HomeMy WebLinkAbout15-085RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
SETTING PARK FACILITY FEES
IN THE PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
T'!
.FnEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte adopted Ordinance Number
4097 on June 9, 2015, authorizing the assessment and levying of Park Facility Fees on any
owner of real property located in the unincorporated area of the Paradise Recreation and Park
District adding residential dwelling units to such property, in order to fund the cost of 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 this Resolution, desires to establish the
amount of said Park Facility Fees in the manner provided for in said Article V11 of Chapter 16
of the Butte County Code; demonstrates that such fees comply with all of the requirements
in Section 16-78, as amended, of said Article and Chapter of the Butte County Code; and, by
reason thereof, confirms that such Park Facility Fees meet each of the "nexus" requirements
set forth in Section 66001 of the California Government Code, all for the reasons set out in
Section 16-75, as amended, of said Article and Chapter of the Butte County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered this Resolution at a public hearin
notice of which was given in the manner provided for by Sections 66004, 66016, 66017(a) and
66018 of the California Government Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
lutte as follows:
1 . The Board of Supervisors adopts the Park Facility Fees, set forth in Exhibit
which are based on Resolution 15-03-1-416 adopted by the Paradise Recreation
and Park District on March 10, 2015 (Attachment A). The Park Facility Fees are for
the purposes of funding the cost of parkland acquisition, park development and
construction of community use facilities attributable to new residential development
in the District.
2. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Park Facility Fees adopted by this Resolution
comply with the requirements of Section 16-78, of the Butte County Code, entitled
"Amount of Park Facility Feesbased upon the "Determination of the Park Impact
Fees" section in Exhibit "A".
3. The Board of Supervisors confirms that since said Park Facility Fees adopted by this
Resolution comply with the requirements of Section 16-78 of the Butte County Code,
such fees also meet each of the "nexus" requirements set forth in Section 66001 of
the California Government Code, all for the reasons set out in Section 16-75 of the
Butte County Code, entitled "Findings".
4. In accordance with the provisions of Section 66017 of the California Government
Code, this Resolution as well as the Park Facility Fees shall take effect sixty (60)
days after the at of its passage; provided, however, that if for any reason
Ordinance Number 4097 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 9, 2015,
should not become effective, then this Resolution similarly shall not become
effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of
California, on the 9th day of June, 2015 by the following votes:
AYES: Supervisors Connelly, Kirk, Wahl, Lambert and Chair Teeter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
DOUG TEETER, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTESTED BY:
PAUL HAHN
,ziX,
Clerk of the B r u d "K S p rvi qrs,
e s "
By:��DeVlu/'fy
U -Nal
March 10, 2015
"A'', WRIVIVic CIL
WHEREAS, the Paradise Recreation and Park District ("District") have
determined that the District's current park impact fee program and park impact fees are
not reflective of current park and recreational facilities cost and thus desires to amend
Article VII of Chapter 16 of the Butte County Code-, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has received and considered the Park Impact
Fee Nexus Study prepared bySCI Consulting Group ("Nexus Study", originally dated
October 2014 and revised February 2015) that provides all information necessary to meet
the requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 et al,
�11,hEY EAS, consistent with the District's 2010 Master Plan, the Board of
Directors has determined that the Forest Ranch planning area is currently not served by
District facilities and programs, and, due to its remote proximity and limited access, does
not plan to construct park and recreational facties in said planning area.
WHEREAS, revisions made to the October 2014 Nexus Study address the lack of
facilities and programs in the Forest Ranch planning area with no changes to the service
levels or recommended impact fees as presented at the February 10, 2015 public hearing.
6626 Skyway - Paradise, CA 95969
Phone (530)8'72-6393 - Fax(530)872-8619 - E maflprpd@sbcg1obaLnet - www,pai'adisepi,pd.cram
Resolution No. 15-03-1-416 ATTACHMENT A
Paradise Recreation and Park District
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERESY RESOLVED by the Board of Directors
("the Board") of the Paradise Recreation and Park District ("District") that:
1) The Board hereby receives and approves the Park impact Fee Nexus Study
("Nexus Study") dated October 2014 and revised February 2015 by SCI
Consulting Group.
2) Prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Board conducted a public hearing at
which oral and written presentations were made, as part of the Board's regularly
scheduled February 10, 2015 meeting. Notice of the time and place of the
meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, has been
published twice in a newspaper in accordance with Government Code sections
66004, 66018, and 6062, subdivision (a). Additionally at least 10 days prior to
the meeting the District made available to the public data indicating the amount of
the cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fee or
service charge is to be adjusted pursuant to the Resolution by way of such public
meeting, the Board received the Nexus Study attached as Exhibit A, which
formed the basis for the action taken pursuant to this Resolution. .
