Commission Impossible

Lon,
Looks like it's time for a new vote now that we've rid ourselves of Herbert and Kirk. :) I really don't know of any other way we're going to make a dent in our park facilities deficit.

The Highland/Ceres assessment failure was so discouraging when you consider the income tax deduction and the increased property values the owners would have experienced. I really don't know what those people could have been thinking. I would love to hear a reply from one of the "no" voters. Please enlighten me.

Sean,

I don't understand Highland/Ceres or First & Verbena. On the upside the city will take another shot at Highland/Ceres, so there's some hope there.

It should be pointed out that development impact fees are paying for the aquisition of new park land. But those fees can only be applied to parks needed because of growth associated with new development. The majority of Chico's growth in recent years comes from annexation. Land aquisition to meet the park needs of those new citizens remains unfunded.

Lon

" No Payne, No Gain" No thanks! Keep Dave Burkland. Someone has to know what they're doing.

I'll apply for the Urban Artist position.

I can be in charge of designing playground sculpture gardens and frisbee golf courses. I'll also manage mural projects, graffiti programs and try to get COBA up and running again. Then we'll get our public art program to be more inviting and transparent so that more people participate with it.

I can also help small business owners with some much needed design consultation which will improve the look of our streets.

Oh, wait a minute, I'm already trying to do all this...

Lon,

My recollection is just as you detailed out in publishing the minutes of that nights agenda. Furthermore councilmemeber Dan Nguyen-Tan complimented the BIA and our efforts in working through the nexus from finance committee (of which Dan was a member of during that time) through the adoption of the fee at Council. Dan specially was pleased with the adopted fee and therefore made the motion of adoption. This fee was gone through with a fine tooth comb and widely accepted by all.

Just as you have mentioned the inability of the City to collect any type of funds from annexed properties is where this type of formula based fee becomes skewed. As you know annexed property (a NEW home added to Chico) contributes exactly $0 to anything that a home newly built in Chico, all the while the impacts are at least in theory, equal.

Jason Bougie
Director - BIA

Sean,

I would love to hear a reply from one of the "no" voters. Please enlighten me.

I'm one of the "yes" voters so I can't speak definitively for them, but during the neighborhood town hall held a month or so prior to the vote, the majority of attendees were dead set against the park. "Wow," I thought to myself, "this park is probably not going to make it."

Most who spoke against the park stated they did not want to 1) pay more taxes or 2) live near a facility which might attract vandals and other shifty types.

The anti-taxers were mostly retirees, judging by their age. I'm sympathetic to that argument. The increased property values may mean nothing to them if they intend to live in their homes for the rest of their lives. $60 per year doesn't impact me a whole bunch, but it might them.

That meeting didn't change my vote, but reconciled me with the outcome. I understand where they were coming from, and there were more of them than there were of us. Democracy in a nutshell.

It really is a hard sell to tax people for a facility they currently don't use. The same could be said of building a new road. As a fiscal conservative I have a hard time with the "it takes a village" approach in suggesting either a park bond or a city wide assessment district for building parks. Both of those constitute a tax increase.

And I don't want to give a pass to the local liberal leadership who has spent millions of dollars on open space that is currently fenced off from the public.

But we do have a problem with funding our parks. And we do have a deficit in both land and facilties moving forward. John Anderson, in a recent comment, suggested that more efficient use of existing land is possible. Cooperative agreements between the city, CARD, and school districts might help us with this issue.

Even if that could occur, I would recommend we address park funding as part of our attempt to reign in the $56 million dollar budget deficit. If anyone has better ideas than a bond issue or changing the assessment districts to a city wide contribution please let me know.

Lon

Brian,

Thanks for the enlightenment. That's about how I figured the vote went down, cheepskates unwilling to spend 5 bucks a month to improve our community.

Lon,
I don't have the funding answers either, but I'm willing to do whatever it takes in spite of my conservative nature. I don't care to give my money to Uncle Sam but I don't mind spending money at home. It's been mentioned in news stories that high quality sports complexes and aquatic facilites have the abilty to attract thousands of visitors for tournaments, meets, etc. How about raising the "bed' tax on those visitors to help pay for new facilities? Probably just a small piece of the puzzle, but maybe helpful.

Sean

Jason:

Am I incorrect in my understanding that the impact fees that are being levied by the city on new homes are for the construction and maintenance of NEW park facilities that are co-located with the new development? If that's not the case then the city should change it's planning process and require developers to set aside a sufficient park setting for each new development.

You state that homes that were annexed were not charged a similar fee and yet they account for a new home being added to the city of Chico. I was recently annexed and yet there isn't a neighborhood park within miles of me (10th Avenue). Why should I pay a fee for a neighborhood park that doesn't exist and is not even planned?

If the homeowners are going to gripe about not having a neighborhood park for their kids to play in then they should open their wallets and fund it. Of course, as someone pointed out, Chico, due to lack of sufficiently high-paying jobs, is attracting too many retirees that could care less about a park that might harbor "shifty types".

