Last week ago, the issue of developer impact fees came up on the Vanguard in reference to a Tsakapolous project.
From the December 11, 2007 Sacramento Bee:
“A developer’s willingness to purchase water services in advance of home construction will help the El Dorado Irrigation District weather the downturn in the housing market.
The district board Monday approved an agreement with AKT Carson Creek Investors LLC that calls for the firm to pay nearly $4.34 million in facility capacity charges for water, wastewater and recycled water service in 2008 as an advance deposit on the fees that will be levied when the residential units are built. The company owns the Carson Creek properties in the El Dorado Hills area.
District counsel Tom Cumpston said the pact is similar to contracts the district entered into in the past through assessment districts and other advance funding agreements.”
This article in turn spawned a discussion as to whether Davis got its fair share of developer impact fees.
In that article I suggested:
“In short, the real question is are we asking developers to do enough in the city of Davis when we approve their plans?
I am not advocating more development here. Nor am I suggesting that developers need to take a loss on their project.
What I am suggesting is that we ask our developers to do more than we presently do. If they want to develop land adjacent to Davis, and we think these are good projects for the future, maybe, just maybe, we should ask for things in return, so that these developments do not negatively impact the city as much as they presently do.”
This issue came up to council on Tuesday of this week. City Staffer Paul Navazio proposed a new method for assessing developer impact fees. The proposal would raise the fees from a range of 12.19% to 38.38%.
The biggest of these increases would be single family dwellings which would increase by over 33%.
Nevertheless, in relative terms, as the chart demonstrates, Davis is getting among the lowest amount of developer impact fees of the jurisdictions that were sampled in the chart that is posted next to the article–particularly for single family dwellings, which make up a large percentage of new developments.
Mayor Sue Greenwald spoke passionately on this issue, at one point somewhat parodied Councilmember Saylor’s demeanor and delivery style.
“Year after year, our impact fees have been among the lowest of all cities we’ve looked at. Year after year, we always say in measured reasonable voices that we need more details, we’re making progress, we need more studies, more data, more plans, and year after year after year our developer fees are the lowest.
Right now I’m going to repeat, our water fee is the lowest of nine cities we looked at. It’s $2740, the water fee for Livermore which is a slow growth city is $22,775, ten times the size of our developer fee.
There’s no excuse for this. Every year since I’ve been on the council, at least the last six years I’ve been saying, there’s no excuse for this. And every year in measured voices, the council answers, well we have to study more, work on our methodology, get more details.”
Mayor Greenwald said she would “have to vote for this, otherwise we will get even lower developer fees.” However she did make a motion to get an independent, outside consultant to examine the fees, and see what we could legitimately and more reasonably charge developers, in an attempt to get a higher but more fair share for the city of Davis.
While the council passed the new impact fees as proposed, the Mayor lost in a 2-2 vote on the issue of an outside consultant examining whether the fee could be increased.
The bottom line for me is that there are very real costs that occur as the result of development, costs that actually make it not cost-effective for the city. A good illustrator of this point is the impact of West Village. Both the city and UC Davis would lose money on cost of services versus what they would recoup in one-time developer fees and property taxes.
This would seem a no-brainer issue for both sides. For those in favor of development, higher development impact fees might make the public and the council more willing to approve future housing projects. For those in favor of lower development, higher development impact fees means that the city can recoup more of its costs for water, public safety, and traffic impact. The cost of these services generally means that development is a losing prospect for the community.
Meanwhile Davis is going to grapple with increased water and sewer costs in the near future, allowing developers to pay more of their fair-share seems the only realistic way to go here. But again, the council majority does not seem to see it that way.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
As I watched the Council discuss this on Tuesday, I felt the Council was approaching this issue from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Sue Greenwald’s point that Davis’ fees are very low was made well . . . and I think it was an important point; however, the real issue is, What infrastructure needs does Davis have? Once we have a solid list of those needs, then the cost of providing those needs can be factored into calculating new (and supportable under State law) Development Impact Fees.
