HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-11-24; City Council; 6820; Revision of Park-In-Lieu FeeA
I
CITI JF CARLSBAD AGENDA dlLL
\B#a TITLE: Revision of Park-in-Lieu Fee
ATG. 11-24-81
DEPT. HD.~
CITY ATTYm
IEPT. p R
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff prepare the necessary reports and resolutions to:
1. Adopt Alternative I, the Standard Fee.
2. Reduce the Park-in-Lieu Districts from 7 to 4.
Authorize the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate documents
to :
1. Amend Municipal Code 20.44.070 and 20.44.080, the Park-in-Lieu
Fee Computation.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Staff has been directed to revise the computation that determines
the Park-in-Lieu Fee. This will amend Municipal Code 20.44.070
and 20.44.080.
The existing formula is inequitable, cumbersome, time-consuming and
outdated.
Two alternatives have been proposed by staff to simplify the procedure
for computing the fees.
Alternative I
Standard Fee - (Used by most cities in California) See Exhibit A.
Alternative I1
Percentage Fee - (Revision of the existing formula) See Exhibit A.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission at their meeting on November
16, 1981, voted 4 to 1 to approve staff's recommendation of
Alternative I, the Standard Fee.
During the discussion, due to the varying land cost throughout the
City, it was suggested that instead of a flat fee, that each
developer at the final map process be responsible for providing an
approved appraisal that would provide the current market value of
the property.
Standard Fee Computation.
The fee would then be calculated as per the Alternative I,
This approach is feasible, but was felt not practical for the follow-
ing :
1. City may be criticized for the additional cost of the appraisals
that may be passed on to the consumer.
11-24-81
2. Appraisal costs could be more than the Park-in-Lieu Fee
collected.
3. The appraisal could be time consuming and cumbersome and
may cause delay of the project.
4; There is a possibility of manipulation of the appraisers.
5. Inequities in appraisal may occur.
6. The need for a park is the same, therefore, the charge should
be constant for all developments.
7. A small development must pay a higher percentage of revenue
for an appraiser compared to a larger development.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff projected the estimated revenue acquired from the Park-in-
Lieu Fee at build-out (year unknown).
A. Existing forumla (Exhibit 2)
Fee
$23,632,080
__-
B. Proposed fee (7l;:hibi.t 3) 34,249,392
EXHIBITS
1. Memorandum dated November 10, 1981 to the City Manager.
2. Park-in-Lieu Computation at Build-Out for the Existing Fee.
3. The Park-in-Lieu Computation at Build-Out for the Proposed Fee.
MEMORANDUM
TO : Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE: November 10, 1981 SUBJ: Revision of the Park-in-Lieu Fee
Background
Staff has been directed to revise the computation of the
park-in-lieu fee, Chapter 20.44 of the Municipal Code. The
existing formula is inequitable, cumbersome, time consuming
and outdated.
Problems
Numerous problems have been associated with the existing fee
schedule, which are:
1. ‘Unreasonably low fees because of the Proposition 13 tax
rollback.
2. Unreasonably high fees due to the current land values multi-
plied by six (61, necessitating the applicant to appeal to
the City Council.
3. Numerous developers complaints about the fee.
4. The complicated computation process that takes a considerable
amount of staff time.
It is also suggested for flexibility of fund disbursement that
the park districts be reduced from seven (7) to four (4).
(See Attachment I).
Alternatives
Two alternative methods of computing the park-in-lieu fees were
analyzed:
1. Standard fee (used by most cities in California).
2. Percentage fee (a revision of the existing computation).
Re commendations
Instruct staff to prepare the necessary documents to implement:
1. Alternative I, the Standard Fee calculation.
EXHIBIT I
A. A new private developer must pay both the Public
Facilities Fee and the Park-in-Lieu Fee. Credit will not
be granted towards either fee.
B. Residential units larger than 200 acres will dedicate land
to the City for a community park. Developments with
approximately 200 acres that are located in the vicinity
or a community park site shall be required to provide
land or fees according to the discretion of Council.
Residential units less than 200 acres will provide park-
in-lieu fees instead of land.
C. The City shall no longer accept (credit €or private
open-space fdr park and remeational purposes.
2. Reduce the park district areas from seven (7) to four (41..
A. Districts 1, 2, and 3 will be based on identical land
values. District 4 will be established with a different
land value.
Discussion
The City has been utilizing the Quimby Act since October 21, 1966;
it has been a useful tool in providing land and fees for park
and recreation areas and facilities. However, primarily due to
Proposition 13, and errors found in the density and the fee
schedule, staff finds it necissary to revise the system. The
following two alternatives are expl-ored that will correct the
inequities and simplify the present fee formula.
