HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2018 Item 12, Montgomery
From:Montgomery, Victor <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study - Session #2
Members of the City Council, I recently reviewed the staff report for tonight’s meeting. I have the following questions
and comments:
1. In the prototype charts I noticed the “feasibility” threshold lines determined by EPS in prior examples have been
deleted. Why?
2. The prototype examples for Avila Ranch where impact fees exceed 15% of sales price do not seem reasonable or
feasible.
3. What transportation fee projects have been deleted or deferred from the project list? If any?
4. What is the nexus between commercial projects and Park impact fees?
5. The Park land requirement for annexations into the City is 10acres/1000 people. This is 2x the typical City SLO
requirements and exceeds what I have encountered in other communities. Can the City afford to maintain
10acres of improved park land per 1000 residents on a long term, on-going basis? Is the annexation standard too
“rich”.
6. Packet page 312, item C.
Item #1 – yes, we all use all the City streets
Item #2 – yes, we all use all the City streets
7. Packet page 312, “Other Funding Considerations”
How would a “parcel tax” work?
8. Industrial Development Prototype – Who was contacted or coordinated with as the relevant developers?
9. The Industrial Development Prototype:
What were the assumptions used to determine these fees?
Doubling fees in the “South Area” - is this feasible within the rent structure that is achievable? In my
experience you cannot feasibly double fees and have a project remain feasible unless the rents increase
dramatically (rents are not rapidly escalating in this market sector).
I provided an example of a real industrial project approved 2016 and completed in 2017 and the actual
fees paid – the numbers in this staff report seem significantly lower (see first bullet above).
Thank you for considering my comments.
Victor Montgomery
1