The deliberations of the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has brought many of these infrastructure needs to the forefront. I believe the HESC could make a valuable contribution to Davis if they added a list of those needs to the report they deliver to the Council in March. Creation of such a list would add very little incremental work to what they are already doing.
In the meantime, lets use this Blog to create our own list, which can be forwarded to both HESC and the Council. To that end, I’ll start with a few that come to mind:
— Solve the Downtown parking problem . . . both residential and commercial.
— Improve the traffic carrying capacity on Covell Boulevard.
— Pay for the State-mandated upgrades to the Water Treatment Facility
— Improve Emergency Response times in those portions of the City where they are too high.
That is a start. Please add your own.
As I watched the Council discuss this on Tuesday, I felt the Council was approaching this issue from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Sue Greenwald’s point that Davis’ fees are very low was made well . . . and I think it was an important point; however, the real issue is, What infrastructure needs does Davis have? Once we have a solid list of those needs, then the cost of providing those needs can be factored into calculating new (and supportable under State law) Development Impact Fees.
The deliberations of the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has brought many of these infrastructure needs to the forefront. I believe the HESC could make a valuable contribution to Davis if they added a list of those needs to the report they deliver to the Council in March. Creation of such a list would add very little incremental work to what they are already doing.
In the meantime, lets use this Blog to create our own list, which can be forwarded to both HESC and the Council. To that end, I’ll start with a few that come to mind:
— Solve the Downtown parking problem . . . both residential and commercial.
— Improve the traffic carrying capacity on Covell Boulevard.
— Pay for the State-mandated upgrades to the Water Treatment Facility
— Improve Emergency Response times in those portions of the City where they are too high.
That is a start. Please add your own.
As I watched the Council discuss this on Tuesday, I felt the Council was approaching this issue from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Sue Greenwald’s point that Davis’ fees are very low was made well . . . and I think it was an important point; however, the real issue is, What infrastructure needs does Davis have? Once we have a solid list of those needs, then the cost of providing those needs can be factored into calculating new (and supportable under State law) Development Impact Fees.
The deliberations of the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has brought many of these infrastructure needs to the forefront. I believe the HESC could make a valuable contribution to Davis if they added a list of those needs to the report they deliver to the Council in March. Creation of such a list would add very little incremental work to what they are already doing.
In the meantime, lets use this Blog to create our own list, which can be forwarded to both HESC and the Council. To that end, I’ll start with a few that come to mind:
— Solve the Downtown parking problem . . . both residential and commercial.
— Improve the traffic carrying capacity on Covell Boulevard.
— Pay for the State-mandated upgrades to the Water Treatment Facility
— Improve Emergency Response times in those portions of the City where they are too high.
That is a start. Please add your own.
As I watched the Council discuss this on Tuesday, I felt the Council was approaching this issue from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Sue Greenwald’s point that Davis’ fees are very low was made well . . . and I think it was an important point; however, the real issue is, What infrastructure needs does Davis have? Once we have a solid list of those needs, then the cost of providing those needs can be factored into calculating new (and supportable under State law) Development Impact Fees.
The deliberations of the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has brought many of these infrastructure needs to the forefront. I believe the HESC could make a valuable contribution to Davis if they added a list of those needs to the report they deliver to the Council in March. Creation of such a list would add very little incremental work to what they are already doing.
In the meantime, lets use this Blog to create our own list, which can be forwarded to both HESC and the Council. To that end, I’ll start with a few that come to mind:
— Solve the Downtown parking problem . . . both residential and commercial.
— Improve the traffic carrying capacity on Covell Boulevard.
— Pay for the State-mandated upgrades to the Water Treatment Facility
— Improve Emergency Response times in those portions of the City where they are too high.
That is a start. Please add your own.
I think you raise a good point here Matt.
One of the things that has always irked me has been that the city has allowed new developments in the core to pay in-lieu of parking fees rather than providing on-site parking.
A good example is the building across the from the train station, why did council permit them to put in that new building without on-site, underground parking?
I think you raise a good point here Matt.
One of the things that has always irked me has been that the city has allowed new developments in the core to pay in-lieu of parking fees rather than providing on-site parking.
