Mt. Pleasant rejects $36K recreation impact fee, plans new ordinance

MT. PLEASANT—The Mt. Pleasant City Council unanimously rejected a resolution to adopt a Recreation Impact Fee Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Analysis on July 28, opting instead to determine a lower recreation impact fee before moving forward with an ordinance expected to return to the council at a future date, and after members submitted their recommendations by an Aug. 4 deadline.

The council voted to reject the resolution after council members said they supported establishing a recreation impact fee, but did not want to adopt one based on a study that concluded the city could legally charge up to $36,313.11 per new residential unit.

Rather than approve the resolution, the council directed members to submit recommended recreation impact fee amounts to city staff by Aug. 4 so an ordinance establishing a proposed fee can be drafted and brought back for further discussion.

Finance Director and Zoning Administrator Dave Oxman said the rejected resolution would have reinstated a park and recreation impact fee that the city has not charged since about 2014.

“It was about bringing back park impact fees,” Oxman said. “We haven’t had them since 2014. This would have reenacted, based on that study, a park and recreation impact fee that would enable us to continue providing recreation services that Mt. Pleasant City has been well known for historically, trying to maintain that level of service.”

Under the Utah Impact Fees Act, an impact fee analysis evaluates how new development will affect public facilities and determines whether new construction should help pay for expanded infrastructure needed to serve future growth.

Impact fees are one-time charges assessed on new development to ensure growth pays its proportional share of the cost of new or expanded public facilities rather than shifting those costs to existing residents.

The Recreation Impact Fee Facilities Plan was prepared by Sunrise Engineering after the city commissioned the firm in 2026 to complete a Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

According to the study, Mt. Pleasant’s population is projected to grow from 3,805 residents in 2026 to 4,287 by 2036, an increase of 482 residents, or about 161 new households. Based on those projections, Sunrise Engineering determined the city could assess a maximum recreation impact fee of $36,313.11 per new residential unit.

Council members, however, made it clear they were not interested in adopting a fee anywhere near that amount.

“The council clearly wanted nothing even close to the maximum amount that the study would allow,” Oxman said. “Anything but $36,000. It’ll be very much well below that.”

Council members, however, made it clear they were not interested in adopting a fee anywhere near that amount.

If ultimately approved, the recreation impact fee would increase development costs for new residential construction, although Oxman said the city could consider alternatives for larger developments.

“It may mean a little additional cost for some new development,” he said. “With larger developments, however, parks and recreation improvements are sometimes already considered as part of a planned unit development.

Depending on the circumstances, a city may also be able to provide an impact-fee credit when a developer constructs a public park or recreational improvements that benefit the broader community. I’m not saying Mt. Pleasant City would necessarily pursue that option, but it is something that can be considered.”

As part of the facilities plan, Sunrise Engineering inventoried the city’s 12 park and recreation facilities and found Mt. Pleasant currently provides 26.12 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. The report recommends maintaining that level of service as the community grows.

To do so, the study concludes the city would need to acquire and develop an additional 12.59 acres of parkland during the next decade at an estimated cost of about $5.85 million. Because those improvements are intended to serve future growth, the report concludes the costs are eligible to be recovered through impact fees.

The study estimates the city’s existing park and recreation system has a replacement value of approximately $12.13 million.

Council members also questioned the population growth projections used in the study, expressing concern they may overstate the city’s anticipated residential growth. City officials responded that Sunrise Engineering had already reduced its original assumptions because the council had no intention of pursuing the maximum fee authorized by the analysis.

Oxman said the city’s next step is to gauge where council members believe the recreation impact fee should be set before drafting the ordinance.

“Trying to feel the pulse of the council and see a dollar amount that they would like to set as the established impact fee rate,” he said.

The complete plan can be found online at utah.gov/pmn/files/1465993.pdf.