3) After considering the Nexus Study, this Resolution, and after considering the
testimony received at this public hearing, the Board, hereby makes the following
findings;
a) The park impact fee program and park impact fees proposed in the Nexus
Study and approved pursuant to this Resolution are for the purposes of
funding the cost of parkland acquisition, park development and construction
of community use facilities attributable to new residential development in the
District; and
b) The park impact fees proposed in the Nexus Study and approved pursuant to
this Resolution will be used to fund the cost of parkland acquisition, park
development and construction of community use facilities, the cost of
preparing the Nexus Study and any administrative costs associated with the
park impact fee program; and
c) The uses of the park impact fees proposed in the Nexus Study and approved
pursuant to this Resolution are reasonably related to the types of development
projects on which the fees are imposed in that new residential development in
the District will generate additional need for new parks and recreational
services and the corresponding need for park and recreational facilities. The
fees will be used to develop and/or expand the District's parks, community
use facilities required to serve new development; and
d) The park impact fees proposed in the Nexus Study and approved pursuant to
this Resolution bear a reasonable relationship to the need for park and
Mm"o
T1111111111;1q,111II111111 11111' I'll N�f
OM "I"'! Wl", "PlIf"U'lill, Z" '113,
OCTOBER 2014
MULLWA-EAMU
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
— �d�
4�745 MANGELs BoULEV - V
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
Page
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
BOARD of DIRECTORS
Gloria Rodgers, Chair
Al McGreehan, Vice Chair
Julie Van Roekel, Secretary
Morgan Miller, Director
Steve Rodowick, Director
DISTRICT MANAGER
Mike Trinca
DISTRICT CONSULTANT
Blair Aas, Director of Planning Services
Jerry Bradshaw, Senior Engineer
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT IConsutttngGroup
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
0M
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Park Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared by SCIC s«:■ Group under contract
with the Paradise Recreation and Park District.
The work wasaccomplished under the general direction of Mike Trinca, Manager of the
District.
1177,
this project:
I I- - 1 11 I I - I I I . F" ,
Shari McCracken, Butte County Office of County Administrator
Brian Lasagna, Butte County Association of Governments
Craig Baker, Town of Paradise Community Development Department
PARADISE RECREATION c!6 » DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 S-, C`,% —ongeou I t I n �OG r o u
Em
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.... ...... -............. ................... ........ ................... ........................... ......
/
ABOUT THE PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ...... -........ ...... ....... ....... ........
1
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH .......................... ........................ .-...... ............ ..........
l
NEXUSREQUIREMENTS ......................... ... ........ ...... ......... .............. ...... ..................
.2
SUMMARY 0FKEY FINDINGS ....... ........ ..................... ........ ... ...... ..... --- ......... ......
.2
SUMMARY DFGENERAL -.-......... ... ............. ........... -.... .... ...
4
ExiSTING PARK FACILITIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS .....~~....... ...... .....................
5
DEVELOPEDPARKS .... ...... ..... .... ......... --- ............ ................ ...... ......... ''~--..... ''5
OPENSPACE ............. .......... ........ .............. ....... .......... ................... ............. ........ -5
COMMUNITY USE FACILITIES .......... -................... -.~............. ...... ................ --.G
AQUATICSCENTER... ....... ................. -........ ..... ... ... ...... ...... ...... ........................
6
NEXUS STUDY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ................ -........... ...... ..........................
6
PER CAPITA COST COMPONENTS .......... ........ ............. ....... ........ ............. ............. ....
/
PARKLAND ACQUISITION COST PER CAPITA- ................. -............ -........... ..................
/
PARK DEVELOPMENT COST PER CAPITA ..................... ...... ........ ....... ............... ............
U
COMMUNITY USE FACILITY COST PER CAPITA ..... ......................... ... ..................... ......
8
DETERMINATION OFTHE PARK IMPACT FEES ..........~.....~~.^.......'..~.^..^.~~.,,.~.9
PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS ..................... .......... ............ --....... ~--.......
9
PARK IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION .... ........ ......... -............................... ......... ......... .10
NEXUSFINDINGS ....................... .................................... ............. -...................... --11
APPENDICES..............................^..............`..~.................`.............^.,.....13
APPENDIX A - POPULATION PROJECTION THROUGH 2035 .............. -................ ..............
14
APPENDIX B-RECENTVACANTLANDSALES ......... -........... .......... --................. ---
15
APPENDIX C - PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS ..... ........... ----............... ................
16
APPENDIX D - CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR COMMUNITY USE FACILITIES ....... -..............
17
APPENDIX E - AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BYHOUSING TYPE ... ........ .............. ........
18
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SC�ConsultlnqGroup
om
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - CURRENT PARK IMPACT FEES ............. ..... ............ .................. .-.......... .......... 3
FIGURE 2 - PROPOSED PARK IMPACT FEES. ... .-.................................. .......... ..... .... .... ...
4
FIGURE 3 -EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND COMPARISON OFLEVEL OF SERVICE ................... ....
6
FIGURE 4 - PARKLAND ACOUISITIONCOST PER CAPITA_ ... ...... ........................ ..~..............
7
FIGURE 5 - PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER CAPITA, ....... ........... ____ ............... -.~.-'8
FIGURE 6 - COMMUNITY USE FACILITY COST PER CAPITA .--...................... .......... .......8
FIGURE 7 - PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS ....... -....... ............ ---.-----...H
FIGURE 8 - TOTAL COST PER UNIT ........ ................. .......... .......... ..... ............. ..................
