The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-Parks and Recreation . CIT~ OF SAN BERNARDIt16 - -'- REQU~T FOR COUNCIL AC~ON From: Annie F. Ramos, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Services Dept: Date: December 20, 1985 Subject: Staff Report and Recommendation relevant to the City's Park Development Fee Schedule Synopsis of Previous Council action: NONE Recommended motion: That the report and recommendation by the Parks, Recreation & Community Services Staff and commission be referred to the Ways & Means Committee. tZ ') ~- Signature Contact person: Annie F. Ramos Phone: 383-5030 Supporting data attached: Staff report w/supporting data Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Sou ree: Finance: Council Notes: ....'" n?':" AQenda Item No, /,t., . CIT~ OF SAN BERNARDI~O - REQU~T FOR COUNCIL AC~ON STAFF REPORT The Parks, Recreation & Community Services Department was directed by the City Administrator to review the park development fees in comparison to other cities and to make a recommendation as to whether any adjustment should be made. Department staff jointly with a Parks and Recreation Committee reviewed the City's existing park development fee schedule as well as those from other California cities of comparable size and from neighboring cities. The research indicated that the City's park development fees were one of the lowest compared to those cities utilizing the park development fee ordinance. At their November 21, 1985 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission made a recommendation based on the data researched and the potential growth demand that~e park development fees should be raised. Supporting data is attached. .. - c o :.) e8Bt_~Q~3!BY~!lQ~_E~~_EY~Q J !!Hks.!:2!H!Q City privilese 1Il0bi Ie home follows: Ordinance Number 3714 imposed a fee on the of conitructins residential dwellins units and lots. Fees for each type of construction are as A sum equivalent of 1/2 of 11. of the cost of the improvements for each one-fami Iy dwe II ins constructed, as determi ned by the bui Idins permit, or the sum of $175, whichever is srea- ter. A sum equivalent to 1/4 of 11. of the improvements for each residential dwellins unit constructed in a multiple dwellins containins at least two (2) or more residential dwel I ins units, as determined by the bui IdinS permit, or the sum of $125, whichever is sreater. A sum equivalent to 1/4 of 11. of the improvements mobilehome lot constructed in a mobi lehome park or park subdivision, as determined by the buildins the sum of $75, whichever is sreater. for each mob i I ehome permi t, or Attachment number 1, Park Construction Fee Summary, shows the number of ~esidential units, by catesory, constructed in the City FY 1980-81 to November 30, 1985 for which fees would be collected. Based on the flat minimum rates of $175 in sinsle family dwellinss, $125 for multiple dwell inss and $75 for Mobilehome lot constructions, the chart shows the amount of fees which could have been collected. This amount is compared with the actual collection totals for each fiscal year. The difference between the potential and actual fisures is because of two primary provisions of the ord i nance: (ll is sreater collected. When the percentase rate on the construction cost than the flat minimum rate, the sreater amount is (2 i er may be dedi cated In I ieu of all or a portion of the fees, a develop- sranted credit for land and improvements which are in fee to publ ic recreation and park purposes. Durins these years, some constructions have been such that the percentase rate would have appl ied. Also, durins these years, developers have dedicated property and improve- ments such as the property at Hi Ilcrest Park and the land and improvements at Colony Park. ~z: llit [Z JJO rg :J . 1,,:1 I" ,U:,:-,Jjidj::J311 .. - - c I""- ,.-.,. E!rK_~2n~!rY~!12n_E~~_EY~_~1!h_r~~2mm~~~Q_~h!n3~~ J The Park and Recreation Commission suggested the follow- ing increases to the Park Construction Fee schedule: Single Fami Iy Dwell ing 3/4 of 11. of Cost of of Improvements, or $300, whichever is greater. M u I tip I e Dwe I I i n gUn its containing 2 or more residential dwelling units. 