McCall council weighs impact‑fee study options for parks, police and transportation
Loading...
Summary
City officials received a consultant update on impact fees covering parks, police, transportation and (not recommended) stormwater, and directed staff to study a commercial park fee and bring revenue projections for police/public‑works facility scenarios.
Colin McIlweeney, a consultant with Tissue Advice, told the McCall City Council on Jan. 15 that impact fees are a one‑time payment charged to new development to offset added demand on public infrastructure. "This is a 1 time payment that new growth pays to offset their new demand on infrastructure," McIlweeney said, and emphasized the legal nexus test of need, benefit and proportionality that underlies fee programs.
The presentation framed impact fees as a capital‑only tool: fees can pay for added capacity or new facilities but not routine maintenance or operating costs, and statute requires collected dollars be spent within eight years. McIlweeney identified parks, police and transportation as the primary eligible categories for McCall and said stormwater is rarely suitable because fees may not address existing system deficiencies.
On parks, the consultant recommended the city consider a commercial park impact fee in addition to residential charges to reflect demand from employees and visitors. "You can assess a park impact fee on commercial development," he said, noting examples in other Idaho mountain towns. Council members and staff broadly supported staff performing a commercial assessment for parks and bringing results back for consideration.
For police and public works, McIlweeney and department staff warned that adopting an impact fee creates an obligation to deliver capital improvements within the eight‑year window. The city currently leases its police station, so any decision to collect dollars for facility expansion would require a funding strategy for a facility the city may not own. Nathan Stewart, public works director, said the city and consultant can present revenue projections so councilors can judge whether to commit general fund or bond dollars alongside fee programs.
On transportation, staff favored negotiating major right‑of‑way work through entitlement/exactions rather than funding large, front‑loaded road construction with fees. Councilors asked staff to include pathways and sidewalks in the transportation fee options; several members supported including those elements because they increase nonvehicular capacity.
Next steps: staff will finalize capital improvement plans with departments, present fee scenarios (including maximum supportable amounts and progressive residential fee schedules) to the advisory committee, and return to council in spring with proposed fee amounts and revenue projections for facility options.
The presentation did not produce an immediate vote; council provided direction on study questions and asked for follow‑up analysis.
