Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates raising traffic impact fees as engineer outlines options including reciprocal fees with Pierce County
Summary
City Engineer Hans Hunger presented options to update Puallup’s 2007 traffic impact fee; councilors discussed indexing, exemptions for affordable or childcare uses, truck‑trip adjustments and reciprocal arrangements with Pierce County. No ordinance was adopted; staff will return with draft ordinance language.
Puallup — The Puallup City Council on Feb. 24 heard a detailed update on the city’s traffic impact fee (TIF) study and debated several policy choices but took no immediate vote.
City Engineer Hans Hunger told councilors the current TIF rate — $4,500 per PM peak trip — has not been updated since 2007 and that an inflation-adjusted maximum defensible rate using the project list and 10‑year trip forecast would be approximately $8,739 per PM peak trip. "Using the 64 million after you've deducted out the deficiencies and the growth that's occurring outside the city that's causing these the need for these projects, you get down to the 64 million and then the number of trips projected over the next 10 years is 7,43. Again, it's just a simple division to come up with a maximum defensible rate of $8,739," Hunger explained.
Staff presented three policy options: adopt the maximum defensible rate; select a midpoint (roughly $6,000–$6,500); or phase in a catch‑up over five years and then index to a construction‑cost index. Hunger also outlined policy choices including indexing to construction inflation, exempting certain land uses (the state allows partial exemptions for early learning centers and low‑income housing), applying a truck‑trip adjustment for heavy‑vehicle impacts, reciprocal fees with Pierce County for cross‑border development impacts, and payment/vesting timing for permit applicants.
Council members expressed different priorities. Some emphasized equity and asked that exemptions for affordable housing and childcare be considered to lower barriers for community‑benefit projects. Others, including Mayor Whitting and several councilors, supported moving toward the defensible or midpoint rate and indexing going forward, arguing that "growth should pay for growth" and that sufficient local funds will improve competitiveness for grant matching and timely implementation of large corridor projects. Several council members asked staff to return with draft ordinance language and more precise numbers and scenarios, including a clearer comparison to neighboring jurisdictions and how reciprocal fees with Pierce County would be structured.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting; council asked staff to prepare an ordinance for first reading at an upcoming meeting and to provide more detailed analyses about grandfathering/payout timing, reciprocal fee maps, projected annual revenue under each option, and how exemptions would be backfilled if the council chooses to adopt them.
