trails impact fee under the city’s meter‑based ERC calculation. Council debated whether park impact fees should apply to nonresidential development and directed the city’s engineer to return with analysis.
Hurricane — The City Council directed staff to bring back the impact‑fee consultant for a review after a proposed Starbucks permit produced a substantially larger parks/trails impact fee due to a requested 2‑inch water meter.
Chase (developer) told the council that when permits were pulled for a prior restaurant the park impact fee was a few thousand dollars, but for this Starbucks the fee computed at about $47,000 because the water‑meter size used in the city’s formula equated to many equivalent residential connections (ERCs). Chase argued commercial developments do not directly create long‑term park demand and urged the city to exclude nonresidential development from the parks/trails fee or adopt a different conversion methodology.
Staff and legal counsel explained the city’s impact‑fee analysis assumed commercial and industrial uses would pay the fee, and that the consultant (Civil Science) modeled the fee based on population/occupancy equivalencies and meter sizes. Council members raised practical concerns: removing business payments would shift costs onto residential developers or require increasing the residential rate; others suggested denying an oversized meter request when not technically necessary so the fee is aligned with actual use.
After extended debate about fairness, revenue adequacy and precedent, council directed staff to ask Civil Science to return and explain the metric used to convert meter sizes to ERCs, and explore options for adjusting policy and fee calculations or ensuring meters reflect actual need.
What’s next: Staff will invite the consulting engineer back for a council workshop/report to clarify the impact‑fee methodology and to offer policy options, including whether to exclude or adjust nonresidential assessments.
