HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-137RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE INCREASING PARK FACILITY FEES
IN THE CHICO AREA RF,CREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, by Ordinance Number 2750, adopted on
May 23, 1989, added Article [V to Chapter 16 of the Butte County Code authorising the assessment and levying
of Park Facility Fces on any owner of real property located in the unincorporated area of the Chico Area
Recreation alld Pat'k I)1SlrlCt adding 1'CSldentlal dWellmg UIIIIS LO SUCK p]'Opel'ty, In OPdCr LO fund the COSY O~ the
additional park facilities which will be necessary in order to meet the recreational needs of the new residents
resulting from such developments; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, by Ordinance Number 286 ~, adopted on September 1 S, 1990,
amended Article 1V of Chapter 16 of the Butte County Code and established the Park Facility Fee at ~ 1,189 per
dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, by Resolution Number 04-108, adopted on .~Lllle 22, 200,
amended Article IV of Chapter 16 of the Butte County Code and established the Park Facility Fee at ~ 1,880.00
per dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the methodology included in Ordinance Number 2750 for calculating an annual increase
has been c1al-ified by relel7-ing to changes in construction cost index numbers for the facilities portion o(~t.he fee
and to changes in the median home price based on iip codes in the unincorporated areas within the district for
Page 1
the land portion of the fee; and
WHEREAS, this methodology was used to recalculate the fee for 2004/05 and to clear up discrepancies,
and it was determined that the amount of the fee could have been $2,01 1 per unit, which validated the actual
fee adopted for 2004/05 at $1,880 per unit; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, by this Resolution, desires to: amend the amount of said Park
Facility Fee in the manner provided for in said Article IV of Chapter 16 of the Butte County Code; demonstrate
that such fee complies with all of the factors enumerated in Section 16-33 of said Article and Chapter of the
Butte County Code; and, by reason thereof, confirm that such Park Facility Fee meets each of the "nexus"
requirements set forth in Section 66001 of the Cali forma Government Code, all for the reasons set out in Section
16-27 of said Article and Chapter of the Butte County Code; and
W H EREAS, the Board o f Supervisors has considered this Resolution at a public hearing, notice of which
was given in the manner provided for by Sections 66004, 66016, 66017(a) and 66018 of the California
Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has determined the amount ofthe increase in the Park Facility Fee
using the inflation rate of the "Construction Cost Index History For San Francisco" as published in the
Engineering News Record (ENR) and the increase in land acquisition costs. The inflation rate in the ENR San
Francisco Index as of June 2005 was 8282.31 with the actual Park Facility Component being $907.00. The
actual Land Acquisition Component is $1,468.00. The total of these two figures equals the amount of the total
park facilities fee requested or $2,375.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte as
follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors adopts the Park Facility Fee of $2,375.00 per dwelling unit as justified by
Page 2
Eahlbll "A", a nlem0l'andllnl dated .Tilly I g, 2005 It"Om ECOnomIC (~'' Plallnmg SySleI11S CntltlCd "hll~atlOn O~ Pal'~<
Facilities Fee; EPS #14698," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
2. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Park Facility Fee adopted by this Resolution complies with
the requirements of Section 16-3 ~ of the Butte County Codc, entitled "Annual AdjusUl~ent to Park Facility
Fees."
3. The Board of Supervisors confirms that since said Park Facility Fce adopted by this Resolution
complies with the rcquir-ements ol~ Section 1 G-33 of the Butte County Codc, such fees also meet each ol~ the
"nexus" requirements set forth in Section 66001 oCthe California Government Codc, all forthe reasons set out
in Section 16-27 of the Butte County Codc, entitled "Findings."