10
FIGURE 9 - PROPOSED PARK IMPACT FEE .................................. ................................ ......
1D
FIGURE 10 - DISTRICT POPULATION PROJECTIONS- ................... ................ ............ .............
14
FIGURE i1 - RECENT VACANT LAND SALES ................ .......... ...-....... ........... ........ .......
15
FIGURE 12 - COMMUNITY PARK CONSTRUCTION COSTS ........... ....... ......... ....... -.......
16
FIGURE 13 - PER -SQUARE -FOOT COSTS FOR TYPICAL COMMUNITY USE FACILITY. .............. ....
17
FIGURE 14 -AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BYHOUSING TYPE ......... ...-........... ............ .......
18
.;,ARAIXSE RECREATION AND PARK DismcT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsuftingGroua
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Park Impact Fees Nexus Study ("Nexus Study") was prepared pursuant to the
"Mitigation Fee Act" as found in Government Code § 66000 et. seq., Chapter 16, Article 5
of the Butte County Code; and Ordinance 427 of the Town of Paradise. The purpose of
this Nexus Study is to establish the legal and policy basis for the imposition of new park
impact fees ("park facility fees" or 'fees") on new residential development within the
Paradise Recreation and Park District ("District").
This study was originally completed in October 2014, but is being revised in February 2015
to accommodate the District's wish to exclude the Forest Ranch Planning Area (Doe Mill
Ridge area) from the impact fee program. This is due to their determination that the area
is currently not served by District facilities and programs, and, due to its remote proximity
and limited access, there are no plans to construct park and recreational facilities in the
area in the foreseeable future. The effect of this exclusion area is minimal: the study
population decreases by 200, and levels of service and resultant impact fee
recommendations are unchanged from the earlier study.
ABOUT THE PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
The District is one of five recreation and park districts in Butte County. Established in
1948, the District is comprised of approximately 165 square miles consisting of the Town of
Paradise ("Town") and unincorporated areas of Butte County ("County") including the Butte
Creek Canyon area and the unincorporated communities of Magalia/Paradise Pines and
Concow/Yankee Hill. It is bordered by the Chico Area Recreation and Parks District to the
southwest, Feather River Recreation and Park District to the east and southeast and the
Durham Recreation and Park District to the south. The District serves approximately
46,200 residents (excluding the Forest Ranch Planning Area).
METHODOLOGY/APPROACH
As the need for park and recreational services is inherently population -driven, this Nexus
Study utilizes a per capita standard -based methodology to calculate the District's park
impact fees. Under this method, the cost components are defined on a per capita basis
based on the District's existing level of service ("LOS"). The total per capita costs are then
applied to two residential land use categories according to their respective average
household population and average square footage to establish a cost / fee per square foot
of new living area.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
ICon�uftinGGraup
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
siz,
In order to impose such fees, this Nexus Study will demonstrate that a reasonable
Wwtt-tl kk�t.* -Jb0* 2.A
the need for additional developed parkland and recreational facilities as a result of new
development, More specifically, this Nexus Study will present findings in order to meet the
procedural requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB 1600, which are as
follows:
Identify the purpose of the fee;
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put;
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the
fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable
to the development on which the fee is imposed.
Based on a review of the 2010 District Master Plan ("Master Plan"); the County General
Plan; Town General Plan; applicable County and Town code sections; District's
demographics and specific cost estimates, the following key findings are presented:
1. The District's current park impact fee program and park impact fee we
established in 2004, and the fees were increased by approximately 14% in 200111
The fees were adopted separately by the Town of Paradise and Butte County
unincorporated areas), These are summarized below.
PARAWE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsultingGroup
Page 3
FIGURE 1— CURRENT PARK IMPACT FEES
Residential Land Use
catergory
2004
Impact Fee
2006
Impact Fee
Proposed 2014
Impact Fee
Per Sq. Ft.
Per Sq. Ft.
Per Sq. Ft.
Town of Paradise
Single Family Housing and
$0.44
$0.50
$0.82
Residential Additions
Other Residential A
$0.76
$0.86
$1.49
Unicornorated County
Single Family Housing and
$0.44
$0.51
$0.82
Residential Additions
Other Residential A
$0.76
$0.87
$1.49
Notes:
A The Other Residential category includes townhomes, duplex, triplex, fourplex, apartments
and mobile home units.
The original park impact fees were based on an assumed land acquisition cost of
$15,000 per acre and an average park improvement cost of $130,000 per acre.
Today, land acquisitions costs in the Paradise area are estimated to be $63,000
per acre, and Park development costs are estimated to be $299,800 per acre.
3. The District's Master Plan level of service goal is to provide five (5) acres of
accessible developed park land for every 1,000 residents. Developed park land
includes both active and passive use areas.
4. Based on the District's current population and existing park facilities, the District's
existing levels of service for every 1,000 residents are 1.6 acres of developed park
land, 8.5 acres of open space, and 177.5 square feet of community use facility
space.
5. A reasonable relationship or "nexus" exists between new residential development
in the District and the need for additional developed parkland and recreational
facilities as a result of new development.
