Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Parks committee weighs raising impact fees to fund trails, boardwalks and amenities
Loading...
Summary
Village staff presented a review of the 2020 parks-and-facilities study and asked the Parks and Recreation Committee whether to raise the village’s $300 single‑family park-impact fee to better fund multiuse paths and park amenities; members signaled support for a moderate increase and asked staff for more cost breakdowns and comparisons with neighboring communities.
The Parks and Recreation Committee discussed whether to raise the village park-impact fee after staff presented background from a 2020 public-facilities needs assessment that underpins the current fee schedule.
Jennifer, a staff planner, said the study had recommended substantially higher fees in 2020 (the study’s example figures included a single-family fee of $761 and a duplex fee of $563) but the village adopted a lower single-family fee of $300 in 2022. Jennifer said the fee is charged on the building permit and is intended to fund parks or nearby facility needs. “The park and recreation impact fee, we collected almost 22, thousand dollars. It was $21,900,” she told the committee when asked for last-year revenue figures.
Committee members compared the village’s $300 single-family fee with neighboring communities that charge significantly more. Staff read examples from other jurisdictions: several peers charging $600–$900 for single-family lots, Kronen and Whetter at $603, and Red Mountain quoted at $650. Members noted the study’s numbers would allow the village to go higher than the current $300.
Katrina (committee member) said she favored a moderate increase rather than a maximum hike, arguing that the village is behind peers but should not risk pricing development out of the market. Committee discussion focused on two practical points: (1) how much additional revenue a moderate increase would yield for typical subdivisions (staff used an example of a 88‑lot subdivision where fees at $300 generate roughly $26,400 and a doubled fee would roughly double that total), and (2) whether park-impact fees alone could pay for large capital items such as multiuse paths and boardwalks. Staff warned the fee often covers only part of such projects; for the Granite Ridge path, impact fees were estimated to fund about one-third of the project, leaving two-thirds to the village or other sources.
Committee members asked for clearer, comparative spreadsheets that list (a) current collections under each fee bracket, (b) the incremental revenue produced by proposed moderate and maximum increases, and (c) high‑level cost estimates for commonly cited projects (for example, staff estimated roughly $100,000 per mile for a multiuse path while noting boardwalk construction can be substantially more expensive). Members also asked staff to present evidence on whether higher permit fees influence developers’ decisions.
Next steps: staff will refine the revenue and cost tables, supplement comparative data from neighboring jurisdictions, and present a recommendation to the planning commission and then return to the Parks and Recreation Committee for further direction.