4. h~ accordance with the provisions of Section 66017 of the California Government Codc, this
Resolution as well as the Parl: Facility Fee provided for herein, shall not become effective until the 61'` day
following its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day o('October, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Connelly, Dolan, Houx, Josiassen
NOES: Chair Yamaguchi
ABSENT: None
NOT VOTING: None
~ f
,
' \ i
Kim K. Yamaguchi, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
PAUL MCINTOSH
Chief Administrative Officer
and the Clerk of the Board
( ~
~~ ;~. ~ - fi'` -
By'-~j '~~l ~C1 .C~'~
i ~ j
G:ARl~a(>~(.l IllONS\('nRDp~rlc~ccrcti2U0~.~cpd
Page 3
Exhibit A
",
i. I L _"G
:i ! .
:1,:1 I I p
l co:~n:~-:ic c~-
I''l~tr:nir:t; ~;y;tents
+'u6lfl: r. q(rNCt
kr.n! 1Sslrrlc Ll~~ruonlrrs
P,rgiunal 8runoun;s
l.:nul I'sc f'uUn•
~~V1V!®1`~~1V !J V1V1
To: Mary Cahill; Claico Area Pecreation mzd Parlc District
Prom: Tint Youmans and Paul Woods
Subject: Inflation of Parl: Facilities Pee; EPS #14695
Date: July 78, 2005
d213~I~I;~~ hia'TI;:
This revised memorandum and accompanying tables clarify the calculation of the pail:
development and land acquisition fee (Park Facilities Pee) in the unincorporated area of
ilie Chico Urbanized Area based modifications to the base data requested by the Butte
County.
I-~~I~~I~.~IJT~TI~
On May 23, 1989, Putte County adopteci Ordinance Number 2750 (Ordinance), which
authorized the implementation of a park development anti land acquisition fee (Park
Pacilit~es Fee) to be charged against new development in the unincorporated area of the
Chico Urbanized Area. The Park racilities Pee consists of two components, a Park
Facilities Development Cost component (Facilities Development), and a Park T and
Acquisition component (Land Acquisition). On September 18, 1990, the Ordinance was
amended to inchide nexus findings, and a Park Facilities Fee of $1,189 per unit was
adopted.
~00~/0~ I~IJIJ I~IJrv01'~TCILI~'TI~~
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (1JPS )provided data for the fee increase for fiscal
year 2004/05, Because real estate data was not available bacl: to 1989, 10 years of data
(1993 - 2003) was used to create an annual rate of inflation for land values in both
incorporated and unincorporated Butte County. For this 2005/06 update, Putte County
has requested that the 10-year annual inflation rate be recalculated to reflect only the
S A O R A M E N f 0
i;il r~r«l::i~l.r U;II_a D~n~~. tiulfc _~nl nhnna~. n le,-G-i~l-&Olu
~'r:lrr'. irll~:. l~'l '7::, ., :I,.). ,.1. ~I;I.a,:l y_'
11 ~I;
.. i ~Il.. '. ti ('~I 111
0 E R K E L E V D E N V E R
Ir jl~~ll ~" `111-\.)j_~11 ~rj1 'i1111111 i' ~. 1. _c:
_~~
haflatian of Parr Facilrtres Fee Menaorarulun~
Ju1J 2~, 2005
Page 2
change in real estate values for zip codes 95928 and 95973 which heifer reflect land
values in unincorporated Butte County. Rased on this recalculation, the fee for 2004/05
should. have been ;};2,011 per unit. The actual fee adopted for 2004/05 was only `x],880
per i_ulit, and thus excess fees tn~ere not charged.
?oo~~o~ r~~ car ~uL~T~o~v
The Ordinance allows for increases to the Facilities Development portion of the fee,
based on the percentage change in the En~ineeritt; Nezvs P.erord (L'NP.) Construction Cost
Index for San Francisco. The Land Acquisition component nn~st be escalated based on
the "best available data pertaining to increases in fhe price of land in the Chico Urban
Area." Putte County has requested that since the fee is applicable only in the
unincorporated area of Iit~tte County, the real estate data should reflect the land values
in that nnincorporated area. Data from zip codes 95928 and 95973 were used to
represent the unincorporated area. After the 10-year average inflation rate was used to
recalculate the 2004/05 fee level, the real estate inflation rare for 2004 (same h~~o zip
codes) was used for t]Ie latul vahte increase component for 2005/06.
oP~IOINAL Frl; r~ASrs
The September 1990 amendment to the Ordinance used the following costs as a basis for
the fee calculation. Public Off-Site Improvement costs are combined wiHl the Parl;
Facility Improvement costs to form the Park Development component of the fee
calculation.