6. This park impact fee program and proposed park impact fees for the District are
consistent with the policies of the County and Town General Plans.
PARADISE RECREATIONAND PARK DISTRICT ICsinsultingGroup
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
0m,
Based on the findings presented in the Nexus Study, the following general
recommendations are presented:
1. The District should establish new park impact fees to fairly allocate the costs
park development to new residential development. The following park impact fe
for the District are proposed:
ResIdentiW Land Use
catergory
Residential Additions
Other Residential A
Notes:
"The Other Residential category includes townhomes, duplex, triplex,
fourplex, apartments and mobile home units.
2. The District should periodically conduct a review of facility costs, land costs and
building trends in the District. If costs change significantly in either direction, this
Nexus Study should be updated and the park impact fees adjusted accordingly.
Alternatively, the District may periodically adjust the park impact fees using the
method required by local codes.
3. The District's new park impact fees should be adopted and implemented in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act (California
Govt. Code § 66000),
4. The land acquisition portion of the impact fees should be waived when any
Quimby Fees are applied upon development.
5As a condition of tentative map approval, the County and Town, in cooperation
with the District, should consider requiring developers of large residential
subdivisions to approve a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District or Landscaping
and Lighting Benefit Assessment to ensure full funding for on-going operational,
maintenance, repair and replacement costs of the park and recreational facilities
associated with the development.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConeulltlngGroup
Page 5
EXISTING PARK FACILITIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
As previously mentioned, this Nexus Study utilizes a per capita -standard based
methodology to determine the park impact fees because the need for / demand for park
and recreational services is inherently driven by population. Using this approach, new park
and recreational facility costs are reduced to a cost per capita based on level of service
standards for such facilities.
This section generally describes the District's existing park facilities and Master Plan goals
for each. Figure 3 below presents the level of service standards used in this Nexus Study
for determining the proposed park impact fees.
DEVELOPED PARKS
Mini -parks, about 0.5 to 2 acres in size, are designed to serve a concentrated or a special
population such as children or senior citizens. Neighborhood parks, 3 to 5 acres in size,
are typically a combination playground and park designed primarily for non -supervised,
non -organized recreation activities. Community parks, typically about 15 to 25 acres in
size, are designed for organized groups or team sports, while also providing facilities for
individual and family activities. The District's Master Plan makes no distinction between
these categories as the parks vary in size, function and amenities on a case-by-case
basis. The District has seven developed parks plus a joint use agreement with the
Paradise Unified School District for partial use of the High School facilities totaling 74.7
acres or 1.6 acres for every 1,000 residents. The District's Master Plan standard for
developed parks is five (5) acres per 1,000.
OPEN SPACE
Open space areas typically provide areas for passive uses and trailways, picnic sites and
jogging circuits. They also provide access to waterways or serve as transportation
corridors for trailways. The District currently has 394.5 acres of open space or
undeveloped park land, or 8.5 acres for every 1,000 residents. The District's Master Plan
does not state a specific standard for open space acreage, but it does outline the need for
acquisition of additional acreage to meet future needs for each of its six service areas
including the underserved Forest Ranch and Butte Creek Canyon areas.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICTk $COPlsuitingGroup
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
0M.
Community use facilities are recreational facilities such as community centers,
gymnasiums and multi -use facilities. The District currently has one community center
Schools through a joint use agreement with the Paradise Unified School District. These
facilities have a total area of 8,236 square feet, or 177.5 square feet for every 1,000
residents, The District's Master Plan does not state a specific level of service standard for
community use facilities, but it does identify a need to accommodate future growth by
providing one additional community center and one gymnasium or multi -use facility
including facilities for indoor basketball and volleyball.
617WIM7.11P MM M71% MI
School District swim pool during the summer months for recreational programming. The
District's Master Plan identifies a long-range need to accommodate future growth by
providing one aquatics center, However, the District recognizes that this long-range, high
a. 2t tWis ti,iiie.
Figure 3 below presents the levels of service for developed parks, open space and
community use facilities. The level of service standards used in this Nexus Study for
determining the park impact fee are shown in the last column of the table.
RKW110
(per 1,000 residents)
Master Plan Existing
A e
of Park Existing Facilities Standard Slandard
Developed Park 74.7 acres
Open Space 394.5 acres
Community Use Facility 8,236 sq. ft
5 acres 1.6 acres 1.6 acres
na 8.5 acres 8.5 acres
na 177.5 sq. ft. 177.6 sq. ft.
Notes:
A From the District Master Plan, 2010
8 Based on a 2014 District population of 46,200 as presented in Appendix A.
c The LOS standard used in the Nexus Study for the determination of the proposed park impact fee.
7,7
Page 7
PER CAPITA COST COMPONENTS
This section presents the per capita cost for parkland acquisition and development, and
construction costs for community use facilities based on the Nexus Study level of service
standards from the previous section and their associated costs in current dollars.
PARKLAND ACQUISITION COST PER CAPITA
Figure 4 below presents the per capita cost for parkland acquisition based on an assumed
land value of $63,000 per acre for developed parks and $8,000 per acre for open space.
