Kenmore Council weighs park impact fee options, asks staff for rate scenarios and equity analysis

Kenmore councilors spent extensive time reviewing a consultant'0presentation on a proposed park impact fee rate study and requested staff-return with concrete options and equity analysis.

The consultant, Tom Beckwith, explained the standard methodology: inventory park land and facilities, estimate replacement or market-related values for facilities and assessor values for land, calculate a per-person invested value, then multiply by the population expected from a new housing unit type and apply a recovery percentage. He said the study produces a theoretical "maximum" fee (100% of calculated value) but recommended councils usually start lower — commonly 25% to 35% — to avoid undue housing cost pressure. He also noted some jurisdictions have charged as much as 85% where political consensus and funding mixes supported it.

Debbie Bent, community development director, and Beckwith told council the study includes options to charge different recovery rates and to exempt or discount affordable housing. Beckwith said the city can keep the rate table outside the enabling ordinance so it can be updated annually without re-adopting the code.

Council questions centered on the practical implications of different percentages. Council members asked for a table that translates the proposed percentages into dollar amounts per product type (single-family, duplex, tri/quad, multifamily, manufactured homes) and shows how the current 2026 fees compare with the 2027 maximums the study lays out. One councilor pointed out that charging 50% of the 2027 maximum for single-family units in the consultant'0example would actually put the city below its current 2026 fee; staff confirmed the agenda packet included both current rates and the calculated maximums for comparison.

Several councilors asked how impact fees fit in the city'wide capital finance strategy. Beckwith and staff said impact fees are one tool among REET transfers, levies, grants and general fund allocations; a lower impact-fee share requires complementing sources to avoid underfunding park projects. The consultant recommended the council consider a holistic funding strategy rather than picking a fee in isolation.

Affordability and exemptions were a recurring theme. Council members expressed concern about housing cost pressure and displacement; multiple members said they would prefer exemptions or deeper discounts for qualifying affordable housing projects while applying a higher recovery rate to market-rate single-family units. Staff noted state law requires the fee be based on per-capita assumptions and that discounts are typically applied on the basis of affordability, not simply housing type.

Next steps: staff said they will return with clearer tables and specific percentage scenarios, a summary of historical fee levels, and potential programmatic exemptions and deferral options to inform a future direction and public hearing schedule. Council did not adopt rates at the meeting.

The consultant repeatedly cautioned that impact fees alone will not fund all park projects and emphasized the need for an integrated financing strategy (impact fees, REET, levies, grants). The council asked staff to present options that translate percentage choices into dollar impacts and anticipated levy or REET tradeoffs.

Ending: Council members indicated general interest in raising the recovery rate for market-rate single-family development while preserving exemptions for affordable housing, but asked staff to prepare the math and options before formal direction or public hearing scheduling.