Agenda - 02-26-1996 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

37 10 • Both approaches utilize the concept of "service standards" for determining the type and number of facilities to be provided, as well as apportioning the cost of such facilities. As an example, land area requirements (e.g., acres per 1,000 population) as well as the types of facilities provided differ between community and district parks. For this reason, the cost of developing each type of park will be different. Service standards allow such differences to be recognized and the cost apportioned on a "per capita"or"per household" basis. • Both approaches utilize the concept of "service districts" or "service areas" as a means of apportioning costs and assuring that services or facilities are provided to the residents responsible for paying the fees. Using the preceding example, the cost of a district park may differ from that of a community park. Thus, the residents of neighborhoods within one service area or district may be higher or lower than another district. • Both approaches may only be used in the County's planning jurisdiction. The applicability of the approach within municipal jurisdictions would only be valid through approval of an amendment to the local act as was the case with public school impact fees. While similarities do exist, there are also some important differences, including the following: • The use of the "impact fee" approach specifically requires that the cost of improvements be calculated on the basis of identified needs within a reasonable planning period, not to exceed 20 years, and that the percentage of the total cost be fairly and objectively apportioned between "new" and "existing" residents. Though this approach is often used in the calculation of payments-in-lieu, there is not a specific requirement in the enabling legislation that this be done. • Though a system of credits may be included in dedication/payment-in-lieu provisions for land dedicated and/or improvements made, there is not a specific requirement that such credits be provided as is the case with the"impact fee" approach. • Impact fees may be collected at the time that a building permit is issued, whereas payments-in- lieu are made at the time that lots are created, during the subdivision approval process. An advantage of this approach is that, if implemented, it would permit funds for park improvements (e.g., recreational facilities) to be recouped from lots which have already been created but remain undeveloped. To utilize this approach, however, credit would have to be given for the payment-in-lieu already made on the lot for land acquisition. A final consideration in determining whether to pursue an impact fee approach is flexibility. As permitted by the local act, impact fees may be used for "the acquisition of land for open space and greemvays. [and) capital improvements to...public recreation facilities." Given this wording, it suggests that open space dedications for wildlife habitats and corridors, and the preservation of natural areas are legitimate uses for the expenditure of impact fees. This is not to suggest that a system of greenways is about to be proposed by the County, but it does suggest that the Master