Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council leans to trimmed 'Option 3' on parks impact fees; staff to prepare Jan. 7 ordinance
Summary
City staff and consultants presented three alternative ways to calculate land value for parks impact fees; staff recommended Option 3 (remove high/low outliers), council generally agreed and asked for a first‑reading ordinance on Jan. 7 while discussing rebate/delay options and housing‑affordability concerns.
City staff and consultants presented a detailed review of the parks impact‑fee methodology and three alternative ways to compute the land‑value input that determines the maximum supportable fee. The original weighted average used in the adopted study was about $147,000 per acre; staff and Tishler Heiss consultants offered three options that reduce that figure by removing downtown parcels, removing central‑city parcels, or trimming three highest and lowest sale values (the third option produced the largest downward effect).
Consultant Carson explained the mechanics: the park fee is composed of parkland acquisition, park improvements (playgrounds, irrigation, paths) and open‑space components. Staff underscored that the study calculates a fee to maintain the city’s current level of service as population grows rather than matching a preset budget target.
Council members pressed on affordability concerns and whether the study’s numbers are defensible in law. City Attorney Jeremiah explained legal options if council wished to delay implementation: an emergency ordinance requiring unanimity that could be adopted immediately, or a regular ordinance with first reading (staff and attorney said they would prepare first reading for Jan. 7) and a rebate clause to refund any higher fees collected while an ordinance is pending.
Several council members said the fee increases would hit homebuyers and builders and argued for caution. Others said the study corrected an artificially low prior fee and that Option 3 (removing outliers) was a reasonable methodological compromise. City Manager Mike said the staff recommendation was Option 3 and emphasized the city would return to council with ordinance language and options on timing. “I feel comfortable with Option 3 from a recommended standpoint based on all the work that's been done,” he said.
Council gave staff direction to proceed with drafting an ordinance (first reading scheduled Jan. 7) rather than an emergency measure. Staff noted an estimated five‑year parks CIP of roughly $11 million and explained that impact fees may not cover all expansion costs and tradeoffs will remain for general‑fund priorities and potential ballot measures. The council also discussed credits for developers that provide public park space within new subdivisions, which staff said is already codified as a creditable mechanism in the city code.