Arguments for higher land costs can be made; however, the presented amount appears to
be an appropriate and conservative figure for the purposes of this Nexus Study.' As
shown, the District Nexus Study level of service standards for park land and open space
are multiplied by the estimated per -acre land cost to arrive at a cost per capita.
FIGURE 4 — PARKLAND ACQulSITION COST PER CAPITA
Acres per 1,000
Acres per
Land
Cost
Type of Park Population A
Capita
Cost Per Acre s
per Capita
Park Land 1.6
0.0016
$63,000
$100.80
Open Space 8.5
0.0085
$8,000
$68.00
Total Acquisition Cost
Notes:
A Based on the Districts existing level of service for developed parks,
B Based on recent vacant land sales within the District. (Appendix B.)
$168.80
I Appendix B presents recent vacant land sales in the District which were used as the based to determine
land acquisition costs per acre.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK D1sTRIcT tConsultingGrowp
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
ollowing table. As presented, the District's Nexus Study level of service standard for
Ma rks is multiplied by the estimated development cost per acre to arrive at a total per
capita cost. The average development costs shown represents average construction cost
(in 2014 dollars) based on recent cost estimates developed by the District in connection
with their master planning efforts for dg..k and Crain Park.2
— — — - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Average
Acres per I,DDD Acres per Development Cost
Type of Park Population A Capita Cost per Acre B per Capita
Developed Parks 1.6 0.0016 $299,800 $479.68
Source: Paradise Recreation and Park District
Notes:
A Based on the District's existing level of service for developed parks.
8 Estimates are in 2014 $. See Appendix C for cost estimate details.
10 917, 171i V, I Tail, 7 a
The calculation of the per capita costs for constructing new community use facilities is
shown in the following table. As presented, the District's Nexus Study level of service
standard for community use facilities are multiplied by the estimated construction costs to
arrive at total per capita costs. The average construction costs shown represent average
construction costs (in 2014 dollars) based on industry -standard costs of typical community
use facilities, 3
S.F. per 1,000
SY per
Est. Cost
Cost Component population A
Capita
per,
... .. .. ..
Community Use Facilities 177.5
0,1775
$610
Notes:
A Based on the District's existing level of service.
B Estimated site development and construction costs for a typical Community Use Facility. See
Appendix D for details.
I Appendix C presents the District's typical park construction costs.
3 Appendix D presents community use facilities construction costs.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConaultingGroup
Page 9
DETERMINATION OF THE PARK IMPACT FEES
This section presents the calculation of the park impact fees based on the per capita cost
for parkland acquisition, park development and community use facility construction costs
for two residential land uses categories.
PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS
As previously discussed, the park impact fee cost components for the proposed park
impact fee are acquisition of open space and park land, development of park land, and the
construction cost of new community use facilities based on per capita levels of service. In
addition, the cost of administration of the impact fee program, which includes periodic
nexus study updates, collection, accounting, annual reporting and other associated costs,
is an allowable cost component and is conservatively estimated to be three percent (3%).
As shown below, the total per capita cost is $779.46.
FIGURE 7 — PARK IMPACT FEE COST COMPONENTS
Per Capita
Cost Components Costs
Parkland Acquisition
$168.80
Park Development
$479.68
Community Use Facilities
$108.28
Impact Fee Administration (3%)
$22.70
Total Cost per Capita
$779.46
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ° Con>euttingGraup
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
PARK ImpAcT FEE DETERMINATION
The next two tables present the calculation of the park impact fees. The average
household size for the two residential land use categories are multiplied by the per capita
costs for each to arrive at cost per dwelling unit.4 In figure 8, the cost per dwelling unit is
then divided by the average square footage to arrive at a cost per square foot for each.
For residential additions, the park impact fee per square foot for single-family housing is
used.
Residential Land Use
Household
Total Cost
Total Cost
Category A
Size B
Per Capita
per Unit c
Single-Famity Residential
2.37
$779.46
$1,847.32
Other Residential A
2.02
$779.46
$1,574.51
Notes:
A The Other Residential category includes
townhomes,
duplex, triplex, fourplex,
apartments and mobile home units.
a See Appendix E for details about Average Household Size.
c Rounded to the nearest cent.
FIGURE 9 — PROPOSED PARK
ImPAcT FEE
Average
Proposed
Residential Land Use
Total Cost
Square
Park Impact
category A
per Unit
Footage 8
Fee c
Single -Family Residential
$1,847.32
2,255
$0.82
Other Residential A
------------
$1,574.51
1,058
$1.49
Notes:
A The Other Residential category includes townhomes, duplex, triplex, fourplex,
apartments and mobile home units.
