Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present police impact fee options; firm projects up to $9M over 10 years
Summary
A consultant presented a police impact-fee model that staff said would let new development pay for a share of police facilities and vehicles; staff recommended considering adoption up to 100% cost recovery and scheduling public hearings with 90 days' notice.
Peter Napoli of Santech Consulting told the council the firm was retained to calculate a police impact fee and outlined how the fee would be derived from the department's replacement cost and capacity.
"Impact fees allow new development to pay its own way," Napoli said, describing the study's inputs: a replacement cost basis for buildings and vehicles, the city's capital-improvement plan and property-appraiser data. Napoli presented an existing cost basis of $64,800,000 and said that, when divided by roughly 77,000 equivalent dwelling units, the firm's model produced a cost-per-equivalent unit and a schedule of per‑use fees. Napoli summarized the schedule, saying the single-family fee would be $8.38, multifamily $6.12 and the nonresidential schedule would range by type; he also described a $838 per‑equivalent‑dwelling‑unit cost basis used earlier in the presentation.
Council members pressed for details. Napoli clarified that impact fees apply only to new construction and that impact‑fee revenues are restricted to growth‑related expansion — for example, debt service or acquisition tied to a new police headquarters. "You cannot use it to maintain vehicles," he said in response to a council question; the consultant explained fees can be used to buy additional vehicles that expand fleet capacity tied to growth, not routine maintenance.
The consultant showed a 10‑year revenue projection under a median population‑growth scenario (about 14% over a decade) that produced roughly $9 million in projected receipts; staff noted that revenue projections would be sensitive to actual growth and that council could adopt a lower cost‑recovery level than the 100% model presented. Staff recommended setting public‑hearing dates, enacting an enabling ordinance or resolution and providing 90 days' notice before collection. Councilmembers asked for additional data on debt‑service needs and the share of debt associated with growth versus replacement before choosing a starting rate.
