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!
As if Davis approves much development anyhow. Ha!
As if Davis approves much development anyhow. Ha!
re “I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.”
Will the voters elect a Council majority that is not beholden to the “deep pockets”? Don Saylor is up for reelection to our Council as his eyes are fixed unwaveringly on an Assembly seat while he “treads water” on our Council for the next four years. Voters will decide whether his reelection is in their best interests. Steve Souza has proclaimed that his reelection to our Council will be his last foray for elective office as he now discards his political image of the “Decider” for a populist mantle. We will see if the voters accept his proclamations and new persona, ignoring his public record in office.
re “I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.”
Will the voters elect a Council majority that is not beholden to the “deep pockets”? Don Saylor is up for reelection to our Council as his eyes are fixed unwaveringly on an Assembly seat while he “treads water” on our Council for the next four years. Voters will decide whether his reelection is in their best interests. Steve Souza has proclaimed that his reelection to our Council will be his last foray for elective office as he now discards his political image of the “Decider” for a populist mantle. We will see if the voters accept his proclamations and new persona, ignoring his public record in office.
re “I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.”
Will the voters elect a Council majority that is not beholden to the “deep pockets”? Don Saylor is up for reelection to our Council as his eyes are fixed unwaveringly on an Assembly seat while he “treads water” on our Council for the next four years. Voters will decide whether his reelection is in their best interests. Steve Souza has proclaimed that his reelection to our Council will be his last foray for elective office as he now discards his political image of the “Decider” for a populist mantle. We will see if the voters accept his proclamations and new persona, ignoring his public record in office.
re “I hope Davis voters will wake up on election day, but I fear we will not.”
Will the voters elect a Council majority that is not beholden to the “deep pockets”? Don Saylor is up for reelection to our Council as his eyes are fixed unwaveringly on an Assembly seat while he “treads water” on our Council for the next four years. Voters will decide whether his reelection is in their best interests. Steve Souza has proclaimed that his reelection to our Council will be his last foray for elective office as he now discards his political image of the “Decider” for a populist mantle. We will see if the voters accept his proclamations and new persona, ignoring his public record in office.
“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.”
You don’t have any idea what you are talking about, DPD.
Charging for in-lieu parking is a much better urban planning idea than forcing developments to build their own parking spaces on site.
The only exception to this is with very large land developments, like the USDA project at 5th & G.
The reason has to do with economies of scale. Most developments in downtown Davis require 8-10 or fewer parking places. When you consider the cost of land and understand that underground parking is prohibitively expensive, making a building owner (such as the Chens) provide on-site parking would end up costing about $50-75,000 a space.
However, if you build a single large parking garage with 500 spaces or so, it only costs about $5,000-$10,000 per space.
So every small building owner is much better off paying an in-lieu fee (which is now too low in Davis) and getting his parking in a single large parking garage.
Also, you apparently don’t understand that we have too much land already dedicated to parking. The result is low-density development, which in the end causes peripheral sprawl and the erosion of farmland.
It is true that a peak demand, every space is full. However, that is at most 1-2 hours a day, a few days a week. Most of the time, there is already plenty of parking. You can solve the peak demand problem by charging more money for the premium spaces and diverting those funds to providing more buses, vans and so on at that time.
It is unwise for every development to have to provide its own peak demand parking requirements. That is just what stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot do. And the result is giant empty parking lots most days of the year, most times of the day.
We don’t want that in downtown Davis or anywhere else in town. It is bad urban planning.
“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.”
You don’t have any idea what you are talking about, DPD.
Charging for in-lieu parking is a much better urban planning idea than forcing developments to build their own parking spaces on site.
The only exception to this is with very large land developments, like the USDA project at 5th & G.
The reason has to do with economies of scale. Most developments in downtown Davis require 8-10 or fewer parking places. When you consider the cost of land and understand that underground parking is prohibitively expensive, making a building owner (such as the Chens) provide on-site parking would end up costing about $50-75,000 a space.
However, if you build a single large parking garage with 500 spaces or so, it only costs about $5,000-$10,000 per space.
So every small building owner is much better off paying an in-lieu fee (which is now too low in Davis) and getting his parking in a single large parking garage.
Also, you apparently don’t understand that we have too much land already dedicated to parking. The result is low-density development, which in the end causes peripheral sprawl and the erosion of farmland.