8 Based on data from the March 2014 Butte County Assessor Roll, For Single -Family
category, only homes built since 2008 were used.
c Rounded to the nearest cent.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsulltllngGroup
This section frames the results of Nexus Study in terms of the legislated requirements to
demonstrate the legal justification of the park impact fees, The justification of the park
impact fees on new development must provide information as set forth in Government
Code § 66000, These requirements are discussed below,
and provide community use facilities to meet the needs of the new residential population
within the District,
IDENTIFY THE USE OFTHE FEES
As outlined in the Nexus Study, the general purpose of the fees is to fund the acquisition
and development of park and recreation facilities, Revenue from fees collected on new
4evelopment may be used to pay for any of the following:
0 Acquisition or leasing of land for park and recreational facilities;
Construction of park and recreational facilities;
Park impact fee program costs including District administrative costs, nexus study
and associated costs;
Other park and recreational facility costs resulting from population growth caused
by new residential development,
Since the need for park and recreational services is inherently popu lation-d riven, new
residential development in the District will generate additional need for new parks and
recreational services and the corresponding need for various facilities, The fees will be
used to develop and expand the District's parks and community use facilities required to
serve new residential development The fees' use (developing new park and recreational
facilities) is therefore reasonably related to the type of project (new residential
ievelopment) upon which it's imposed.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT y mm
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 � C &Cons ultingGroup
1�*
DETERMINE HOW THERE IS A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NEED FOR THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES AND THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON WHICH THE FEES ARE IMPOSED
Each new residential development project will generate additional need for park and
facilities. The need is defined by the District's Nexus Study level of service standards for
such facilities.
IETERMINE
I
i
The amount of park and recreational facilities needed to serve a unit of development is
based on the District's level of service standard for providing such facilities. The cost for
land acquisition, park development and community use facilities defined on a cost per
capita basis. These per capita costs are applied to two residential land uses categories
according to their respective average household population and average square footage.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 S(�Iconsult6idA
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Population Projection through 2035
Appendix B - Recent Vacant Land Sales
Appendix C - Park Development Costs
Appendix D - Construction Costs for Community Use Facilities
Appendix E - Average Household Size by Housing Type
Appendix F - Inventory of District Facilities
Page 13
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT n mmm
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 S IConsuitingGroup
APPENDix A — POPULATION PROJECTION THROUGH 2035
Future annual growth rate is projected by the Butte County Association of Governments
("BCAG") at 0.7% for the Town of Paradise and 1.1% for unincorporated areas of the
County. BCAG staff recommend using the lower Town growth rate for unincorporated
Im
Estimated Future
Population 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Paradise RPD 46,200 46,500 48,200 49,900 51,700 53,50
The U8Census did not provide m designation that matched the boundaries cdthe District. The
Paradise Census County Division (CC0included elarge area to the north and northwest that fell
outside the District, but excluded the Concuwarea and much of the Feather River area. Aolome
look atspecific Census tracks also showed amisfit to the District boundaries. The closest fit
included tracks i7.81,18.19.2D.21.22and 23.although these excluded the Cuncvw.Feather
River and Forest Ranch areas. Populations and population densities were tallied for both Census
areas, For each housing classification, the densities for the two Census areas were almost identical
and were considered representative ofthe District. They were arithmetically averaged bm
determine densities used for this study.
Population was calculated using parcel and housing unit data provided by the County tax
authorities. For each housing denoifiomdon:
o Housing units for each parcel were tallied;
o Vacancy rates taken from the California Department ofFinance E-5Report were applied
tocompute occupied unKo;and
o Population densities were applied to occupied units to determine the population within
each housing classification, which were then summed toarrive at the population for the
District.
This process was used for the Town of Paradise and unincorporated County areas separately
using different vacancy rates aareported inthe E-5 Report.
*ARADisE RECREATION AND PARK DisTRtcT
PARK IMPACT FEE NExus STUDY, 2014 MConsulltinqGrou
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT pm, a,
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsultinqGroup
Sales
Size
Price per
Price per
Sale
APIN or Address
Location
Date
Value
(Acres)
Acre
Sq. R.
1
4926 Malibu Dr
Paradise RPD
Jul -14
$84,500
1.23
$68,699
$1.58
2
1823 Cloe Ct
Paradise RPD
Jun -14
$50,000
0.61
$81,967
$1,88
3
14804 Northwood Dr
Paradise RPD
Jun -14
$20,000
0.23
$86,955
$2.00
4
1753 Eden Roc Dr
Paradise RPD
Apr -14
$3,500
0.09
$38,889
$0.89
5
6477 Vine Rd
Paradise RPD
Mar -14
$12,000
0.46
$26,087
$0.60
6
377 Apple Ln
Paradise RPD
Feb -14
$45,000
0.58
$77,586
$1.78
7
6595 Boulder Dr
Paradise RPD
Nov- 13
$16,500
0,50
$33,000
$016
8
263 Redbud Dr
Paradise RPD
Sep -13
$22,000
0,32
$68,750
$1.58
9
5830 Acorn Ridge Dr
Paradise RPID
Aug -13
$55,000
0.57
$96,491
$2.22
10
116 Valley View Dr
Paradise RPD
Jun -13
$37,000
0,70
$52,857
$111
11
24 Mallard Ct
Paradise RPD
Jun -13
$20,000
0.46
$43,478
$1.00
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT pm, a,
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsultinqGroup
Sales
Size
Price per
Price pe
Sale
APNI or Address
Location
Date
Value
(Acres)
Acre
Sq, Ft.