Sean

Sean G.

Jason may have other input, but I'll take a stab at your questions as well.

The current development impact fees and fee reductions related to the Quimby Act are applied to park land aquisition, not park construction costs. So if a new development goes in there is a per/home fee that accumulates towards buying park land. There is also a separate fee that is used to expand Bidwell Park. The Quimby Act allows developers to set aside park land within the development and pay reduced development impact fees.

In order to construct the park neighbors must form a lighting and landscape district, and assess themselves a tax. This is where many neighborhoods are deciding not to build parks, or to leave amenities, like restrooms out of parks.

Forming the district prior to selling the new house is good practice and one I believe being used in Meriam Park.

Annexation does not come with a fee that is used to aquire park property. If the city aquires park property near an annexed neighborhood, that neighborhood would still need to form an assessment district to pay for construction.

At least that's my understanding. The $3,600 fee schedule I mentioned in this post would have been used to aquire property and fund construction of parks required by new development only. The fee enacted ($2,064) is lower than the one proposed and is used only to aquire property. It was considered high enough to do the job by the councilors that voted for it.

Development impact fees are only supposed to pay for impacts of new developments, not existing deficits, or deficits caused by annexation.

Lon

Sean with no G:

Thanks for the enlightenment. That's about how I figured the vote went down, cheepskates unwilling to spend 5 bucks a month to improve our community.

Funny thing is, one of the pro-Ceres side stood up and in not so many words accused one of the anti-park retirees of the same kind of stinginess. His argument went something along the lines of "You're on a fixed income, but so am I. When my taxes go up, I don't automatically get a raise to pay them."

While pro-park myself and able to follow the letter of his logic, I couldn't jump on that train. He was in a much better position to increase his income than the retiree. A salary is indeed fixed, but not to the same degree as drawing on social security, a pension, or some other annuity.

Maybe the "no" side are tightwads by necessity. Most of us are going to retire some day. And then little assessment fees could add up to a critical expense.

I had to leave the office, but just made it back in. I also wanted to comment on Sean G.'s statement...

I was recently annexed and yet there isn't a neighborhood park within miles of me (10th Avenue). Why should I pay a fee for a neighborhood park that doesn't exist and is not even planned?

Unfortunately people buying homes in new developments have to do this all the time. The fee is collected, but if no assessment district exists, or if one is never formed, there is no guarantee that a park will ever be built.

Lon

Lon:

Thanks for your clarification on the manner in which the funds are collected and utilized. I also was not aware of the lighting and landscaping district tax - very informative, thank you.

With regard to my annexation, my point is that when the city annexed me there was no plan to build a park for my neighborhood, thus it's sensible that there would not be an impact fee. Had the city offered to build a 5 acre park in the Avenues, I would have had no problem with paying the impact fee as part of the annexation.

My view is this: if a park is part of the neighborhood plan, or if the general plan requires one, then the new homes should be levied an impact fee. If not, then they shouldn't be.

Sean,

Lon's explanation of collection of fees and their usage is absolutely correct. In regards to "the fee” collected those monies are distributed in several ways through different formulas to acquire many different kinds of park land. My point being, yes it may be true that your annexation area may not include a neighborhood park within your "neighborhood" but a fee collected on a home newly built and added to the city goes towards, community parks, Bidwell park, and greenway acquisition. So to simplify, your annexed home only added to the increased population rather then the funds, which the funds collected on new homes go towards acquisition of all types of park land which is of course determined by population.

Jason,

Correct me if I'm wrong.

If a new home buyer purchases property in a smallish development that has no neighborhood park planned, he will still pay the fee for land aquisition.

If at a later date the city locates and purchases land near Sean G.'s house for a neighborhood park, they can use the fee collected from the guy in the new house across town to do that.

If that's true that seems unfair.

It is also unreasonable to expect somebody annexed to pay a couple of thousand dollars to do their part, when they are annexed. And realistically most annexations have already occurred so the damage is done.

These are the reasons why I think a city-wide assessment district and a bond to cover park land aquisition and a couple of large recreation facilities should at least be discussed.

If everyone paid $30/year into the assesment district we'd have about $3,000,000 annually for park construction. Without accounting for interest we'd probably have raised close to $100,000,000 by 2030 for parks. Could development impact fees then be shifted to cover other growth related issues such as transportation problems?

Lon

Answer to #1= yes

As for transporation problems those are created by cars, we don't build cars - lets go after Wittmier!

As for transporation problems those are created by cars, we don't build cars - lets go after Wittmier!

Out-funnied by the BIA. It's a sad day in the blog world, but a great day for home builders. Keep up the good work Jason.

Lon

I fall into that small development trap, but I can walk to a grassy area in another neighborhood as well as my neighborhood school.

Re First and Verbena, I can somewhat understand the frugality in that neighborhood vote (though I don't know what the voting boundary is). They have Siera View just a couple blocks away and PV High on the other side of Lindo Channel. It could be worse, the city could fence it off as more "open space."