Alternative I - The Standard Fee .__-.- -
Recent surveys indicate that most park-in-lieu fees in California
are based on a standard fee. The City of Vista just recently
adopted a Standard Fee type of calculation. The Carlsbad Board
of Realtors in a letter dated 1-13-81 recommended that the City
amend the existing ordinance 20 provide for a standard type fee
for each new residential unit or bedroom thereof. (See attach-
ment 11).
The Standard Fee advantages are as follows:
1. Does not involve a complex formula; would require less
staff time for computation. It is also easy to understand
and compute.
2. The fee structure would not be based on assessed land value.
Present fees based on assessed valuation often create unequal
payments because the assessed valuation is determined by
the latest sale value.
-2-
3. Additional costs for real estate appraisers may not be required.
4. There would be an equal payment for all developers which would
make it easier in calculating their development costs.
5. Revenues will be increased which will be in line with today's
acquisition and development costs.
The Standard Fee is based on the following criteria:
1. Land value to be $87,000 per acre for districts 1, 2, and 3,
and $109,000 for district 4. A square foot of land is valued
at $2.00 (Districts 1, 2, and 31 and $2.50 (district '4).
These figures were <?stablished according to the
"market value" of property in Carlsbad.
2. Park land to be dedicated shall consist of 2.5 acres per
1000 residents, based on the recent Parks and Recreation
element revision, 2.0 acres of community parks and .5 acres
special use areas.
3. Population Density: (Based on 1975 special census for the
Carlsbad area)
a. Single Family Dwelling (SFD) units
per unit
= 3.23 persons
b. Multiple Family Dwelling (MFD) units = 2.13 persons
per unit
c. Mobile Eomes (MH)
per unit
= 1.86 persons
4. One (1) resident = .0025 acres or 108.9 square feet.
Based on the above, the following land and fee requirements can
be calculated.
Land (Population density x square feet per person = land requirement)
1. Single Family Dwelling = 352 Sq. Ft. per unit
2. Multiple Family Dwelling = 232 Sq. Ft, per unit
3. Mobile Home = 203 Sq. Ft. per unit
- Fee (Land cost x square feet per unit = fee requirement)
1. Single Family Dwelling $704 per unit $880 per unit
Dist. 1, 2, E 3 Dist. 4
2. Multiple Family Dwelling $464 per unit $580 per unit
3. Mobile Iiome = $406 per unit $508 per unit
-3-
The Standard Fee should be adjusted annually. If the subdivider
objects to the calculated fee he may, at his expense, obtain an
appraisal of the subject property by a qualified real estate
appraiser approved by the City. The appraisal may be accepted by
the City Council if found reasonable.
A recent survey received in June 1981 conducted by the Construction
Industry Research Board (see Attachment 111) indicated that the fees proposed under the Standard Fee formula are consistent with
other surveyed cities.
Alternative I1 --.
This process is based on a percentage of the development's acreage.
The formula is an updated version of the existing park-in-lieu
computation. The new calculation, which was developed by the
Parks and Recreation Element consultants differs from the present
process. The major difference is that percentage charts are used
for each types of housing and by breaking down the requirements
for each density level instead of density ranges. (Refer to
pages 7, 8, E 9).
It requires a percentage of land for each density based on 2.5
acres per 1000 persons instead of 4.5 acres per 1000 persons at
low density development,. and 1.6 acres per 1000 persons at high
density, and land being based on assessed valuation x 6.
In staff's opinion, Alternative I1 is very difficult to calculate,
explain and is time consuming.
ComDarison
Staff has computed the land and fee requirements for one individual
unit. A comparison has been done to show the differences between
Alternative I, Alternative 11, the City of Vista, and the Quimby
Act Park Fees Survey. (See page 6.).
Fiscal ImDact
Alternative I will provide a slightly higher percentage of land
and fee than Alternative 11.
Summarv
The present code procedure for determining the park-in-lieu requirement is inequitable and cumbersome. It is proposed that the
City accept staff recommendation of Alternative I, the Standard Fee computation formula, and revise the park-in-lieu districts
from seven (7) to four (4).
-4-
Attachments
1.
2. Letter dated January 13, 1981 from Richard L. Chicks from
Resolution No.47’establishing 4 park districts.
Realty World.
3. Construction Industry Research Board’s survey of the
Quimby Act fees.