It is true that a peak demand, every space is full. However, that is at most 1-2 hours a day, a few days a week. Most of the time, there is already plenty of parking. You can solve the peak demand problem by charging more money for the premium spaces and diverting those funds to providing more buses, vans and so on at that time.
It is unwise for every development to have to provide its own peak demand parking requirements. That is just what stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot do. And the result is giant empty parking lots most days of the year, most times of the day.
We don’t want that in downtown Davis or anywhere else in town. It is bad urban planning.
“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.”
You don’t have any idea what you are talking about, DPD.
Charging for in-lieu parking is a much better urban planning idea than forcing developments to build their own parking spaces on site.
The only exception to this is with very large land developments, like the USDA project at 5th & G.
The reason has to do with economies of scale. Most developments in downtown Davis require 8-10 or fewer parking places. When you consider the cost of land and understand that underground parking is prohibitively expensive, making a building owner (such as the Chens) provide on-site parking would end up costing about $50-75,000 a space.
However, if you build a single large parking garage with 500 spaces or so, it only costs about $5,000-$10,000 per space.
So every small building owner is much better off paying an in-lieu fee (which is now too low in Davis) and getting his parking in a single large parking garage.
Also, you apparently don’t understand that we have too much land already dedicated to parking. The result is low-density development, which in the end causes peripheral sprawl and the erosion of farmland.
It is true that a peak demand, every space is full. However, that is at most 1-2 hours a day, a few days a week. Most of the time, there is already plenty of parking. You can solve the peak demand problem by charging more money for the premium spaces and diverting those funds to providing more buses, vans and so on at that time.
It is unwise for every development to have to provide its own peak demand parking requirements. That is just what stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot do. And the result is giant empty parking lots most days of the year, most times of the day.
We don’t want that in downtown Davis or anywhere else in town. It is bad urban planning.
“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.”
You don’t have any idea what you are talking about, DPD.
Charging for in-lieu parking is a much better urban planning idea than forcing developments to build their own parking spaces on site.
The only exception to this is with very large land developments, like the USDA project at 5th & G.
The reason has to do with economies of scale. Most developments in downtown Davis require 8-10 or fewer parking places. When you consider the cost of land and understand that underground parking is prohibitively expensive, making a building owner (such as the Chens) provide on-site parking would end up costing about $50-75,000 a space.
However, if you build a single large parking garage with 500 spaces or so, it only costs about $5,000-$10,000 per space.
So every small building owner is much better off paying an in-lieu fee (which is now too low in Davis) and getting his parking in a single large parking garage.
Also, you apparently don’t understand that we have too much land already dedicated to parking. The result is low-density development, which in the end causes peripheral sprawl and the erosion of farmland.
It is true that a peak demand, every space is full. However, that is at most 1-2 hours a day, a few days a week. Most of the time, there is already plenty of parking. You can solve the peak demand problem by charging more money for the premium spaces and diverting those funds to providing more buses, vans and so on at that time.
It is unwise for every development to have to provide its own peak demand parking requirements. That is just what stores like Wal-Mart and Home Depot do. And the result is giant empty parking lots most days of the year, most times of the day.
We don’t want that in downtown Davis or anywhere else in town. It is bad urban planning.
And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…
And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…
And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…
And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…
“And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…”
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
“And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…”
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
“And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…”
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
“And the in-lieu fees are less than the cost of parking spaces…”
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
Anonymous said…
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
That is exactly the model that should be followed with respect to Development Impact Fees. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to address all the infrastructure needs and then add those costs (on a proportional basis to each per unit fee.
For example, on Tuesday night Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the Development Impact Fee for each new unit water/sewer connection in Livermore is $22,000. In Davis the fee is approximately $2,800. Given the massive costs of the waste water treatment plant upgrade, Davis’ connection fee should increase drastically.
Anonymous said…
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
That is exactly the model that should be followed with respect to Development Impact Fees. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to address all the infrastructure needs and then add those costs (on a proportional basis to each per unit fee.
For example, on Tuesday night Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the Development Impact Fee for each new unit water/sewer connection in Livermore is $22,000. In Davis the fee is approximately $2,800. Given the massive costs of the waste water treatment plant upgrade, Davis’ connection fee should increase drastically.
Anonymous said…
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
That is exactly the model that should be followed with respect to Development Impact Fees. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to address all the infrastructure needs and then add those costs (on a proportional basis to each per unit fee.
