Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft parks impact fee study offers two fee options; councilors favor square‑foot schedule and moving to maximum allowable
Summary
City planning and consultant Tishler Bice presented a draft parks impact fee study showing a maximum‑supportable fee schedule and two methodologies (by unit type or by unit size). Consultants and councilors debated whether to include neighborhood parks in the fee; a Capital Improvements Advisory Board recommended a lower fee.
City planners and consultant Tishler Bice presented a draft parks impact fee study at the April 28 work session, showing how the city could recalculate park impact fees and outlining two ways to set those fees: a traditional single‑family/multifamily schedule or a unit‑size (square‑foot) schedule that mirrors recent public‑safety fee work.
Catherine Harrison Rogers, who introduced the study, said the draft “is the maximum allowable fee, based on the analysis that was done, by the consultant, and the information available.” The consultant, Julie Herlands of Tishler Bice, walked council through the components that feed the calculation — current park acreage and facilities, levels of service, land acquisition assumptions and prototype improvement costs — then presented two fee schedules and projected revenue under each.
Why it matters: park impact fees are collected at building permit and pay for parkland and facilities needed to serve new residents. A change in fee methodology or level would affect development costs, city park revenues and the pace of park construction.
Major findings and choices - Methodologies: the draft offers a by‑unit schedule (single family/multifamily) and a schedule by unit size (three size bands). Staff noted the unit‑size approach parallels the city’s existing public safety impact fee. - Neighborhood parks: the draft includes neighborhood parks as a component, but staff presented an alternative “without neighborhood parks” scenario because new subdivision rules in Envision Las Cruces require neighborhood park land in many new developments. Leaving neighborhood parks out lowers the recommended fee and reduces the growth‑related shortfall. - Shortfall: consultants calculated that, even adopting the maximum allowable schedule, a funding shortfall for growth‑related needs would remain; staff noted a large portion of the larger shortfall is attributable to already‑built indoor aquatic facilities (an existing asset whose city share of cost is allocated to growth). In the “without neighborhood parks” scenario the growth‑related shortfall is about $4.1 million under the consultant’s assumptions.
Advisory board and council debate - The Capital Improvements Advisory Board (CIAC) reviewed the draft and recommended a lower fee based on a different improvement‑cost assumption; CIAC’s analysis used a per‑acre improvement cost that staff said was lower than the consultant’s prototype assumptions. - Several councilors said they favored the unit‑size (square‑foot) schedule and asked staff to move forward with the maximum allowable fee now, with a commitment to revisit performance after the new subdivision rules from Envision Las Cruces are in place. Councilor Crane argued for including neighborhood parks on equity grounds; other councilors preferred the “without neighborhood parks” schedule because new subdivision requirements will place parkland responsibility on developers.
Next steps - Staff and the consultant will present the draft at a forthcoming regular council agenda public hearing and the council will decide whether to adopt a fee schedule, adopt a lower fee recommended by CIAC, or take no changes.
Ending Council members who spoke urged timely adoption to address an identified funding gap for parks while also asking for a one‑year review after new development rules are in effect.
