Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenmore delays decision on park impact fees; staff asked to clarify methodology for public
Summary
After a consultant presented multiple valuation approaches, Kenmore council did not set a final park impact fee methodology. Staff will return with clearer materials and legal review before a public hearing; options discussed included square-footage vs. bedroom methods and a recommended assessor-based valuation.
Kenmore City Council continued a detailed discussion of park impact fees without taking a final vote, directing staff to return with clearer materials and legal review ahead of a public hearing.
Debbie Bent, assistant city manager and community development director, recapped the item and said staff recommended a square-footage methodology with a sample implementation rate of 70% beginning Jan. 1, 2027. Consultant Tom Beckwith walked council through multiple valuation options and data approaches: an imputed parkland valuation used earlier in the PROS plan (about $5,913 per person), an assessor-based approach (about $3,109 per person), and a capital-facilities-program (CFP) based number (about $4,063 per person). Beckwith said the assessor approach is the most defensible in the event of challenge.
"One of the issues with using [the imputed approach] is if you're challenged, then you're going to have to go to an appraiser," the consultant said, describing why assessor data is conservative but defensible. He urged caution on charging 100% of a calculated value because statute requires other funding sources be included for improvements.
Public comment and industry input surfaced earlier in the meeting: Ryan McKinstur (Master Builders of King and Snohomish County) said he generally supported using square footage to create tiers but requested clearer documentation about how projects qualify for full or partial fees and how the proportions are calculated.
Council members split on methodology. Some favored the bedroom approach as more closely tied to likely residents per unit and easier for the public to grasp; others favored square footage and assessed values to better capture large-footprint homes with fewer bedrooms. Positions on the percent to charge ranged from about 70% up to 90% among members; one councilor estimated the city could be forgoing roughly $900,000 per year by not charging a higher rate, a figure offered as an estimate during discussion.
Council asked staff to prepare clearer, lay-friendly materials to explain: (1) how projects are marked eligible in the CFP, (2) how the proportionate-share between new and existing residents is calculated, and (3) implications for affordability and exemptions (for example, manufactured/mobile-home communities or missing-middle housing). Staff agreed to involve the city attorney to confirm statutory compliance and to return with recommended methodology options and a proposed percentage for council consideration before scheduling a public hearing.
The council did not vote on item b tonight. Staff will come back at a future meeting with clarified materials when the full council is present.
