Buckley reviews rewrite of parks impact fees to comply with new state rules and cover growth

At its Feb. 4, 2025, Buckley City Council study session, consultant Annie Seager told the council the city must revise its parks impact-fee methodology to comply with recent state law changes that require residential fees be indexed to dwelling size and limit accessory dwelling unit (ADU) charges to no more than half the fee charged for the primary residence.

Why it matters: The update would shift how new development pays for park acreage and facilities needed to serve growth, extend fees to some commercial development, and establish a routine indexing process so fee revenue keeps pace with construction costs.

Seager, a consultant with Seager Consulting who works with Framework Consulting, said Buckley’s parks impact fee had not been updated since 2016 until a December 2024 revision and that the Legislature’s changes take effect in July. “One of the things and the most important for tonight, is that there have been two changes in law. One is that your residential impact fees have to be indexed to the size of the property being built,” Seager said. She advised indexing by square footage rather than by bedroom count because “the definition of a bedroom is really just a room with a closet and that is pretty easy to manipulate.”

Seager explained two principal policy choices before the council: (1) whether to charge residential fees on a strict per‑square‑foot basis or to create discrete square‑footage bands (for example, 0–1,500 sq ft, 1,501–2,500 sq ft, etc.), and (2) how to include commercial and industrial development. For commercial uses, the consultant recommended treating employees as a fraction of resident park use — her draft used an assumption that one employee represents roughly 40% of a resident’s park demand — and said many peer cities bill commercial development per 1,000 sq ft.

Seager summarized the fee formula as: eligible project costs minus available non‑impact revenue (the city’s “proportionate share”), divided by expected future growth. She said Buckley’s historical non‑impact funding for parks averaged about 29% but recommended modeling a lower assumption of 20% for future planning to be conservative and preserve matching funds for grant applications.

The consultant described the growth‑eligible project list drawn from Buckley’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan and capital improvement program: roughly 11 acres of community park, 9 acres of neighborhood park and 3 acres of natural/open space are the adopted level‑of‑service targets the city used to identify which projects can be funded with impact fees. She said staff and consultants identified roughly $4.5 million in growth‑related park improvements in the project list (timeframe in the presentation text was unclear).

Councilmembers asked for more scenarios and revenue comparisons. Councilmember Burbank asked whether a strict per‑square‑foot approach could be calculated to the exact square foot; Seager confirmed it could. Councilmember Green asked for historical inflation/index data to help decide whether to update fees annually or less frequently. Councilmembers also raised concern about very large single‑family homes and whether a cap or stepped bands should apply. Several councilmembers said size bands would be easier for residents and developers to understand; others favored per‑square‑foot fairness.

On ADUs, Seager said state law caps an ADU/DADU fee at 50% of the fee for the primary residence on the same lot. She recommended maintaining the city’s previously established ADU rate and capping charges at the ADU limit when permits are processed, noting legal interpretation of the new statute remains uncertain.

Seager recommended a transparent, easy‑to‑update formula so the council and staff can revise rates periodically — by indexing a per‑square‑foot rate to an inflation measure or by re‑running the fee study when project costs change. She said many cities update utility and rate schedules annually and that impact fees can reasonably be updated on a similar cadence.

Council direction and next steps: Councilmembers asked the consultant and staff to model several options — per‑square‑foot versus size bands, different band cut points, and scenarios that include ADUs and projected fire/other future impact fees — and to show how total development fees would compare with neighboring cities. Seager agreed to prepare scenario modeling and case examples to return to council for a follow‑up decision.

What the council did not decide: No formal action or vote was taken at the study session; councilmembers sought additional modeling and policy choices before any ordinance or code change is drafted or placed on a consent/agendized council meeting for adoption.