1
13109 Jordan Hill Rd
Paradise RPD
Apr -14
$60,000
15.70
$3,822
$0.0
2
14011 Centerville Rd
Paradise RPD
Mar -14
$325,000
28.50
$11,404
$0
3
15145 Shadowwood Dr
Paradise RPD
Jul -13
$80,000
14.90
$5,369
$0.1
4
13414 Cirby Creek Rd
Paradise RPD
Jun -13
$57,000
5,72
$9,965
$0.2
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT pm, a,
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsultinqGroup
APPENDIX C - PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Item 2014 Cost
Lakeridue Park illiaster Plan
Group Meeting Area (Pavillion)
$
336,270
Playground Complex
$
498,801
Trails
$
94,156
Botanical Gardens / Public An
$
100,881
Landscape
$
342,996
Restrooms / Maintenance Building
$
168,135
Roadway / Parking
$
510,010
Site Development
$
459,569
Subtotal $ 2,510,818
Design, Engineering, Fees, Admin, $ 184,388
Park Project Cost (8 acres) $ 2,695,2K.
Crain Park Masher Plan
Group Meeting Facility
$
64,564
Playground
$
100,881
Playfield
$
67,254
Trails
$
20,176
Landscape
$
63,219
Restroom 1 Mtc Bldg / Well
$
375,502
Roadway Parking
$
73,979
Subtotal
$
765,576
Design, Engineering, Fees, Admin.
$
137,000
Crain Park Project Cost (4 acres)
$
902,575
Average Cost Per Acre (Rounded)
$
299,800
Sources: PRPID Master Plans for Lakeridge Park and Crain Park
using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the
San Fricisco Bay Area.
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014 SCIConsultingGroup
Page 17
APPENDIX D — CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR COMMUNITY USE FACILITIES
FIGURE 13 — PER -SQUARE -FOOT COSTS FOR TYPICAL COMMUNITY USE FACILITY
Cost per
Item Surcharge S.F.
Base Unit Cost for Community Use Facility" $ 318
Add for Site Grading, Utilities
Parking and Landscaping B 20% $ 64
Subtotal Construction Costs $ 382
Design, Engineering, Fees, Admin. B 30% $ 114
Base Unit Cost (unadjusted) $ 496
Adjustments for Location and Year
Escalate from 2013 to 2014 c 4.90% $ 24
Adjust for Chico / Yuba City o 18.00% $ 89
Total Base Unit Cost (rounded to nearest dollar) $ 610
Notes:
" From 2013 ENR Square Foot Cost Book, average of Community Center, Learning
Center, and Child Learning Center.
B Estimated surcharges consistent with industry standards
c From ENR Construction Cost Index for San Francisco Area
o From 2013 ENR Square Foot Cost Book
PARADISE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ° tCanstuttingG roup
PARK IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, 2014
APPENDix E -AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD WE By HouSING TYPE
Notes:
" From Butte County 2O14secured tax lien rolls
" From California Department ofFinance 2O14E-5Report
0 From 2010 US Census
Note: The USCensus did not provide ageographical designation that matched the boundaries of the
District. The Paradise Census County Division (CCD) included alarge area to the north and northwest that
fell outside the District, but excluded the Concow area and much of the Feather River area. A closerlook at
specific Census tracks also showed em|vfiiho the District boundaries. The closest fit included tracks 1781.
18.1B.2O.21.22and 23.although these excluded the Cunmxw Feather River and Forest Ranch areas.
Populations and population densities were tallied for both Census areas. For each housing classification, the
densities for the two Census areas were almost identical and were considered representative of the District.
They were arithmetically averaged to determine densities used for this study. Tnwnhume(mmdominiun).
duplex, tri-plex, four-plex, multi -family (< 4 units) and mobile homes categories had relatively similar densities
and housing sizes, oothey were combined into the Other Residential category for the purpose ufthis study.
PARAWE RECREATKM AND PARK DisTRicT
Total
Vacant
Occupied
Total
Average
Residential Land Use
Housing
Housing
Housing
Number of
H0useh0I
Catergories
Units A
Units 8
Units
Occupants
qze C
Single -Family Residential
12,666
1,172
11,494
27,255
2.37
Other Residential
10,498
1,003
9,495
19,154
2.02
Notes:
" From Butte County 2O14secured tax lien rolls
" From California Department ofFinance 2O14E-5Report
0 From 2010 US Census
Note: The USCensus did not provide ageographical designation that matched the boundaries of the
District. The Paradise Census County Division (CCD) included alarge area to the north and northwest that
fell outside the District, but excluded the Concow area and much of the Feather River area. A closerlook at
specific Census tracks also showed em|vfiiho the District boundaries. The closest fit included tracks 1781.
18.1B.2O.21.22and 23.although these excluded the Cunmxw Feather River and Forest Ranch areas.
Populations and population densities were tallied for both Census areas. For each housing classification, the
densities for the two Census areas were almost identical and were considered representative of the District.
They were arithmetically averaged to determine densities used for this study. Tnwnhume(mmdominiun).
duplex, tri-plex, four-plex, multi -family (< 4 units) and mobile homes categories had relatively similar densities
and housing sizes, oothey were combined into the Other Residential category for the purpose ufthis study.
