Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buckley staff present park-impact fee update; study recommends expanding fees to commercial development
Summary
A rate study presented Dec. 3 recommends updating Buckley park-impact fees for the first time since 2016, factoring roughly $4.6 million in fee-eligible projects and proposing residential, multifamily and commercial/industrial rates using a resident-to-employee conversion factor of 40.2%. Staff asked council whether to return with ordinance language for adoption.
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Director Snodgrass presented a park-impact-fee rate study at the Dec. 3 study session, noting the city last updated fees in 2016. The study identifies roughly $4.6 million in fee-eligible park projects to meet growth targets through 2044 and proposes revised fees for single-family, multifamily and accessory dwelling units, plus new commercial and industrial fees measured per 1,000 square feet.
Snodgrass said the study applies a resident-to-employee conversion factor of 40.2% to account for the park use of employees who work in Buckley, and showed comparisons to neighboring jurisdictions. Current fees cited in the presentation include a single-family rate of about $1,624.70 and a multifamily rate of $1,331.52; staff said the study assumes a more conservative 20% share of non-impact-fee funding going to eligible projects in order to calculate the fees.
Council members asked technical questions about scaling (square footage thresholds and bedroom counts), whether fees apply per unit in multifamily developments and how commercial/industrial square-foot charges would work. Staff said the next steps are to finalize methodology and bring ordinance language back to council for review; the packet version of the study was provided to council only shortly before the meeting and staff offered to bring the item back next week or defer to January for deeper review.
There was no formal vote or action at the study session; staff requested direction on timing for a return of the item once council had time to digest the study.

