Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Stevens council adopts comprehensive-plan amendment and advances traffic impact-fee implementation
Summary
The Lake Stevens City Council on May 26 adopted Ordinance 12 20 to update the 2025 comprehensive plan docket and approved a motion to direct staff to return a fee resolution in June to implement higher traffic impact fees (proposed effective July 1, 2026). A public commenter urged revised project cost estimates for six projects used in the fee calculations.
The Lake Stevens City Council voted May 26 to adopt Ordinance 12 20, approving updates to the city’s 2025 comprehensive plan docket and related traffic impact fee documents. The council’s vote followed a staff presentation of the proposed 6-year and 20-year capital improvement plans and the consultant methodology used to calculate updated impact fees.
Planning manager Christy Schmidt told the council the city contracted with Transpo to update fee methodology and administrative documents and that the planning commission recommended approval. She said staff proposes doubling the downtown (TIZ 1) traffic impact fee from $2,700 to $5,600 to address aging infrastructure and level-of-service deficiencies, with small increases (about $60) proposed for TIZ 2 and TIZ 3. Schmidt said staff would bring a fee-resolution draft back at the city’s first June meeting and recommended an implementation date of July 1, 2026 to allow developers with permits in the queue to pay the current rate if they act early.
At the public hearing, Tom Hanson, a registered professional civil engineer and former public-works director, challenged portions of the consultant’s cost allocations. Hanson said Transpo assigned roughly $4.3 million (about half) of an $8.6 million project to "active transportation" on one segment and asked staff to re-estimate six projects with and without active-transportation elements because he believes the percentage assignments are too high. "Guesses is not engineering," Hanson said, urging the council to remand the projects for revised estimates.
Schmidt responded that staff reviewed Hanson’s submission, verified the cost breakdowns with Public Works and Transpo, and concluded the methodology and proportions are supported by the exhibits in the packet. She said staff could mandate additional cost estimates if council directed them to do so.
Council members debated vesting (locking) fees for developers; staff recommended against indefinite vesting and noted state law allows limited vesting tied to certain approvals. One council member urged caution, calling impact fees effectively a cost that passes on to homebuyers; another suggested further discussion in a workshop or the council retreat and potentially adding formal vesting options to a future work program.
The council approved Ordinance 12 20 by voice vote. In a separate motion the council directed staff to bring back Resolution "20 26 0 6" (fee resolution language in the staff report) at the first June meeting to implement the traffic impact fees effective July 1, 2026.
Next steps: staff will return a single combined fee resolution (traffic impact fees and proposed park fees) at the council’s first June meeting for formal action and to set an implementation date.