PARAWE RECREATKM AND PARK DisTRicT
APPENDIX F- INVENTORY OF DISTRICT FACILITIES
FIGURE 15 — SUMMARY OF DISTRICT FACILITIES
Unimproved
Total Improved Acres /
Park Facilities Aries Acres Open Space General Features
Terry Ashe Recreation Center
3.5
3.5
Community Center, picnic area, gazebo,
& Business Office
playground, restrooms
Aquatic Park
6.0
6.0
Swim pool, picnic areas, playground, recreation
building, kids fishing pond, group barbeque,
sand volleyball, horseshoe pits, restmoms
Bille Park & Expansion
55.0
15.0
40.0 Playground, council Area, picnic paviNion & BBQ
areas, nature trail, gazebo, kitchen, covered
structure, restrooms, water feature
Moore Road Dog Park - Leziie
19.0
19.0
2 lighted ballfields, playground,horse arena, dog
Morrow Memorial Dog Park
park, ropes course, restrooms
Coutolenc Park
320.0
20.0
300.0 Archery range, hiking, picnic area, chemical
toilets
Crain Memorial Park
8.0
8.0
Picnic area, meadow, chemical toilets
Natural Area 17.0 17.0 Walking trail
Drendei Circle 0.5 0.5 Open Space - unimproved
Paradise Memorial Park 2.0 2.0 Gold Nugget Museum
Lakeridge Park 25,0 25.0 Unimproved - development pending
Noble Orchard Property 12.0 12.0 Open Space - unimproved
Paradise High School A 1.2 1.2 8 tennis courts (4 lighted), 1 lighted ballpark, ail -
weather track, chemical toilets
Total 469.2 74.7 394.5
Community Use Facilities Total SF General Features
Terry Ashe Recreation Center 6,100 Multi-purpose Community Center
Paradise Intermediate School 1,068 Multi-purpose facility
A
Pine Ridge School A 1,068 Multi-purpose facility
Total 8,236
Source; Paradise Recreation and Park District, 2010 Master Plan
public.
PARK IMPACT FEES
I. APPLICABLILTY
The fees set forth herein shall apply as to building permit applications and
mobile home installation or utility connection permit applications, submitted
on or after , 2014
H. FACTORS USED TO ESTABLISH FEES/CREDITS
1. General Factors
Single -Family Other Residential
Residential
a. Average Household Size 2.37 persons per unit 2.02 persons per unit
b. Average Square Footage 2,255 sq. ft. 1,058 sq. ft.
2. Factors for Park Impact Fees
a. Required facilities per 1,000 new residents
Developed Park 1.6 acres (Existing level of service)
Open Space 8.5 acres (Existing level of service)
Community Use Facility 177.5 square feet (Existing level of service)
b. Average land cost, unimproved
Park land
Open Space
c. Average development cost
Park development
Community Use Facilities
$63,000 per acre
$8,000 per acre
$299,800 per acre
$610 per square foot
III. PARKLAND AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITY FEES
Single -Family Other Residential
Residential
a. Fee per Sq. Ft. $0.82 per sq. ft. $1.49 per sq. ft.
BASIS FOR PARK IMPACT FEES
Assumptions:
1.6 acres of improved parkland for each new 1,000 residents
8.5 acres of open space (unimproved) for each new 1,000 residents
177.5 square feet of community use facilities for each new 1,000 residents
Single Family Dwelling 2.37 persons per unit, 2,255 average square feet
Multifamily Dwelling 2,02 persons per unit, 1,058 average square feet
Per Capita Costs Calculation:
Unimproved Acreage Per Capita Costs
Developed Parks
$63,000 / acre times 1.6 acres is $100,800 / 1,000 residents
$100,800 divided by 1,000 residents = $100.80 per capita
Onen Snace
$8,000 / acre times 8.5 acres is $68,000 / 1,000 residents
$68,000 divided by 1,000 residents = $68.00 per capita
Improved Acreage Per Capita Costs
Developed Parks
$299,800 / acre times 1.6 acres is $479,680 / 1,000 residents
$479,680 divided by 1,000 residents = $479.68 per capita
Community Use Facilities Per Capita Cost
$610 / SF times 177.5 SF is $108,280 / 1,000 residents
$108,280 divided by 1,000 residents = $108.28 per capita
Impact Fee Program Administration Per Capita Cost
3% times ($100.80 plus $68.00 plus $479.68 plus $108.28) = $22.70
per capita
TOTAL Per Capita Cost
$100.80 plus $68.00 plus $479.68 plus $108.28 plus $22.70 = $779.46
per capita
Park Impact Fee Calculation:
Single Family Residential and Residential Additions
$779.46 total per capita cost times 2.37 persons per unit = $1,847.32
per unit
$1,847.32 per unit divided by 2,255 average square feet =$0.82 ue�
s ware Loot
Other Residential Units
$779.46 total per capita cost times 2.02 persons per unit = $1,574.51
per unit
$1,574.51 per unit divided by 1,058 average square feet = $1.49 Per
square foot