For example, on Tuesday night Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the Development Impact Fee for each new unit water/sewer connection in Livermore is $22,000. In Davis the fee is approximately $2,800. Given the massive costs of the waste water treatment plant upgrade, Davis’ connection fee should increase drastically.
Anonymous said…
True. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to build a large parking garage (such as the one now being designed for E Street) and divide that by the number of parking spaces. That is the amount the in-lieu fee ought to be. The City currently charges $4,000 for the in-lieu fee. I believe that is at least 20% too little and possibly as much as 60% too little. But the argument remains the same: It is much better planning to use in-lieu fees and build parking garages than it is to force small developments (anything which requires fewer than 100 spaces) to provide their own parking.
That is exactly the model that should be followed with respect to Development Impact Fees. The City of Davis should calculate what it costs to address all the infrastructure needs and then add those costs (on a proportional basis to each per unit fee.
For example, on Tuesday night Mayor Greenwald pointed out that the Development Impact Fee for each new unit water/sewer connection in Livermore is $22,000. In Davis the fee is approximately $2,800. Given the massive costs of the waste water treatment plant upgrade, Davis’ connection fee should increase drastically.
Re: Parking.
Davisites are becoming just too lazy to walk. There’s always plenty of parking within a few blocks of downtown.
Re: Parking.
Davisites are becoming just too lazy to walk. There’s always plenty of parking within a few blocks of downtown.
Re: Parking.
Davisites are becoming just too lazy to walk. There’s always plenty of parking within a few blocks of downtown.
Re: Parking.
Davisites are becoming just too lazy to walk. There’s always plenty of parking within a few blocks of downtown.
Doug,
How come Woodland is not on the list of compared cities?
Doug,
How come Woodland is not on the list of compared cities?
Doug,
How come Woodland is not on the list of compared cities?
Doug,
How come Woodland is not on the list of compared cities?
Regarding Matt’s first post:
We don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
A few years ago, the Budget and Finance commission recommended a fee increase that had gone through the entire process, and the council majority “postponed” it when developers and the Chamber complained.
Of course, we should be making lists of new needs created by new development. But that is no excuse for not increasing fees based an already identified needs.
A parking structure downtown is a prime example. The need is created because the city has grown too large for the existing on-street and off-street parking in the core.
All new development, whether in the core or the periphery, should be paying its fair share.
Another example is our water supply needs. We know that we have huge new needs. We should have been charging new development for their fair share of these costs.
These are just two of the most obvious needs which have already been identified that have not been addressed in our development fee schedule.
Again, we don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
Regarding Woodland: I suspect that their fees are also higher than ours. I have been told that new development is paying for all their own park maintenance (correct me if I am wrong).
When comparing fees on the chart that David presented, look carefully at the cities that list $0 for certain categories. I suspect that that service is provided by other assessment districts.
If so, that would make Davis fees even lower by comparison. (I was planning on asking that staff question myself, but all City offices are closed from now through the New Year.)
Regarding Matt’s first post:
We don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
A few years ago, the Budget and Finance commission recommended a fee increase that had gone through the entire process, and the council majority “postponed” it when developers and the Chamber complained.
Of course, we should be making lists of new needs created by new development. But that is no excuse for not increasing fees based an already identified needs.
A parking structure downtown is a prime example. The need is created because the city has grown too large for the existing on-street and off-street parking in the core.
All new development, whether in the core or the periphery, should be paying its fair share.
Another example is our water supply needs. We know that we have huge new needs. We should have been charging new development for their fair share of these costs.
These are just two of the most obvious needs which have already been identified that have not been addressed in our development fee schedule.
Again, we don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
Regarding Woodland: I suspect that their fees are also higher than ours. I have been told that new development is paying for all their own park maintenance (correct me if I am wrong).
When comparing fees on the chart that David presented, look carefully at the cities that list $0 for certain categories. I suspect that that service is provided by other assessment districts.
If so, that would make Davis fees even lower by comparison. (I was planning on asking that staff question myself, but all City offices are closed from now through the New Year.)
Regarding Matt’s first post:
We don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
A few years ago, the Budget and Finance commission recommended a fee increase that had gone through the entire process, and the council majority “postponed” it when developers and the Chamber complained.
Of course, we should be making lists of new needs created by new development. But that is no excuse for not increasing fees based an already identified needs.
A parking structure downtown is a prime example. The need is created because the city has grown too large for the existing on-street and off-street parking in the core.
All new development, whether in the core or the periphery, should be paying its fair share.
