My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet_2022-05-17
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
05/17/2022 Special and Regular
>
Agenda Packet_2022-05-17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2022 3:10:44 PM
Creation date
5/16/2022 2:16:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Date
5/17/2022
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1584
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Exhibit 1 <br />Implied Costs Per Acre of Parkland <br />Another approach to assessing the <br />appropriateness of the current fee level is to <br />focus more specifically on the future parks <br />needs of new residents and the costs and fees <br />associated with meeting those needs. While the <br />PIMP recommends 1.5 acres per 1,000 residents <br />for parkland, the City's Municipal Code sets <br />a parkland standard of two acres per 1,000 <br />residents. To meet this standard for the projected <br />new residents, the City would need to provide <br />nearly 56 additional acres of parkland. If the <br />current fee levels generate $43M in revenues, <br />then the City could provide this additional park <br />acreage only if parkland acquisition costs are <br />approximately $775,000 per acre (Table 8-6). <br />However, the City of Santa Ana estimates that park <br />acquisition will cost approximately $2.25 million <br />per acre (see Appendix E) — three times the cost <br />that could be funded through current fee levels. <br />If the City updated its Nexus Study to include <br />these higher acreage costs, the maximum <br />justifiable fee could increase by close to three <br />times. If such a fee increase were justified and <br />adopted, the expected fee revenues would <br />increase substantially, and fee funding from <br />new residential development would cover <br />a larger proportion of the City's envisioned <br />parks and recreation investments. <br />The City's current fees are inadequate to <br />support the investments needed to achieve <br />PIMP recommendations for new residential <br />developments. Impact fees also do not <br />address the current deficiencies in parkland <br />in existing residential areas. <br />TABLE 8-6: IMPLIED PARKLAND ACREAGE COSTS BASED ON CITY SERVICE STANDARD <br />FEE UPDATE OPTIONS <br />To implement the Master Plan, the City should <br />consider three primary changes as part of a <br />potential fee program update: <br />• Increase the fee; <br />• Remove the district structure; and <br />• Charge fees on wider range of land uses. <br />These changes are not mutually exclusive, and <br />the City may undertake them in any combination. <br />Approaches to these potential changes are <br />detailed below. However, the fee program, even <br />when updated, will be limited in its potential <br />to fund recommended improvements. The City <br />will have to pursue additional funding sources, <br />including other municipal revenue sources and <br />grant programs, to fully realized the community's <br />vision for the park and recreation system. <br />Increase the Fee Level <br />time. To set the fee at an appropriate level, the <br />City should compare current and potential new fees <br />with neighboring and peer cities in the region. <br />Remove the District Structure <br />The current district structure for fee collection <br />and expenditures targets new park investments <br />in the same areas that experience new residential <br />growth. While there is a logic to this "return -to - <br />source" approach, it is also limiting. For example, <br />the distribution of fee revenues in recent years <br />has been weighted towards one district. The City <br />must spend fee revenues in that district. This is <br />true even if there are no realistic opportunities for <br />parkland acquisition in that district and even if a <br />new park may serve residents in several districts or <br />Citywide. If the City were to shift to a citywide fee, <br />it would have more flexibility in directing financial <br />resources to areas with the best opportunities <br />for developing new parks. A citywide fee is more <br />common approach among California jurisdictions. <br />Charge Fee to Additional Land Uses <br />The existing Residential Development Impact Fee <br />is only charged on new residential development. <br />However, there are cities throughout California <br />that also charge park impact fees on non- <br />residential land uses, such as hotel, office, and <br />industrial uses (among others). Charging non- <br />residential impact fees recognizes that workers <br />and visitors use City parks as well. If the City is <br />expecting significant new employment growth, <br />it should consider this change. Depending on <br />City policy, this shift may not increase the total <br />fee revenue generation, but spreads the costs <br />associated with new development more widely <br />See Table 2. lull t1 m fee-bat—t'tcthemazi.rnmmiivov across new projects. The result, however, is that <br />Sources: City of Santa A�ia;ityride®Ufgdt.rvey, EPS 1 4 — 1 1 4 level and/or to phase in the fee increase over fees for resider7tA71 1202e2might decrease. <br />Exhibit A <br />® SANTA ANA PARKS MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 8: ACTION PLAN <br />Projected Population Growth through 2030 [1] a 27,817 <br />Parkland Acreage Standard Per 1,000 People [2] b 2 <br />Parkland Acreage Needs for New Population c=(a/1000)*b 55.63 <br />Est. Fee Revenue Generated by New Units [3] <br />d $42,999,049 <br />The City of Santa Ana should complete a <br />Development Impact Fee Nexus Study to <br />determine the appropriate level for impact fees <br />to help implement PIMP recommendations. The <br />Nexus Study would consider the appropriate <br />approach to determining the parks and recreation <br />facility costs associated with new development. <br />It would also determine the legally supportable <br />fee level that the City could charge based on the <br />requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. <br />Implied Cost Per Parkland Acre I e=d/c $772,892 <br />As part of a Nexus Study, the City should consider <br />2019 population and population growth projections provided by City of Santa Ana. 2020 U.S. Census data show that population the impact that an increased fee level would have <br />growth in Santa Ana has been slower than the 2018 Orange County projections. When State and Orange County projections are <br />updated in 2022, these trends may change. on the costs of new development. If the potential <br />IAs adopted in City of Santa Ana's Municipal Code Chapter35 Article IV. fee increase is significant the City may choose to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.