(1)080508 Park Development Impact Fees

Browse Search

2. The city's land value factor for calculation of Quimby "in -lieu" fees should be updated to ensure sufficient fees are collected for the adequate delivery of parkland in -lieu of parkland dedication. 3. The city's park development impact fees are insufficient to fulfill their purpose of delivering park improvements to new development, and should be updated. 4. Proposed update to this fee schedule should be quantified to include, and be consistent with General Plan goals as well as Park & Facilities Master Plan goals. Among these, that: • 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents be provided for by incorporating a land acquisition component into the development fee for an additional 2 acres of land, in addition to the 3 acres required under the Quimby Act; • That cost estimates be updated for the construction of park improvements to ensure adequate funding is available for this construction, which will be necessitated by new development; • That a "Community Use Facilities" component be incorporated into the development fee to assist in construction for any new city community center necessitated as the result of future development; • That an administrative component be built into the development fee to ensure that periodic, regular updates to these fees are possible. The attached Ordinances implement these changes by (1) amending the City's current development impact fee ordinance (Ordinance No. 0-02-00) to delete reference to park fees and authorize the imposition of park fees by separate resolution; and (2) amending Colton Municipal Code Section 16.58.040(C) to authorize periodic updates of the housing occupancy and land value factors based on the most current U.S. Census. The attached Resolutions adopt the studies and revised fees. Comments from the Building Industry Association On March 13, 2008, copies of both studies were forwarded to the Building Industry Association (BIA) for comment and/or input. Subsequent to this date, staff followed-up with several emails in April and June, 2008, updating the BIA on the City's progress and further requesting comment and/or feedback. No feedback was received from the BIA as the result of these inquiries from staff. On June 24, 2008, one week prior to the scheduled public hearing to consider approval of the studies, the City Manager received a telephone call from the BIA requesting a meeting with staff to discuss feedback on the studies. This phone call was followed by written correspondence, dated July 25, 2008 requesting the same. As a result of this request, staff recommended that City Council open the public hearing on July 1, 2008, and continue the matter until July 15, 2008, so that staff might accommodate the request of the BIA. On July 8, 2008, staff met with representatives from the BIA to consider their feedback on the studies. Staff was also provided with written correspondence, dated July 8, 2008, which has been included as Exhibit A. Pursuant to this meeting, staff was provided with additional written correspondence from the BIA, dated July 10, 2008, which has also been included as Exhibit B. The BIA's concerns expressed in this letter were similar to those related in previous communication. Additionally, alternative calculations were included, suggesting a "compromise" fee adjustment to that proposed by the study. In an effort to continue an interactive and cooperative dialogue with the BIA, staff again requested a continuance of the public hearing at the July 15, 2008 City Council meeting, to again meet with the BIA regarding their most recent correspondence. Staff, along with the fee study