Council continues public hearing on Parkland Solutions code amendment; staff to return with SDC credit language and BLI analysis

Estacada’s City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 2024-005, a two‑phase “Parkland Solutions” proposal that would require dedication of park space or payment of fees in lieu for new subdivisions, then voted to continue the hearing to Sept. 23 so staff can return with additional analysis.

The ordinance before the council would implement a Phase 1 interim update to Title 16 of the Estacada Municipal Code to require parkland dedication or a fee in lieu for all new subdivisions. Staff described Phase 2 as a broader, community‑vetted update next year to the development code, parks master plan and system development charge (SDC) schedule.

“Tonight, I’m gonna do just a quick presentation again on Parkland Solutions,” Staff member Alan said, presenting the draft amendments and the project timeline. Alan told the council he had removed a proposed exception from the draft at the council and planning commission’s request and recommended adopting the interim update now with Phase 2 to follow in 2025 for more comprehensive public engagement and analysis.

Councilors questioned how the requirement would interact with existing park SDCs, which are fees developers pay to help expand public park capacity. Councilor McElroy and other councilors pressed staff for a clearer accounting of how land dedication and SDCs would be credited so developers are not effectively charged twice when they donate land. Using recent subdivision examples, staff provided a rough illustration: for one hypothetical subdivision (Coyote Ridge, with 222 single‑family lots and 96 multifamily units), staff said about 3.61 acres of parkland would be required and that, at an assumed $400,000 per acre, the fee‑in‑lieu value would total roughly $1.44 million — about $4,569 per unit under the illustrative assumptions presented by staff.

Councilors also asked staff to run the proposed requirement against the city’s buildable lands inventory (BLI) to estimate the total acreage and fees that could be generated if the requirement were applied to developable parcels inside city limits. Councilor McElroy asked for that calculation to be provided to the council when the ordinance returns.

After extended discussion, council members agreed to keep a mechanism allowing developers to provide a fee in lieu as an alternative to on‑site dedication, and they asked staff to add explicit SDC credit language — so property dedicated to the city would be eligible for SDC credit if the city determines the land meets the community’s needs. Mayor Drinkwine announced the council would continue the hearing to Sept. 23 to give staff time to: (1) add SDC‑credit language, and (2) provide a rough calculation applying the requirement to the city’s buildable lands inventory.

Planning Commission had recommended adoption of the ordinance as drafted; staff said the removed exception would be studied in Phase 2.

The council did not take a final vote on the ordinance during the meeting; the record remains open until the continued hearing on Sept. 23.

Why this matters: the interim change would change what developers must provide when they subdivide land and could affect project costs and the pace and pattern of park acquisition. Councilors explicitly directed staff to produce more financial and land‑inventory analysis before any final action.