A good example is the building across the from the train station, why did council permit them to put in that new building without on-site, underground parking?
I think you raise a good point here Matt.
One of the things that has always irked me has been that the city has allowed new developments in the core to pay in-lieu of parking fees rather than providing on-site parking.
A good example is the building across the from the train station, why did council permit them to put in that new building without on-site, underground parking?
I think you raise a good point here Matt.
One of the things that has always irked me has been that the city has allowed new developments in the core to pay in-lieu of parking fees rather than providing on-site parking.
A good example is the building across the from the train station, why did council permit them to put in that new building without on-site, underground parking?
Repeatedly, we have Saylor, Asmundson and Souza pushing for a surface water project costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
You would think they would vote to require developers to help pay for the cost of this tremedously expensive project.
But nooooooooo, they want to implement a series of taxes ostensibly to pay for services such as public safety, etc.
While it is certainly true that developer fees are fundametally different from ongoing taxes, the fact remains – if the city is in a poor financial situation when the time to pay for a big new water project or the required wastewater treatment upgrades comes around, the burden will be borne by Davis residents.
As Sue Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out, the combined cost of these huge projects will amount to several THOUSAND dollars per year PER HOUSEHOLD. Yet the Saylor/Asmundson/Souza bloc would rather force residents to pay that than to establish development fees that are even as high as surrounding communities.
I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.
Repeatedly, we have Saylor, Asmundson and Souza pushing for a surface water project costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
You would think they would vote to require developers to help pay for the cost of this tremedously expensive project.
But nooooooooo, they want to implement a series of taxes ostensibly to pay for services such as public safety, etc.
While it is certainly true that developer fees are fundametally different from ongoing taxes, the fact remains – if the city is in a poor financial situation when the time to pay for a big new water project or the required wastewater treatment upgrades comes around, the burden will be borne by Davis residents.
As Sue Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out, the combined cost of these huge projects will amount to several THOUSAND dollars per year PER HOUSEHOLD. Yet the Saylor/Asmundson/Souza bloc would rather force residents to pay that than to establish development fees that are even as high as surrounding communities.
I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.
Repeatedly, we have Saylor, Asmundson and Souza pushing for a surface water project costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
You would think they would vote to require developers to help pay for the cost of this tremedously expensive project.
But nooooooooo, they want to implement a series of taxes ostensibly to pay for services such as public safety, etc.
While it is certainly true that developer fees are fundametally different from ongoing taxes, the fact remains – if the city is in a poor financial situation when the time to pay for a big new water project or the required wastewater treatment upgrades comes around, the burden will be borne by Davis residents.
As Sue Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out, the combined cost of these huge projects will amount to several THOUSAND dollars per year PER HOUSEHOLD. Yet the Saylor/Asmundson/Souza bloc would rather force residents to pay that than to establish development fees that are even as high as surrounding communities.
I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.
Repeatedly, we have Saylor, Asmundson and Souza pushing for a surface water project costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
You would think they would vote to require developers to help pay for the cost of this tremedously expensive project.
But nooooooooo, they want to implement a series of taxes ostensibly to pay for services such as public safety, etc.
While it is certainly true that developer fees are fundametally different from ongoing taxes, the fact remains – if the city is in a poor financial situation when the time to pay for a big new water project or the required wastewater treatment upgrades comes around, the burden will be borne by Davis residents.
As Sue Greenwald has repeatedly pointed out, the combined cost of these huge projects will amount to several THOUSAND dollars per year PER HOUSEHOLD. Yet the Saylor/Asmundson/Souza bloc would rather force residents to pay that than to establish development fees that are even as high as surrounding communities.
