Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed park and new fire impact fees; staff to return scenarios
Summary
Consultant Annie (Framework) presented proposed residential and commercial park impact fees and a new fire impact fee; council members asked for scenarios that exclude business fees, historical budget breakdowns for the fire department, and additional data on call volume and contracts before any action.
The Buckley City Council reviewed a consultant's updated park impact fee study and a proposed new fire impact fee at an April 1 study session.
Annie, the consultant from Framework, described the methodology for both fees, saying state law now requires variable fees by square footage or bedrooms and that the city had not previously levied a fire impact fee. She described a parks base rate of about $2,563.68 for a 2,500‑square‑foot house (roughly $1.02 per square foot in the consultant’s model) and a separate fire base rate of about $0.58 per square foot for residential uses based on the fire capital‑needs list presented to council.
“We can discuss that approach and the proposed fee very similar to the parks impact fee,” Annie said, describing a proportionate‑share approach that assumes the city would fund about 20 percent of growth‑related capital while development would fund the remainder. The consultant said the parks capital project list was approximately $4 million in total, with roughly $3.8 million identified as unfunded growth‑related project costs after accounting for existing city reservations for Miller Park and other items.
Some council members objected to charging businesses the proposed park and fire impact fees. “I don't really agree with the fees on the businesses,” one council member said, arguing the city should treat businesses as assets and avoid adding costs that could deter commercial development. Several council members asked staff to run a scenario that removes industrial and commercial categories from the fee schedule and to show how that would affect residential fees or the city’s proportionate share.
Council members also asked for additional materials before considering adoption: a historical 5–10 year breakdown of Fire Department staffing and budget changes; call‑volume data showing historical incidents per population and employment; the existing union contract; and a clearer inventory of revenue sources (bonds, MOUs, EMS levy, SAFER grant, and reserves). Staff committed to returning in May with scenarios and additional documentation.
No ordinance, rate change or vote occurred at the study session. Ending: Council directed staff to prepare scenario runs (removing commercial/industrial fees, and altering the city proportionate share), to provide Fire Department budget history and call‑volume data, and to schedule a May follow‑up focused on fire funding and department staffing.
