Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Menifee commission reviews how Quimby Act fees and credits shape local park development
Summary
City staff explained how Menifee applies the California Quimby Act and local code—using fair‑market appraisals, a 5‑acre/1,000 standard and a 50% credit for qualifying HOA active‑recreation—to support park acquisition, development and rehabilitation in recent projects such as Cantilena, Nautical Cove and Cimarron Ridge.
The Menifee Parks, Recreation, and Trails Commission received a detailed briefing April 2 on how the California Quimby Act and Menifee Municipal Code Chapter 7.75 are applied to parkland dedication and in‑lieu fees.
Mariana Mitchell presented the city’s approach, saying Quimby “requires all residential subdivisions to dedicate parkland or pay in‑lieu fees or a combination of the two,” and that Menifee currently uses a 5‑acre per 1,000 residents standard because the city has a deficit in park acreage.
Mitchell described three permitted uses for Quimby funds: acquisition of parkland, development of new parks, and rehabilitation or expansion of existing parks. She said the city typically relies on fair‑market appraisals to set in‑lieu fee amounts and that appraisals must reflect one acre of improved, entitled land. “We have a list of appraisers that are certified as per our municipal code,” Mitchell said.
Commissioners heard project examples to illustrate calculations and credits. Mitchell said Cantilena (935 units) required 13.32 acres of dedication and the developer provided a 13.97‑acre park. Nautical Cove (233 units) required 3.32 acres; the developer’s HOA amenities (a recreation center and pool) were treated as active recreation and received a 50% Quimby credit, and an example appraisal of $185,000 per acre yielded a sample Quimby fee of roughly $460,000. In Cimarron Ridge, a park came in slightly under the dedication requirement and the developer paid the appraisal‑based difference in fees.
Commissioners pressed staff on several limits and safeguards. Commissioner Tremblay asked whether the city had used Quimby funds to purchase land; Mitchell replied it has not, noting that the timing requirements and priorities for current capital projects make long‑term land banking challenging. When asked whether the city had ever returned fees under the five‑year rule, staff said no refunds have been required to date.
Vice Chair Peterson asked whether land purchased with Quimby or grant funds could later be sold for profit; Mitchell said she would consult the city attorney but expected deed restrictions or other conditions could limit resale in many cases. She also described the city’s internal check: the finance department tracks the subdivision origin of Quimby fees so expenditures meet the required nexus to benefit contributing residents.
Commissioners discussed the ceiling imposed by the Quimby Act—5 acres per 1,000 residents—and other avenues to increase park provision. Mitchell said Quimby is specific about data sources (census or Department of Finance figures) and the 5‑acre maximum, but clarified that the city can pursue higher local standards through municipal code changes, general plan amendments, or the parks master plan.
The commission received the report; no formal action was required. The briefing sets the parameters for upcoming council discussions about Quimby policy, credits, and possible land acquisition strategies.
Ending: The commission asked staff to provide additional legal clarification about deed restrictions and resale rules and to return with more details if council requests revisions to Quimby implementation.