Cost Ttetn Cost I'er Acre
- (Septmner 1990)
Lancl Cost-Unimproved $46,000
Public Off-Site Improvements ;}20,300
Parl< Facilit ~ Im ~rovements $37,500
Total Park Tacilities Costs $103,800
TOTAL PAPK FACILITIrS COST INCPEASE
Table 1 shows the >JNP index used for the calculating the inflation for the Facilities
Development component of the fee. September 1990 was the base month based on the
adoption date of the Ordinance. June 2004 was used for 2004/05, and June 2005 was
used for 2005/06. The resulting Facilities Development component is 9907 for FY 2005/06•
79698 ~cc wenm Sul y 28 OS.dac
Inflation of Park Facilities Fee A~ernm~nnrlum
Jrrl~ 28, ?~05
Page 3
The Parl: L and Acquisition component of the fee was escalated by applying the average
annual growth in nets home sales in the unincorporated Butte County area around
Chico over the 10-year period of 1993 io 2003. Although median home prices have
s~vtmg up and doUnl significantly during that period, on average, home prices increased
by almost 6 percent annually (see Table 2). Pca] estate professionals in the Chico area
have indicated that land values generally have increased at the same rate as home
prices. Although the County ordinance requires land inflation values to be calculated
with data from September 1.990 forward, no data prior to 1993 is available. Therefore, for
purposes of this fee escalation the ten-year period was used to escalate land value to
2003 and then the 2004 achtal annual rate was used to escalate the land acquisition
component for 2005/06.
Tat}le 2 sho~•vs the ca]culation of the Land Acquisition component from the base year of
PY 1990/91 to P1'2009/05, and then to Pl' 2005/06. In escalating the fee to PY 2004/05, a
cumulative rate of growth of 112.4 percent was used, which is the result of
compounding 5.63 percent over the period between PY 1990/91 and PY 2004/05. The
Land Acquisition component calculated for ICY 2004/05, .f;1,119, was then escalated by
60.8 percent for FY 2005/06. The calculation results in a Land Acquisition component of
$1,799.
>JSTIMATrD rIJI~ RrVISIONS BASED ON COST INCPrASr
T<~i~le 1 shows the increase in the part; development and land acquisition components of
the Parl: Facilities Pee, based on the two methodologies described above. The fee
increases to q~2,706 for the 2005/06 fiscal year.
19698 fc~c memo lul y 28 eS.Joc
O1
(1)
LL
uL
d)
~~
.~
Ld_
try
~L n. r
jj ~ CJ
Ln ~_ N
d ~ G
'Y9 -.
,_ m ~
ro .N m
2 Lr LL
(V
~ ~
N = ~_
~ U
A m
o ~ u_
JJ ~ li
i.
fU
U Yi CL
df dl .H
Q'; ~~ O
t(5 ~ C
dd fl. O
1_ `~''
'C" ~ (7 N
Ql U G
~ r 'c ~
H U ~ U
m
N
t.L
N
N
~O
tt3
IL
L
N
a
N
O
~>
d~ ~
J N
c ;~
G
C
.~
.o
V
M
~
a)
x rn .- cn
-
.
Ld' m .
o
,_. ~ O ti
f/~
L1. c t-:
O
N
~
~ ~ fF? E
H
n7 :: ~
.4. .."
• Q
F-
N
ll.
f:
O
w
'in ~ ti rn rn
m
=
:~ r. c do .
