TITLE
Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Subsection (A) of Section 18.18.120; and by adding Subsection (C) to Section 18.18.050, all relating to park and recreation facilities fees, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)
DISCUSSION
On February 7, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance C-6567, establishing Park Impact Fees as Section 18.18 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. The fee is intended to pay for the cost of constructing the same level of service in parkland availability and recreational facilities for new residents of the city, as well as current residents.
From 1989 to September 30, 2006, a total of $12,362,150 in fees has been collected. The fees have purchased 15.23 acres of new or expanded parks, built 3,825 square feet of community recreation center buildings, developed a one-third acre nature reserve, and provided the equivalent of one new soccer field through lighting night play.
The park impact fees were originally set at $2,680 for single family residential development; $2,070 for multi-family development; $1,522 for manufactured housing; and $1,015 for an accessory residential unit, such as an artist studio or caretaker's unit. The implementation of the fee has been successful, but the purchasing power of the fee has significantly eroded over time. The California Construction Cost Index has climbed more than 65 percent since the fee was established in 1989. The current fee is no longer adequate to develop new parks and recreational facilities equal to those enjoyed by existing residents. Thus, staff is recommending that the fee be adjusted to maintain its value with inflation.
Under the State law governing the use of impact fees, a new study of the relationship of the fee to the impact it is supposed to mitigate is required. This is called a Nexus Study (Attachment A).
As stated in the Nexus Study, new residential development increases the population of a city by providing more places to live. The increased population adversely impacts parks and recreational resources through crowding and overuse, lowering the quality of life for existing and new residents. Only by providing additional parkland and recreational facilities can we mitigate this negative impact of residential growth. It should be noted that the Nexus Study is based on maintaining the current level of service, not on goals developed to improve the amount of parkland and recreational facilities available to residents. The Nexus Study is to ensure that the fees proposed do not exceed the cost to the City of providing additional parks and recreational facilities necessary to maintain the current level of service to the additional population. The Nexus Study concludes that the proposed fees are less than the full cost of providing additional parks and facilities.
As mentioned above, the implementation of the fee has generally been successful. However, one aspect of the procedure does require review. The issue is the method for calculating the number of units to apply the fee to. Currently, the fee is applied to all units that are being constructed under a building permit. There is no deduction for dwelling units that have previously existed on the site of the new construction, except for an exemption applied to a single family dwelling when it is replacing a single family dwelling.
The City Attorney's office has advised staff that recent court cases decided under the State law governing the use of impact fees indicates that a deduction for previously existing dwelling units should be included in the procedures. Thus, staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to deduct all dwelling units removed from the site within one year before proposed new construction.
A study of the fee burden on development of all existing and proposed City fees, including these park impact fees, was conducted by MuniFinancial in January 2007. The study indicated that the total fees on residential development, including this .increase, will not discourage new development. This study was presented to City Council on March 20, 2007, with the Public Safety Impact Fee, and is attached (Attachment B).
This study also compared Long Beach to Anaheim, Irvine, Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, San Diego, and San Jose. The proposed fees only slightly change the relative position of Long Beach to the other six cities, as being in the middle of the range when indexed to the value of the construction.
Two public outreach meetings were held on March 29, 2007 and July 11,2007, in which development impact fees, including police and fire facilities impact fees and park impact fees, were discussed. A summary of the discussion during the July 11 meeting is attached (Attachment C). Notice of the recommended changes were posted in the Press Telegram from June 8-18,2007, and mailed to all persons of interest identified by the City Clerk and the Planning and Building Department.
Deputy City Attorney Gary J. Anderson reviewed this matter and prepared the attached resolution and ordinance on June 7, 2007, and Budget and Performance Management Bureau Manager David Wodynski reviewed this matter on June 4,2007.
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
City Council action is requested to adjust the fee to maintain its value with inflation.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately $1,000,000 is expected to be collected in park impact fees during Fiscal Year 2007 (FY 07). If the current fee schedule were to remain in effect, approximately the same amount would be expected to be collected during Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08). If the recommendation is approved, an increase of approximately $580,000 would be collected in FY 08, for a total of approximately $1,580,000. Park impact fees are deposited into the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve recommendation.
BODY
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AMENDING THE LONG BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (A) OF SECTION 18.18.120; AND BY ADDING SUBSECTION (C) TO SECTION 18.18.050, ALL RELATING TO PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEES
Respectfully Submitted,
PHIL T. HESTER
DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND MARINE
APPROVED:
___________________________
ANTHONY W. BATTS
CITY MANAGER