1 / 12

Residential Impact Fee - Nexus Study Update City of Pasadena Conclusions & Findings Prepared by

Residential Impact Fee - Nexus Study Update City of Pasadena Conclusions & Findings Prepared by Brion & Associates In association with Nilsson Consulting September 22, 2014. Overview Update to the 2005 RIF nexus study RIF raised $19.4 million and $2 million in interest

karyn-stanley
Download Presentation

Residential Impact Fee - Nexus Study Update City of Pasadena Conclusions & Findings Prepared by

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Residential Impact Fee - Nexus Study Update City of Pasadena Conclusions & Findings Prepared by Brion & Associates In association with Nilsson Consulting September 22, 2014

  2. Overview • Update to the 2005 RIF nexus study • RIF raised $19.4 million and $2 million in interest • Nexus study based on General Plan and MFA: • Fee funded facility must relate to the project paying fee • Fees must be reasonable cost of the project’s proportionate share. • Fee can’t fund existing development needs, or normal operations, or on-going maintenance costs • Capital replacement costs are allowed

  3. Nexus Studies Requirements: • The purpose of the fee; • The specific use of the fee; • The reasonable relationship between the facility and development charged the fee; • The need for the facility related to development; and • The proportionality of the cost specifically attributable to new development.

  4. Current Conditions • The City currently has • 30 parks with 373 acres • 260 acres of open space • Since 2005, the City acquired 4 new parks • Totaling 32 acres • Expanded two existing parks by 32 acres • For a total of 64 new acres of parkland

  5. Demographics & Growth • Dwelling Units: 60,500 • Household population: 137,000 • New Growth to 2035: • 12,900 dwelling units • 24,700 new residents • Multi-family and condominiums will dominate growth • New population is 15.2% of total at 2035

  6. Park Data • 4.62 park acres per 1,000 population • Includes parkland and open space • Current Park CIP costs for 2014-2018 total $124 million • City’s share is $105 million • New population’s share is $19 million (15.2%)

  7. Park and Recreation Standards & Costs • New development requires • 67.2 acres of new parkland • 46.6 acres of open space • Average parkland price: $3.8 million per acre • Average open space price: $244,500 per acre Total park and open space costs: $302.7 million

  8. Allowable Fee Per Nexus Study • Current RIF fee: • About $16,600 to $30,800 per unit • Allowable RIF fee: • Ranges from about $23,500 to $43,600 per unit • Average fee is $28,486 per unit • RIF fees could increase by 42%

  9. Fee Comparison • What do other cities charge new development for parks? • Fees vary greatly • Fees based on market land values are higher and more comparable • Higher fees have the potential to provide new parkland in a reasonable time frame. • How do other cities spend revenues from park fee programs? • Spent on: • Capital improvements • Land purchases • Physical development of parkland • How successful are other park fee programs? • Cities that responded found their fees were successful or very successful. • Cities receiving large revenues from their park fees are able to upgrade parks and recreational facilities and acquire additional parkland

  10. Fixed Spending Ratio • Flexibility is key in fee programs • Land acquisition opportunities are few and far between – can tie up monies longer than 5 years • Fees need to be used to leverage other grants and matching funds • City should target fees to districts but not restrict them • Capital replacement enhances existing parks to serve new development

More Related