~ L OI ~ -
n .
r
'
n ~r ~
_
'C1 O
t~ U
~ nS
o
ti~ ...1
N
.
~
t7' ad
U > ~ .o .o
~
~p o
O d
-a ~ d- v cn
~ ~
N
"'
~
o r
r N
v
i ,_
t
7
s ~
~
o
a~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~`
fl: C M O
c h i O M
cri o
cp
Q
in
6
U
c
a>
~:
CL
w
- N O
'~
U r '~ (
O ) O
m O
N O (D G7 (~
IL ~ ` EA E9~ E5
4
N
C
P
L
J
x
ed
`r3
f-,
n
U
U
is
ro
LL
G
N
7
W
' ~ o a
0 0
Oi
c ~
^
~ W I`
N
~' tl' •-
L c
U
in In
X do N M
ad
°
~
C o
CD N c0
~ ~ O O
N a c c
~ Q) ~ 3
(n ~ '-'~
tll In CD
~, O O O
rn
~ o a
N rn o 0
_ N N
lL
m
O
rn
LL O
C -
.N ~ ~
O ~
U ~ QI
U ~
-U C N
N (n ~
LL O m
C N
m ~ (L1
~ z o
W _U
t1_ r U
z .~ -°
Q)
u1 al io
a~ ~- o°
iLi ~ Q. ~
-° -~ o
~ U U v~-
~ ~p C O
O C ~ N
C O s ~
rnq o ~ ~
1 l_
lll v N .c ~
.a ~ a~ a) c
c c w ~) N
m •L
~ U -n ~ m
•~ ~ -o m
a)
~_ ~ m ~ ~--
~ ~ N L ~
., n) a~ o
5 rn
cil ~- U N OS
~ (n .C C
'a ~ in .~ L}i
m ~ ° °; m
C [-T r N U
O C ~ L •~
N cl) O U u~i
Q) C ~ 'C (n
U RS O
(l) ~ ~ C U
C 1--
n- W LL C O
m dl dl m
aL
m -u~
m
O -C '~ ~ 6
~ a> G cu m
U ~ o m -o
m r m r_
Y -1- to = N
U U .,_,
in C
-~ c o ~ .
(~ (1) U O t
U -C
C ~ 5
N a. O cn o
~ C N ~
N O ~
'O ~ O' N N
~ ~ w
0 o U a m
N -U
(n ~ -C }
U
N •U C ~
~ -O N O ~
~ do LL
C ~ m ~ O ~
O O 6
N O d d U N
Q1 N •C 07 Q N
C C ~ "O ~
~ ~ d) LL J ~
L1J ~ n. ~ ~
m a) U ~ E
U L L C m~
~ OF-'~n~U
O
C~ .~ ~L c, ~. ~j.
W
1)
`m
Q
,~
O
N
N
M
C
E
b~
m
,~
rn
v
fable 2 ii~.~7'i,~~~
Chico area Recreation and Park CJistrict 7`~,
Unincorporated Chico Urbanized Area Park Facilities Fee
Land Value inflation Calculation
Median Nome Average Annual
Year Price Annual Change Change
1993 $140,500 - -
1994 $150,000 6.76% 6.76%
1995 $140,250 -6.50% -0.09%
1996 $135,250 -3.57% -1.26%
1997 $128,000 -5.36% -2.30%
1998 $148,500 16.02% 1.11%
1999 $149,500 0.67% 1.04%
2000 $158,250 5.85% 1.71
2001 $206,250 30.33% 4.92%
2002 $222,500 7.88% 5.24%
2D03 $243,000 9.21 % 5.63%
2004 $390,750 60.80% 9.74%
Average Annual Growth
For the Period 1993-2003 5.63%
f=or the Period 2003-2004 60.80%
Source: Data Quicl< data of zip codes 95928, and 95973.
Note: i;ealtors confirmed that land values have been increasing
at approximately tl~e same rate as new home prices.
Prepared by EPS 14698 fee adjustment3.xls 7128!2005