Another example is our water supply needs. We know that we have huge new needs. We should have been charging new development for their fair share of these costs.
These are just two of the most obvious needs which have already been identified that have not been addressed in our development fee schedule.
Again, we don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
Regarding Woodland: I suspect that their fees are also higher than ours. I have been told that new development is paying for all their own park maintenance (correct me if I am wrong).
When comparing fees on the chart that David presented, look carefully at the cities that list $0 for certain categories. I suspect that that service is provided by other assessment districts.
If so, that would make Davis fees even lower by comparison. (I was planning on asking that staff question myself, but all City offices are closed from now through the New Year.)
Regarding Matt’s first post:
We don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
A few years ago, the Budget and Finance commission recommended a fee increase that had gone through the entire process, and the council majority “postponed” it when developers and the Chamber complained.
Of course, we should be making lists of new needs created by new development. But that is no excuse for not increasing fees based an already identified needs.
A parking structure downtown is a prime example. The need is created because the city has grown too large for the existing on-street and off-street parking in the core.
All new development, whether in the core or the periphery, should be paying its fair share.
Another example is our water supply needs. We know that we have huge new needs. We should have been charging new development for their fair share of these costs.
These are just two of the most obvious needs which have already been identified that have not been addressed in our development fee schedule.
Again, we don’t need new studies and new needs to start raising fees to those of comparable cities.
Regarding Woodland: I suspect that their fees are also higher than ours. I have been told that new development is paying for all their own park maintenance (correct me if I am wrong).
When comparing fees on the chart that David presented, look carefully at the cities that list $0 for certain categories. I suspect that that service is provided by other assessment districts.
If so, that would make Davis fees even lower by comparison. (I was planning on asking that staff question myself, but all City offices are closed from now through the New Year.)
I was also astonished that the Davis Enterprise gave NO coverage of the developer impact fee item. Busy news week?
I was also astonished that the Davis Enterprise gave NO coverage of the developer impact fee item. Busy news week?
I was also astonished that the Davis Enterprise gave NO coverage of the developer impact fee item. Busy news week?
I was also astonished that the Davis Enterprise gave NO coverage of the developer impact fee item. Busy news week?
Sue Greenwald questioning the Enterprise? c’mon….
Sue Greenwald questioning the Enterprise? c’mon….
Sue Greenwald questioning the Enterprise? c’mon….
Sue Greenwald questioning the Enterprise? c’mon….
Sue, I completely agree we don’t need new studies. As you said on Tuesday night time passes by and we don’t seem to do anything.
Davis isn’t a city that is in an active state of flux. Our needs today should be the same as the needs identified for the Budget and Finance commission process you described. It appears that if we are going to get fairer fees implemented there needs to be a concerted effort to make sure that the Council Chamber is populated with people who support fairer fees.
We know that there will always be developer opposition. They will also try and enlist allies by arguing that higher fees make it much more difficult to build affordable housing. I find that argument weak at best. A lower purchase price may mean lower mortgage payments, but if the infrastructure costs have to be paid by the City, then any lower mortgage payments are going to be offset by higher taxes.
So on Monday I’m going to contact the Budget and Finance commission office and get a copy of the support documents they used to justify their last fee hike recommendation.
Sue, I completely agree we don’t need new studies. As you said on Tuesday night time passes by and we don’t seem to do anything.
Davis isn’t a city that is in an active state of flux. Our needs today should be the same as the needs identified for the Budget and Finance commission process you described. It appears that if we are going to get fairer fees implemented there needs to be a concerted effort to make sure that the Council Chamber is populated with people who support fairer fees.
We know that there will always be developer opposition. They will also try and enlist allies by arguing that higher fees make it much more difficult to build affordable housing. I find that argument weak at best. A lower purchase price may mean lower mortgage payments, but if the infrastructure costs have to be paid by the City, then any lower mortgage payments are going to be offset by higher taxes.
So on Monday I’m going to contact the Budget and Finance commission office and get a copy of the support documents they used to justify their last fee hike recommendation.
Sue, I completely agree we don’t need new studies. As you said on Tuesday night time passes by and we don’t seem to do anything.
Davis isn’t a city that is in an active state of flux. Our needs today should be the same as the needs identified for the Budget and Finance commission process you described. It appears that if we are going to get fairer fees implemented there needs to be a concerted effort to make sure that the Council Chamber is populated with people who support fairer fees.
