Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New studies would sharply raise Poulsbo park impact fees; council asks for phasing and more analysis
Summary
Planning staff presented updated park, transportation and a proposed fire impact-fee studies — parks are projected to need roughly $26.9M to meet level-of-service goals, producing a proposed park impact fee near $9,000 per average single-family unit under staff assumptions; council asked to separate parks from transportation/fire and to return with phased, affordability and exemption options.
Planning staff led by Nicole Coleman presented updated rate studies for park and transportation impact fees and a proposed new fire impact-fee program, reflecting updated population allocations and large increases in park acquisition and development costs.
Coleman summarized the legal framework and the state’s proportionality requirement and walked council through the methodology: updated population/housing projections to 2044, adopted park level of service (acres per 1,000 residents), assumptions about grants, donated volunteer value and a 15% reduction for private neighborhood parks in planned residential developments. Using those assumptions staff estimated total park need to meet the adopted level of service at roughly $26.9 million, of which a typical assumption of 30–40% public funding leaves about $18.4 million to be supported by impact fees — producing a base park impact fee in the neighborhood of $9,000 for the average single-family unit under staff calculations.
Transportation impact fees were updated using Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation rates; staff proposed a small reduction in the per-trip rate compared with the previous cycle and outlined how transportation fees interact with frontage improvements, SEPA mitigation and grants. The fire district presented a service-area study for a new fire impact fee and proposed a proportional approach that offsets growth-related capital costs across single-family, multifamily and commercial development; the chief emphasized that impact fees allow growth to fund capacity needed to maintain current emergency response levels.
Council members expressed sticker shock at the park fee increase and asked staff for staged phasing, more community outreach (including revisiting the PROS plan scheduled in 2027–28), and targeted exemptions or deferrals for affordability or nonprofit/childcare uses. Several members recommended splitting the ordinance work: bring transportation and fire forward for adoption sooner while continuing further analysis on parks. Staff said they would return with refined modeling, draft ordinance language, and options for phasing and exemptions.