-5- 7
10
0 w
cn ?I
-cn F
0 m
-cn cn
0 co
R)
W 10
cn ?I
03- F c7
F
-Kc- cn co 0
cn
03-
4 0 F
0
H cn -Kc- 03 cn
0
I i 1
N co
07
v) ?I
P
4 0
v) Y I E; > c3 H C M
H H
't
-m- cn co
N
M d
Y M M
c/,
+d 0 w
03- w w c co
0 N
__
"
03- 03- F F
N
0
U P- m
rt
F
E tl
r M M
E u
Y M M
0 z M 10 cn u3
0 H
cn 1 H R) W co 07 c7 co cn cn
v) r v) Y cn ?I d 2 H c3
03- c7
N
0
03- I F 03-
W
:
w -E
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Park Land Dedication Percentages and Square Footages
for Single Family Detached Homes (3.23 persons per unit)
(Chart based on 2.5 acres/1000 persons)
Percentage of Gross Area Square footage of
Density of Subdivision Required Park Land Required
Units/Acre whe Park Land is Dedicated Per Gross Ac/Sub.
~ -- ---I_ - ~-----~
1 du/ac
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.0068
.0137
.0206
.0274
* 0343
.0412
.0480
.0549
.0618
.0686
.0755
,0824
296
597
897
1193
1494
1795
2090
2391
2692
2988
3289
3589
i"(Figure) is acres/1,000 people - using the formula below:
Total Gross Acres x Gross % Required
Net Sites acres x Net Density x Persons/Unit
-----x 10-00 = 2.5 ac/1000 ------ --~_ . - -r -. c- --." --*_--_- _~--"___
-7- 9
c
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARK LAND DEDICATION PERCENTAGES
AND REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR
MULTIPLE FAMILY HOMES 2.13 Persons Per Unit
(Chart based on 2.5 acres/1000 persons)
Density % of the Gross Area of Sq. Feet of Park Land
Units/Acre Subdiv. Required When Dedicated Req. Per Gross Acre/S.
1 du/ac .0045 196
2 .0090 392
3 .0135 588
4 .0181 788
5 .0226 984
6 .0271 1180
7 .0316 1376
8 .0362 1577
9 .0407 1773
10 .0452 1969
11 .0497 2165
12 .0543 2365
13 -0588 2561
14 .0633 2757
15 .0678 2953
16 .0724 3154
17 .0769 3350
18 .0814 3546
19 .0859 3742
20 .0905 3942
21 .0950 4138
22 .0995 4334
23 .lo41 4535
24 .lo86 4731
25 .1131 4927
26 ,1176 5123
27 .1222 5323
28 .126 7 5519
29 .1312 5715
30 .1357 5911
- __ --- ----__--- -
“(Figure) is acres/1,000 people, using the formula below:
--I__ x 1000 = 2.5 acres/1000 TOTAL GROSS ACRES x GROSS % REQUIRED
NET SITE ACRES x NET DENSITY x PERSONS/UNIT
- -- ----.--___-- --_I--_
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARK LAND DEDICATION PERCENTAGES
AND REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR
MOBILE HOME UNITS
(Chart based on 2.5 acres/1000 persons)
1.86 PERSONS PER UNIT
Percentage of the Gross
Area of Subdivision Re- Square Feet of Park
Density quired when Park Land is Land Required per Gross
Units/Acre Dedicated Acre of Subdivision
-__ . __ ___I__
1 du/ac
2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.0039
.0079
.0118
-0158
.0198
.0237
.0276
.0316
.0355
.0395
.0434
.0474
-0514
-0553 .1593
.0632
.0672
.0711
.0750
.0791
170
344
514
688
862
1032
1202
1376
1546
1720
1890
2066
2239
2409 2583
2753
2927
3097
3267
3445
$;(Figure) is acres/1,000 people - using the formula
below:
x 1000 2.5 ac/1000 TOTAL GROSS ACRES x GROSS % REQUIRED
NET SITES ACRES x NET DENSITY x PERSONS/UNIT
--__ ---- I___
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 6730
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ESTABLISHING FOUR PARK DISTRICTS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. The Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 20.44 establishes
certain requirements for dedication of land, payment of fees, or
both for purposes of providing park and recreational facilities
to serve the residents of Carlsbad.
2. This resolution is designed to implement the administra-
tion of said ordinance by establishing various PARK DISTRICTS
within the Carlsbad General Plan area.
3. Whenever a person proposes to divide land and is requir-
ed by the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to dedicate
land or pay a fee or both, the land dedicated shall be within the
specific PARK DISTRICT hereby established, and the fee paid shall
be maintained in a separate account identified with the PARK
DISTRICT established hereby, and may be used only for development
within the PARK DISTRICT. Any districts previously established
and being located in any of the four PARK DISTRICTS hereby estab-
lished, shall have their funds deposited in the appropriate dis-
trict account corresponding with the boundaries of the new dis-
trict.
