City of Fayetteville staff presented a draft park impact fee study and recommended a parkland fee-in-lieu for the Tiggs Farm Subdivision during the Parks, Natural Resources and Cultural Affairs Board meeting on July 7.

The study — described by staff as the product of consultant work and city analysis — calculates new maximum fees of $8,864 for single-family detached units and $6,982 for multifamily units, compared with current city fees shown in the presentation as $1,089 for single-family and about $952 for multifamily. Staff said the study uses both land value and development costs, consistent with Arkansas law, to compute the suggested fees.

The Tiggs Farm Subdivision proposal is roughly 16 acres and was described in the meeting as planned for 195 single-family lots and 79 multifamily units; staff recommended a fee-in-lieu payment of $287,563 rather than dedication of parkland. A presenter summarized the project’s location as north of Martin Luther King Boulevard near Rupal Road and across from the Sloanebrook and Mountain Ranch subdivisions.

Why it matters: staff said the city’s current parkland dedication ordinance allows developers to choose between dedicating land and paying fees. The proposed park impact fee approach would remove the land-dedication option tied directly to a given development and instead charge a defined fee meant to fund park capacity for incoming residents. Staff emphasized that impact-fee revenue can be used only to add capacity for new residents — not for routine maintenance.

Board members pressed staff on several practical points: methodology and assumptions behind household occupancy (the study used 2.45 persons per single‑family unit and 1.93 for multifamily), the study’s projection of approximately 36,765 new residents through 2040, the recommended level of service (10 acres of parkland per 1,000 new residents), and the study’s per‑person impact estimate (about $3,618 per new resident). Staff noted the study used conservative cost assumptions, producing an estimated $3,682 per person in one slide and an overall projected $133 million in new park assets over the study horizon if growth materializes as projected.

Staff identified several regulatory and implementation steps if the city moves ahead: drafting a new park impact fee ordinance, updating other code sections (the presentation identified the city’s Development Code chapter 167), adopting protocols and web tools for developers, and deciding whether to index fees to a construction cost index. Staff recommended raising the statute-limited time to spend collected fees from the city’s current five years to seven years, which would match an allowance in Arkansas law and give more flexibility to assemble funds for projects.

Actions and next steps: the board heard staff’s recommendation that Tiggs Farm pay a fee in lieu of parkland; that recommendation was recorded in the meeting materials but no board vote was taken. Staff said they will email the full study to the board, return next month with a staff recommendation for the board to consider, and, if the board endorses it, forward proposed ordinance language to City Council later this year (staff suggested a Council consideration window of late September to early October and a possible 2026 implementation, noting multiple ordinance edits will be required).

Discussion versus decision: the presentation and subsequent discussion were framed as informational and preparatory. Staff repeatedly characterized the figures as maximums and noted choices remain about what portion of the maximum the city would adopt. Multiple board members asked whether higher fees would deter developers; staff said outreach had not revealed major developer pushback but that more outreach would continue. The board did not take formal action on the park impact fee study and deferred any final recommendation on Tiggs Farm beyond the staff recommendation.

What remains unresolved: specific fee levels to adopt (staff presented tiered examples at 10%, 12.5% and 15% variants), the final household-occupancy assumptions to lock in, whether to index fees automatically, how to handle developments in process at the moment of a code change, and the exact ordinance language to replace the current land-dedication option. Staff and board members also planned to revisit quadrant-based allocation of fee revenues and possible changes to the city’s neighborhood quadrants for spending flexibility.

Board members and staff said they would continue review and return with a recommendation at a future meeting; staff committed to distributing the full study to board members in advance of that meeting.