We know that there will always be developer opposition. They will also try and enlist allies by arguing that higher fees make it much more difficult to build affordable housing. I find that argument weak at best. A lower purchase price may mean lower mortgage payments, but if the infrastructure costs have to be paid by the City, then any lower mortgage payments are going to be offset by higher taxes.
So on Monday I’m going to contact the Budget and Finance commission office and get a copy of the support documents they used to justify their last fee hike recommendation.
Sue, I completely agree we don’t need new studies. As you said on Tuesday night time passes by and we don’t seem to do anything.
Davis isn’t a city that is in an active state of flux. Our needs today should be the same as the needs identified for the Budget and Finance commission process you described. It appears that if we are going to get fairer fees implemented there needs to be a concerted effort to make sure that the Council Chamber is populated with people who support fairer fees.
We know that there will always be developer opposition. They will also try and enlist allies by arguing that higher fees make it much more difficult to build affordable housing. I find that argument weak at best. A lower purchase price may mean lower mortgage payments, but if the infrastructure costs have to be paid by the City, then any lower mortgage payments are going to be offset by higher taxes.
So on Monday I’m going to contact the Budget and Finance commission office and get a copy of the support documents they used to justify their last fee hike recommendation.
Matt Williams wrote:
— 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.
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.
Matt Williams wrote:
— 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.
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.
Matt Williams wrote:
— 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.
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.
Matt Williams wrote:
— 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.
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.
“Anonymous said…
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.”
One of the benefits of having the courage to use a real name rather than Anonymous is that my comments can be put into an inclusive context. Flack? Perhaps you should look at that larger context before you shoot off. Now, back to the topic at hand.
— A solution to the current Downtown parking problem is needed even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Anyone who has paid any attention to the news knows that the Davis Water Treatment Facility does not meet State of California stadards for three levels of treatment. The over $150 million price tag for the upgrade is required even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Setting Development Impact Fees at a significantly higher level is going to discourage development. That is why developers speak out against them in the City Council Chambers.
— State Law specifically prohibits the arbitrary setting of high Development Impact Fees. Lobbyists for the Development industry have worked hard to make that so. However, a City can justify high Development Impact Fees by documenting necessary infrastructure improvements and their projected costs. Bottom-line, if you want the Developers to pay more if they get approval for a project, then you need to substantiate the reason.
You act as if Development Impact Fees are the only way a City can get value from a developer. You are wrong. They are only the starting place of complex supply/demand negotiations. The City controls the supply of approvals and each developer has a certain amount of demand for an approval. If Council and Staff do their part then additional concessions by the developer specific to the proposed development will be negotiated.
As I said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, SACOG is only mandating 498 additional residential units for Davis between now and the end of 2013, (over 400 of which are either already built or approved for building). On the other hand compliance with the City’s 1% Growth Parameter would mean well over 2,000 additional residential units in the same time frame. Bottom-line, that translates to a 23-1 ratio. I argrued then, and I will continue to argue for the 1 not the 23. I guess that makes me a develper flack after all. 8>)
Next time you post, you may want to heed these two suggestions; 1) have the courage to use your real name, and 2) do your homework before you write.
pave the way for increased housing?
“Anonymous said…
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.”
One of the benefits of having the courage to use a real name rather than Anonymous is that my comments can be put into an inclusive context. Flack? Perhaps you should look at that larger context before you shoot off. Now, back to the topic at hand.
— A solution to the current Downtown parking problem is needed even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Anyone who has paid any attention to the news knows that the Davis Water Treatment Facility does not meet State of California stadards for three levels of treatment. The over $150 million price tag for the upgrade is required even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Setting Development Impact Fees at a significantly higher level is going to discourage development. That is why developers speak out against them in the City Council Chambers.
— State Law specifically prohibits the arbitrary setting of high Development Impact Fees. Lobbyists for the Development industry have worked hard to make that so. However, a City can justify high Development Impact Fees by documenting necessary infrastructure improvements and their projected costs. Bottom-line, if you want the Developers to pay more if they get approval for a project, then you need to substantiate the reason.
You act as if Development Impact Fees are the only way a City can get value from a developer. You are wrong. They are only the starting place of complex supply/demand negotiations. The City controls the supply of approvals and each developer has a certain amount of demand for an approval. If Council and Staff do their part then additional concessions by the developer specific to the proposed development will be negotiated.