4. The PARK DISTRICTS established herein may be modified
by future resolution of the City Council.
5. There are hereby established as PARK DISTRICTS those
certain numbered areas shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and
ATTACHMENT I -10- 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
1c
11
12
12
14
15
16
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by this reference incorporated herein. Verbal descriptions of
said PARK DISTRICTS are as follows:
PARK DISTRICT 1 PARK DISTRICT 2 PARK DISTRICT 3 PARK DISTRICT 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the day of , 1980, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST :
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-11-
OCEANSIDE
PROPOSED FOUR DISTRICTS
c -
REALTY WORLD@ - Richard J. Chick, REALTORSO
640-G Grand Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 Telephone: (71 4) 434-1 021
REALTY WORLD@
January 33, 1981
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor and Council Members :
It is our understanding that your Honorable Body will shortly consider a revision to the existing City Park Fee Ordinance which proposes to assess fees based upon the current "market value" of developing proper- ties. Members of the Carlsbad Board of Realtors have had an opportun-
ity to review a draft of the proposed revision and to discuss its
purpose and intent with members of the City staff. It is our considerel opinion that the change as proposed would be unworkable and result in even greater inequities than presently exist in the system of deter-
mining "market value" by multiplying the assessed value by a factor of six.
In our judgement, the 'Ifair market value'.! of a piece of property can
only be determined through a detailed market appraisal which in many instances is accurate only at the time the appraisal is made. As you know, there are many factors which determine the worth of a given parcel of land and that are site specific to any particular parcel.
Any "broad brush" approach to estimating property "market values" with- in each of the City's four park districts could only be based upon subjective judgement, and as we indicated above, result in many inequi- ties.
Both the present and the proposed method of assessing park fees pose
serious problems with respect to equity, and until a property owner proceeds to develop his property, .there exists a degree of uncertainty
with respect to what he will be.required to pay in fees.
We respectfully recommend that you consider amending the ordinance to
provide for a flat fee of a pre-determined amount per each new'residen-
tial unit, or bedroom therof. We believe such a system to be more
'Z WORLD of Difference'; -
Each office indeRendently owned and operated
-I3- ATTACHMENT I1
Honorable Mayor and City Council - Page 2
equitable and more related to the need for, and use of, park facilities.
Those developing their property would also know with certainty the amount of fees they will be required to pay. We thank you for the opportunity of commenting on this issue and will be most happy to work with your staff in the development of a more workable
ordinance.
Very truly yours, /
Richard 3. Chi&
Chairman, Local Government Relations Committee Carlsbad Board of Realtors
RJC/lc
CC: City Illanztger
Director of Parks and Recreation
-14-
c - L.
c
CIRBII Construction Industry Research Board
1625 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. - SUITE 804 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90015 (-213) 381-6544 (800) 252-8109
Suwey Surm~lry
Quimby Act Park Fees
June 1981
Following is a sumnary of the results of a survey of California cities
and counties regarding the assesmnt of fees under the Quimby Act
(Business and Proffessions Code Section 11546).
cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring the dedication of
land, payment of in-lieu fees or a cambination of both for park and
recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a final subdivision
map. The primary purpose of this survey is to assess the extent these
fees are utilized.
The Quimby Act permits
A copy of the survey questionaire used to collect the followingdata is
included following this sumaary.
I. SAMPLE DESCRIEION
A. Sample Definition:
B. Sqle Size:
C. Response:
All counties plus cities 10,000 or mre population.
58 counties + 258 cities = - 316 -
Responses 260
NoResponse __ 56
316 - -
% Response = - 82% -
D. 1980 New Housing Units:
In -le:
Responses
No Responses
Not in Sample
Total State Production
% of State New Units Production
116 , 605 80.5%
22 , 534 15.6%
139, 139 96.1% 5 , 692 3.9%
144,831 100.0%
L’TTACHMENT I11 -15-
11. SURVEY RESULTS
For those responding:
A. Quimby Ordinance Wer %
Jurisdictions with Quimby Ordinance 143 55.0%
Jurisdictions without ordinance - 117 45.0%
260 100.0%
Number of
B. Housing Production (New Units) Units %
Jurisdictions with ordinance 85,859 73.6%
Jurisdictions without ordinance 30,746 26.4%
Total Responding in Survey 116,605 100.0%
Not responding or not in survey 28,226 ---
--- Total Statewide Production 144,831
C. For those responding with Quimby Ordinance :
143 1) Total with ordinance -
% which permit credit for
private open space 56%
44%
revising their ordinance 15%
% which do not permit credit
- -
D. For those responding without Quimby Ordinance:
1) Total without ordinance
2) % developing an ordinance
117
14%
E. Fees Charged:
Avera.qe Fee Per klling Unit
Single Family Multi-Family Pbbile Horns
basures
Gighted Average* $607 $786 $223
Simple Average $855 $683 $595
rvledian $4 50 $374 $213
Third Quartile
(25% above this munt) $908 $644 $440
First Quartile (25% below this munt) $240 $150 $125
* Weighted according to the nuder of new housing units produced in 1980.
