Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017

Home

Table 1. Average Fees by Land Use and Facility Type, 2015 Facility Type:, urg e- Tuts, Family Family, (Unit) ;(Unit):, Retail Office Industrial (1,000 sf) " (1,000 sf), (1,000 sf Roads Water Wastewater Drainage Parks Library Fire Police General Government Schools Total Non -Utility* Total* $3,256 $2,201 $5,605 $4,038 $1,387 $647 $3,694 $1,777 $663 $1,397 $784 $1,056 $2,812 $2,099 $403 $314 ** ** $3,403 $606 $640 $891 ** ** $2,063 $627 $642 $1,097 ** ** $472 $347 $388 $339 $211 $365 $283 $403 $259 $171 $1,689 $1,200 $745 $751 $436 $4,769 $2,562 $8,298 $5,484 $6,165 $4,214 $2,751 $11,868 $6,870 $6,346 $4,536 $3,150 * Average of total fees charged by jurisdictions, n excludes water and wastewater ** rarely charged to nonresidential land uses, with related roads, parks, and utilities (i.e., water, wastewater, and drainage), whereas the high- est amounts of charges incurred by nonresi- dential uses are typically for impacts related to roads. (See Table 1.) According to National Impact Fee Sur- vey: 2015 prepared by Duncan Associates, with the exception of California, the average amounts of impact fees have been declining since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2008 (impactfees.com/publications%o2o pdf/2015_survey.pdf). However, the survey indicates that the increase of the amounts of impact fees charged in California slowed from 2012 to 2015. ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING AVALID DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM A well -planned fee program can generate sufficient funds to allow the city to mitigate impacts created by new development. Conversely, a poorly planned fee pro- gram can result in the city either collecting too little money and being forced to pay for new development through its general fund, or col- lecting too much money based on an unsup- ported fee program, thus exposing the city to a fee challenge and significant litigation costs. Accordingly, the following principles should guide the creation and implementation of a fee program. Identify and Plan for Areas of Future Growth Planners should be aware of where and how growth wilt occur in their jurisdiction and use this information to plan for specific public fa- cilities and infrastructure that may be needed ** ** ** of sum of average fees by facility type (non -utility the exception of school fees in California sa;eposs ueouna for future development. The local agency's comprehensive plan is a valuable tool for sharing this information. For example, if the agency's comprehen- sive plan projects new development to occur in a concentrated area geographically separat- It is essential that local agencies and planners understand and adhere to the Nollan/Dolan nexus and rough proportionality standards when calculating the amount of development impact fees to be imposed on a particular project. ed from existing development, new schools, fire stations, libraries, and other facilities may be required to service the new development. This will necessarily have an impact on the cost of new infrastructure and, of course, on the uses to which the resulting fee revenues may be devoted. Tailor Impact Fees to Address Specific Impacts It is important for local agencies and plan- ners to tailor each fee to address a particular impact, as broad -brush fees are subject to legal challenge and will likely result in appeals or payment of the fee under protest by the developer. Keep in mind that each fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the impact it is intended to mitigate and the agency must also be able to clearly account for each fee collected. Conversely, creating too many fee cate- gories may generate administrative difficulties in implementing and accounting for fees once they are collected from developers and project applicants. Don't Make New Development Pay More Than Its Fair Share It is essential that local agencies and planners understand and adhere to the Nollan/Dolan nexus and rough proportionality standards when calculating the amount of development impact fees to be imposed on a particular project. New development cannot be required to pay for existing deficiencies, and the amount of any impact fee must bear a reasonable re- lationship to the actual cost of providing the public services demanded by the new devel- opment on which the fee is imposed. If a development impact fee is excessive or fails to meet these constitutional stan- dards, a legal challenge by the developer is almost certain to result. Imposing Too Many Exactions May be Detrimental to the Local Economy It is axiomatic that a proposed development can only pay so many fees before the project wilt no longer "pencil out" for the developer. Thus, at the outset, a local agency should consider what types of developments are most affected by high impact fees and whether the kinds of development the agency wants to encourage within its jurisdiction will be helped or hindered by new fees. For example, housing advocates often argue that impact fees on residential projects can price many low- and moderate -income wage earners out of the local housing market and encourage developers to construct larger, more expensive homes, because high -end occupants can more easily absorb higher im- pact fees. Similarly, business groups often argue ZONINGPRACTICE 7.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 6