As I said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, SACOG is only mandating 498 additional residential units for Davis between now and the end of 2013, (over 400 of which are either already built or approved for building). On the other hand compliance with the City’s 1% Growth Parameter would mean well over 2,000 additional residential units in the same time frame. Bottom-line, that translates to a 23-1 ratio. I argrued then, and I will continue to argue for the 1 not the 23. I guess that makes me a develper flack after all. 8>)
Next time you post, you may want to heed these two suggestions; 1) have the courage to use your real name, and 2) do your homework before you write.
pave the way for increased housing?
“Anonymous said…
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.”
One of the benefits of having the courage to use a real name rather than Anonymous is that my comments can be put into an inclusive context. Flack? Perhaps you should look at that larger context before you shoot off. Now, back to the topic at hand.
— A solution to the current Downtown parking problem is needed even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Anyone who has paid any attention to the news knows that the Davis Water Treatment Facility does not meet State of California stadards for three levels of treatment. The over $150 million price tag for the upgrade is required even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Setting Development Impact Fees at a significantly higher level is going to discourage development. That is why developers speak out against them in the City Council Chambers.
— State Law specifically prohibits the arbitrary setting of high Development Impact Fees. Lobbyists for the Development industry have worked hard to make that so. However, a City can justify high Development Impact Fees by documenting necessary infrastructure improvements and their projected costs. Bottom-line, if you want the Developers to pay more if they get approval for a project, then you need to substantiate the reason.
You act as if Development Impact Fees are the only way a City can get value from a developer. You are wrong. They are only the starting place of complex supply/demand negotiations. The City controls the supply of approvals and each developer has a certain amount of demand for an approval. If Council and Staff do their part then additional concessions by the developer specific to the proposed development will be negotiated.
As I said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, SACOG is only mandating 498 additional residential units for Davis between now and the end of 2013, (over 400 of which are either already built or approved for building). On the other hand compliance with the City’s 1% Growth Parameter would mean well over 2,000 additional residential units in the same time frame. Bottom-line, that translates to a 23-1 ratio. I argrued then, and I will continue to argue for the 1 not the 23. I guess that makes me a develper flack after all. 8>)
Next time you post, you may want to heed these two suggestions; 1) have the courage to use your real name, and 2) do your homework before you write.
pave the way for increased housing?
“Anonymous said…
All of these are “straw man” indicators of potential development. In other words, do all these things and in the best tradition of “build it and they will come,” the developers will come and build like crazy. As they already have at Wildhorse and Mace Ranch.
Let’s let Matt’s list die and keep the developers hungry for a little longer. They get enough breaks as it is. Like not having to build their own parking structure.
Matt, ‘fess up, you’re a developers’ flack, right? C’mon, you’ll feel better if you do.”
One of the benefits of having the courage to use a real name rather than Anonymous is that my comments can be put into an inclusive context. Flack? Perhaps you should look at that larger context before you shoot off. Now, back to the topic at hand.
— A solution to the current Downtown parking problem is needed even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Anyone who has paid any attention to the news knows that the Davis Water Treatment Facility does not meet State of California stadards for three levels of treatment. The over $150 million price tag for the upgrade is required even if there is not a single additional house built in the Davis planning area.
— Setting Development Impact Fees at a significantly higher level is going to discourage development. That is why developers speak out against them in the City Council Chambers.
— State Law specifically prohibits the arbitrary setting of high Development Impact Fees. Lobbyists for the Development industry have worked hard to make that so. However, a City can justify high Development Impact Fees by documenting necessary infrastructure improvements and their projected costs. Bottom-line, if you want the Developers to pay more if they get approval for a project, then you need to substantiate the reason.
You act as if Development Impact Fees are the only way a City can get value from a developer. You are wrong. They are only the starting place of complex supply/demand negotiations. The City controls the supply of approvals and each developer has a certain amount of demand for an approval. If Council and Staff do their part then additional concessions by the developer specific to the proposed development will be negotiated.
As I said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, SACOG is only mandating 498 additional residential units for Davis between now and the end of 2013, (over 400 of which are either already built or approved for building). On the other hand compliance with the City’s 1% Growth Parameter would mean well over 2,000 additional residential units in the same time frame. Bottom-line, that translates to a 23-1 ratio. I argrued then, and I will continue to argue for the 1 not the 23. I guess that makes me a develper flack after all. 8>)
Next time you post, you may want to heed these two suggestions; 1) have the courage to use your real name, and 2) do your homework before you write.
pave the way for increased housing?