I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.
dpd, I hear you regarding individual sites, but the downtown parking issue is much larger than individual sites. It is my understanding that the City is studying the possibility of using the Kinkos parking lot as a site for another multi-story parking garage. There are significant costs of such a project. IMHO it definitely is an infrastructure need. Therefore, recouping the costs of such a solution should be incorporated into the Development Impact Fees.
dpd, I hear you regarding individual sites, but the downtown parking issue is much larger than individual sites. It is my understanding that the City is studying the possibility of using the Kinkos parking lot as a site for another multi-story parking garage. There are significant costs of such a project. IMHO it definitely is an infrastructure need. Therefore, recouping the costs of such a solution should be incorporated into the Development Impact Fees.
dpd, I hear you regarding individual sites, but the downtown parking issue is much larger than individual sites. It is my understanding that the City is studying the possibility of using the Kinkos parking lot as a site for another multi-story parking garage. There are significant costs of such a project. IMHO it definitely is an infrastructure need. Therefore, recouping the costs of such a solution should be incorporated into the Development Impact Fees.
dpd, I hear you regarding individual sites, but the downtown parking issue is much larger than individual sites. It is my understanding that the City is studying the possibility of using the Kinkos parking lot as a site for another multi-story parking garage. There are significant costs of such a project. IMHO it definitely is an infrastructure need. Therefore, recouping the costs of such a solution should be incorporated into the Development Impact Fees.
I both agree and disagree. For instance, when they put in the new theater, that came with parking. But now they are putting in the Roe building, with no underground parking for it. I think if parking is provided along with new downtown business, you can reduce a lot of the problems.
I both agree and disagree. For instance, when they put in the new theater, that came with parking. But now they are putting in the Roe building, with no underground parking for it. I think if parking is provided along with new downtown business, you can reduce a lot of the problems.
I both agree and disagree. For instance, when they put in the new theater, that came with parking. But now they are putting in the Roe building, with no underground parking for it. I think if parking is provided along with new downtown business, you can reduce a lot of the problems.
I both agree and disagree. For instance, when they put in the new theater, that came with parking. But now they are putting in the Roe building, with no underground parking for it. I think if parking is provided along with new downtown business, you can reduce a lot of the problems.
We are on the same page. I agree that each individual project should address parking; however, the need for parking far exceeds the capabilities of individual projects. We need “both/and.”
Everyone, what other infrastructure needs do you think Davis needs?
We are on the same page. I agree that each individual project should address parking; however, the need for parking far exceeds the capabilities of individual projects. We need “both/and.”
Everyone, what other infrastructure needs do you think Davis needs?
We are on the same page. I agree that each individual project should address parking; however, the need for parking far exceeds the capabilities of individual projects. We need “both/and.”
Everyone, what other infrastructure needs do you think Davis needs?
We are on the same page. I agree that each individual project should address parking; however, the need for parking far exceeds the capabilities of individual projects. We need “both/and.”
Everyone, what other infrastructure needs do you think Davis needs?
dpd-
while i don’t agree with their reasoning 100%, many developers will claim that to build underground parking is too cost prohibitive to construct, and will limit them in building those types of projects like the Roe(5th & G) and Chen (across from the train station).
building above ground parking is much cheaper, by up to over 50% cheaper.
one thing that we may need to do is raise the height limit of buildings downtown, to include for retail, above ground parking and residential.
dpd-
while i don’t agree with their reasoning 100%, many developers will claim that to build underground parking is too cost prohibitive to construct, and will limit them in building those types of projects like the Roe(5th & G) and Chen (across from the train station).
building above ground parking is much cheaper, by up to over 50% cheaper.
one thing that we may need to do is raise the height limit of buildings downtown, to include for retail, above ground parking and residential.
dpd-
while i don’t agree with their reasoning 100%, many developers will claim that to build underground parking is too cost prohibitive to construct, and will limit them in building those types of projects like the Roe(5th & G) and Chen (across from the train station).
building above ground parking is much cheaper, by up to over 50% cheaper.
one thing that we may need to do is raise the height limit of buildings downtown, to include for retail, above ground parking and residential.
dpd-
while i don’t agree with their reasoning 100%, many developers will claim that to build underground parking is too cost prohibitive to construct, and will limit them in building those types of projects like the Roe(5th & G) and Chen (across from the train station).
building above ground parking is much cheaper, by up to over 50% cheaper.
one thing that we may need to do is raise the height limit of buildings downtown, to include for retail, above ground parking and residential.
As if Davis approves much development anyhow. Ha!
As if Davis approves much development anyhow. Ha!