HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Fee Update PC Study Session 10_11_2017October 11, 2017
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
presented to
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
presented by
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
0
Change bottom image
1
INTRODUCTION/ background
2
City of San Luis Obispo
City Manager’s Office
Community Development
Public Works
Parks and Recreation
Police
Fire
Utilities
Economic & Planning Systems
Teifion Rice-Evans, Managing Principal
Ashleigh Kanat, Executive Vice President
Jenny Lin, Associate
3
Change logo in header
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS (EPS)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) is a land economics consulting firm with over 30 years of experience in the full spectrum of services related to real estate development, the
financing of public infrastructure and government services, land use and conservation planning, and government organization.
Open Space and Resource Conservation
Reuse, Revitalization, and Redevelopment
Government Organization
Housing Development Feasibility and Policy
Transportation Planning and Analysis
Real Estate Market and Feasibility Analysis
Regional Economics and Industry Analysis
Public Finance
Land Use Planning and Growth Management
Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis
Areas of Expertise
Located in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, California; and Denver, Colorado
www.epsys.com
4
Impact fees are “one-time” charges to new development that can fund capital improvements required to serve new development
What can they fund?
Funds only infrastructure, capital facilities, and other capital items (e.g., police vehicles)
Funds only proportionate share of costs associated
with new development (“nexus”)
Non-fee funded portion must be funded through other sources
Cannot fund ongoing services or operating costs
Part of City’s overall infrastructure financing program
5
Impact fees must be adopted consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000)
New development impact fees are adopted pursuant to a technical nexus study that must address:
Purpose of the Fee
Use of the Fee Revenue
Relationship between new development and new capital facilities
Need for new capital facilities
Proportionality between costs of facilities required to serve new development and fee levels
6
Study Scope and Objectives
7
8
Consistent with General Plan Policy 1.13.9, ensure that new development pays its proportionate share of infrastructure costs
Generate revenue to pay for infrastructure needed to mitigate the effects of new development
Ensure process is transparent
Simplify existing fee programs where possible (e.g., reconcile land use categories, reduce geographic fee level variations)
Track and coordinate pending development applications, existing commitments, reimbursement obligations
Manage development feasibility implications
Consider ease of administration
Reflect stakeholder outreach
9
Fees are investments in necessary infrastructure and contribute to the City’s quality of life
Impact fees provide certainty to developers in terms of City infrastructure/ capital requirements
Impact fees add to the cost of new construction and can affect development feasibility
Aggregate fee burdens are sometimes moderated to provide funding for necessary capital facilities while balancing development feasibility
10
Fee Programs
11
Time Horizon
General Plan Buildout (2035) and Development Capacity
Land Use Categories
Single Family
Multifamily
Office
Service
Retail
Industrial
Institutional
Hotel
12
New Fee: Ensure that new development pays a proportional share of costs related to future civic facility space needs, including construction of a new City Hall and Public Works/ Community
Development office space.
13
14
Fee Summary
Generates a total revenue of
$4.26 Million
15
New Fee: Ensure that new development pays a proportional share of costs related to future capital improvements identified in the Fire Master Plan, including vehicles.
16
17
Fee Summary
Generates a total revenue of
$3.47 Million
18
New Fee. Ensure that new development pays a proportional share of costs related to future capital improvements, such as the Police Headquarters facility and vehicles.
19
20
Fee Summary
Generates a total revenue of
$4.12 Million
21
Updated Fee: Ensure that new development, including multifamily rental and commercial, pays a proportional share of costs related to acquiring and improving parkland.
22
23
24
25
Updated Fee: Ensure that new development pays a proportional share of costs related to future transportation improvements.
26
27
28
29
* Includes financing costs for Highway 101/ Prado Road Interchange, Highway 101/LOVR Interchange, and Prado Road Bridge W. of Higuera
30
Fee Program:
$169.4 M
City:
$66.9 M
Regional Funding:
$33.1 M
Fees Collected:
$6.3 M
31
Fee Summary
Generates a total revenue of
$169.4 Million
32
Fee Comparison
33
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: Parks
Comparable Cities w/o Parks Fees
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
-Napa
-Davis
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
% Above Base
% Below Base
KEY
34
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: General Government
Comparable Cities w/o General Government Fees
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Davis
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
% Above Base
% Below Base
KEY
35
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: Public Safety
Comparable Cities w/o Public Safety Fees
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Davis
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
% Above Base
% Below Base
36
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: Transportation
Comparable Cities w/o Transportation Fees
-Davis
% Above Base
% Below Base
37
Feasibility considerations
38
Single Family (per Unit)
39
Single Family (per Unit)
*reflects Staff recommendation
10 % of Market Value
15 % of Market Value
20 % of Market Value
*
*
40
Multifamily (per Unit)
*
*
*
41
Office/ Business Park (per Sq.Ft)
*
*
*
42
Office/ Service (per Sq.Ft)
*
*
*
43
Retail (per Sq.Ft)
*
*
*
44
Next Steps
45
Preliminary fee calculations
Feasibility testing and fee comparisons (iterative!)
Policy-based adjustments (e.g., retail and hotel discounts)
Final fee recommendations
Implementation/Administration: oversizing – fee credits and reimbursements
46
Is there support to adopt and implement the following new fee programs:
General Government?
Fire and Police?
Presumes other funding is/will be available for remainder of costs.
47
Parks
Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge parkland and park improvement fees for multifamily residential and commercial development?
48
Transportation
Is there support to simplify the geographic zones: North Area and South Area?
Is there agreement that it is appropriate to leave the LOVR and OASP fee programs in place?
49
Feasibility and Fee Levels
For each land use category, are there questions or concerns about the following:
Components of the overall fee burden?
Feasibility implications?
Fee levels?
Is there support for approving fee discounts (e.g., retail)?
50
51
Discussion and questions
52