1/2 of 11. of Cost of Improvements, or $250, whi chever is greater. Mobile Home Lot Construction in a Mobile Home Park or sub-divis ions. 1/2 of 11. of Cost of Improvements, or $150, whichever is greater. Using these suggested rates and the 1985-86 construction unit figures through November 30, 1985, the following in- crease may be projected and wi I I show the effect the sug- gested rates could have as compared to current rates: Category & Suggested Rates Units Amount Amount at Current Rate Single Fami Apartment Mobilehome Iy - $300 - $250 - $150 191 808 35 $57,300 $202,000 $ 5,250 $33,425 $101,000 $ 26,225 TOTAL $264,550 $137,050 t!1~!H1BL!:l!!! The Ordinance imposing the fees was adopted in Apri I 1978. Since inception of the fee ordinance through November 30, 1985, the City has co II ected a tota I of $1,487,102. Budget approved expenditures during that same period have been $1,432,145 with $217,520 being approved for 1985-86. The projected revenue from Park Construction fees in 1985-86 is $250,000. The Funds have been used as matching funds with State and Federally funded projects as wel I as for projects funded only by City. While the funds have been extremely helpful in meeting some of the ongoing development and rehabil itation needs in our City Park system, the number of parks, the heavy use, the age and thus deterioration of faci I ities and equip- ment, and the ever expanding needs of our community have required that the funds be incrementally added to some faei I ity projects thus stretchir,g the rehabi I itation and development over two to three years. At the same time, the fund~ have been used at faci I ities and sites that have demanded immediate attention and often times have amounted to a band-aid approach to improvements as the department awaited the next increment of funding_ - -- C ~Q!H.!!!21Q!H o o :) With the increasing reduction in federal block grants and other federal funding and the keen competition developing in the latest state grant programs, it is imperative that the City develop funding mechanisms to meet the development and rehabi I itation needs of our parks and recreation faci I ities. In addition to these anticipated reductions in state and federal funds, the escalation of costs for construction, equipment, labor and other related costs for development and rehabi litation projects has far exceeded our abi I ity to keep up wi thout some incr~ases in fund ing at some level. The increase in Park Construction fee is one method by which funds may be raised in an effort to meet the needs of Park and Recreat i on fat i I i ty deve I opment and rehab I I i tat I on. Attached are data comparing San Bernardino with other Cities which have park development fees (attachment 2) and a chart showing the average amount of total fees which developers pay per dwell ing unit in cities in the immediate area (attachment 3). ATTACHMENTS 1. PARK CONSTRUCTION FEE SUMMARY 2. COMPARISON OF PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE WITH SURROUNDING CITIES 3. COMPARISON OF TOTAL FEES PER DWELLING UNIT WITH SURROUNDING CITIES 12-23-85 C Q n:P O-toA-::S;3: _3:P _-"Ul r :) on -..JOO o--'~-O .....Q,I ...... "'''' M' r-l -l 0130' N::O'" -..J3::O M'M' rc :P ~ ~, 01M'"" (J"l......l.Q ~~ M' ",:P r ~ M' ~~ II> ::r nr ~ , '<~ 0 ~ -l , "".';2 - -0 0 "" Z ~ Ul N -..J "'" C II> N W W ::0 ~ 0--' en 01 ::0 , , I M' M' - - II> 0--' 0--' - - - , "" '" co 0--' '" -..J :P '" 0 "'" en N en 3CO M' . 00 ~ co -..J 01 0 0--' '" , 0 0 -..J 0, N ::0 CO 0 '" 0 01 0 01 M' 0--' .." () 0 ~ ~ ~ () 0--' W 0--' C M' 0--' W en ::0 01 0--' co ~. 0 , I , M' ::0 II> - - - - - , -..J -..J "'" N :P M' W '" co 0--' '" 3CO ::r . . 00--' ~ 0 "'" en w "'" '" , 01 0 N -..J 0 ::0 CO 0--' co 0 01 01 0 M' N '" co 01 I ~ co '" en II> " M' 0--' W N C () :P 0 0--' "'" N ::0 '" ;;0 M' en 01 en ~. "" "" '" I I , M' "" II> ~ n - - - - - , ::00 () 01 '" "'" w :P M'Z :P 0 0--' 0--' co W '" 3CO Ul -l '" . ON '< -l -l ~ -..J W -..J 0--' 01 '" , ;;0 :P 0. 0--' -..J 0 N 01 ::0 CO C n 0--' 01 0 01 0 M' W 3 n :I: "" -0 -l 3: ~ 0 - ", '" II> 0 Z () ~ ~ -l ::r 0--' - 0--' 01 en c w 0--' co en ::0 0 co 0 en ~. '" , , , M' II> 0 - - - - - , 0 0--' 0--' 0--' :P 0 '" '" -..J 0--' 3CO co -..J co N en ow . '" , -..J '" 00 01 01 ::000 N 0 01 0 01 M'"," W 0 0 0 0 0--' 0--' N W C W 01 W ::0 0 01 "'" ~, , , , M' - - - II> N N - 0--' - , "'" N 01 01 :P 0 01 '" en co 300 . a"'" 0--' 0 -..J co "'" '" , N -..J 01 -..J 01 ::000 -..J 01 0 01 0 M' 01 " "" 0 ,-" o--'~ ~ 0--'''' () .....11> M' W 00 0--' C ~ 00 w 0 '" ::0 0. ~.." 01 CO 0--' ~, ~ , , , M' - - - - II> N 0--' 0--' - 0--' - I 01 N W N 0 w :P 0 CO -..J en 0--' w 300 . . 001 0 -..J 0 N 0 "'" c:: , 0 -..J 01 N 0 N ::000 0 01 0 01 0 01 M' en ~ Z 0 < w 0 c o o 12-23-85 J COMPARISON OF PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES WITH SURROUNDING CITIES !;IE :21~!2bs_E~!HbY M!dbIlEbs MONTCLAIR $1,020.00 $ 780.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA $ 906.00 $ 542.00 \ CHINO $ 698.00 $ 402.00 FONTANA $ 640.00 $ 417.00 ONTARIO $ 540.00 $ 468.00 UPLAND $ 240.00 $ 190.00 POMONA $ 175.00 $ 150.00 SAN BERNARDINO $ 175.00 $ 125.00 CURRENT AVERAGE $ 549.00 $ 384.00 --------------- SAN BERNARDINO (PROPOSED) $ 300.00 $ 250.00 ATTACHMENT 2 c o o A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FEE PAYABLE PER DWELLING UNIT RANCHO CUCAMONGA $ 7,376 CHINO $ 6,625 FONTANA $ 4,867 ONTARIO $ 4,560 POMONA $ 4,2:92: MONTCLAIR $ 4,2:35 UPLAND $ 3,866 SAN BERNARDINO $ 3,2:40 SAN BERNARDINO (PROPOSED INCREASE) $ 3,540 ATTACHMENT :;; - ~ J