-16-
Survey Results (Cant'd.)
G. Park Standard Used
The National Park and Recreation Open Space Standard
is 5 acres per 1,000 population.
Survey Findings: Wer
Ntlmber at National Standard 32
Number over National Standard 5
53
Sub to tal 90
Mer under National Standard -
Number not indicated or no 53 ordinance provided -
Total with Quimby Ordinance 143
%
35.5%
5.6%
58.9%
100.0%
-17-
CIRBll Construction Industry Research Board
1625 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 804 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381.6544 ll (800) 252-8109
PARK FEE SURVEY
The Quimby Act (Bus. and Prof. Gde Section 11546) permits cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring the dedication of land, payment of in-lieu fees or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a final subdivision mp. 'we are surveying California cities
and counties to assess the extent these fees are utilized.
Please complete this form and rem it to us in the attached self-addressed
stqed envelope.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Indicate below if you wish a copy of the survey results.
A,/
Assist'ant Melissa Ziady, Reseahih
h4/Ltu-/ % 6- Ben lhrtolotto, Research Director ;I
Your Name Telephone Plumber
Agency and Jurisdiction
1. Does your jurisdiction have an ordinance requiring dedication of park land or fees in lieu of dedication as a condition to Subdivision approval? Yes No
No A. If yes, is the ordinance being revised? Yes --
B. If you have no such ordinance, is me being developed? Yr No
2. If your jurisdiction uses fees in lieu of dedication, judging from your experience, what is the estimated average fee charged when the -- fee alone -- is used (i.e. , when credit for private open space and land mication are not involved) -
For Typical : Average Fee Charged
Single Family detached housing $- per unit
Single Family attached housing $- per unit Multi-Family housing $- per unit bbile Ibms $- per space Other
3.
4.
5.
Does your ordinance permit granting credit for private open space in subdivisions? Yes No
Please describe the way your in-lieu fees are camputed (use the reverse side of this page).
Please send us a copy of your ordinance with this form. stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
A self-addressed,
6. Do you wish a copy of the results of this survey? Ycs No -
-18-
3/31/81
PARK-IN-LIEU COMPUTATION
AT BUILD-OUT
EXISTING FORMULA
(1981 Dollars)
A. 60,000 acres A. Assessed Land Value
B. 69,354 B. Dwelling Units
C. 11,178 acres C. Acres in Parcel
D. 6.2 D. Dwelling Units Per L1cre
E. 1532 Sq. Ft.
F. 3.4%
BtC
E. Sq. Ft. Per Acre Required
(From Page 4 of' Ordinance)
F. Percent Park Land Required Per
Gross Acre of Subdivision
(From pg. 3 of Ordinance)
I
G 4.8691368 x lo8 G. Square Feet in Parcel (C x 43,560)
H. - H. Square Feet Assessed Land Value (A 1. G)
I. $1.38 I. Square Foot Market Value (H x A)
J. 380.052 J. Acres Required for Park Dedication
(C x F)'
K. 17,124,696 Sq. Ft. K. Square Feet Required for Park
Dedication (E x GI
1. $23,632,080 L. Fee in Lieu of Dedication (K x 1)
Total: $23,632,080
Data based on the General Plan and Series V.
EXHIBIT 2
-19-
PARK- IN- LIEU COMPUTATION
PROJECTED INCOME AT BUILD-OUT
PROPOSED FORMULA
(1981 Dollars)
Data based on the General Plan and Series V. There will be
69,354 new dwelling units. This figure was derived from the
projected density units of 80,112 at build-out.
The following is a breakdown of residential units by type and
the fees collected.
Cost Per
Units Unit - Fee
A. Single Family 27% or 18,725 $704 $13,182,400 (Detached Units)
B. Multi-Family 70% or 48,547 $464 $22,525,800
(20 or more units
per lot including
attached units)
C. Mobile Home 3% or 2,080 $406 $ 844,480,
Total $34,249,392
EXHIBIT 3 -20-