Last Modified on 12/01/2008 09:06:18NOTICE OF RESULTS
IMPACT FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE
Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the IMPACT FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE and to the general public, that the IMPACT FEE AD HOC COMMITTEE held a meeting open to the public on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 2:00 p.m. located in the City Council Subcommittee Room, 12th Floor, 200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona.
One or more board members may participate via teleconference.
The results of the meeting were as follows:
RESULTS
2:07 p.m.
1.
Jim Sasser
Approved
2.
Review and Approval of the November 4, 2008 Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes
Page 3
Item discussed
3.
Responses to Ad Hoc Committee Questions: This item is for information and discussion.
David Cavazos
Tim Tilton
Item approved
4.
Parks Land Cost Decision Matrix. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.
Tim Tilton
Amended motion approved
5.
Parks & Recreation Department Impact Fee Decision-Making Matrix: This item is for information, discussion and possible action.
Rick Naimark
Discussed
6
Future Agenda Items: This item is scheduled to give Committee members an opportunity to mention possible topics for future agendas or to request City staff to follow-up on Committee issues.
Noted in minutes
7.
Call to the Public: Consideration, discussion and comments from the public; those wishing to address the Committee need not request permission in advance. Action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter or rescheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date.
4:15 p.m.
8.
Adjournment
For further information, please call Jennifer Emerson, Management Assistant, City Manager’s Office, at 602-262-7684 or Stephanie Lopez at 602-256-3332.
Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves shall register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 602-262-6811.
For reasonable accommodations, call Jennifer Emerson at Voice/602-262-7684 or TTY/602-534-5500, or Stephanie Lopez at 602-256-3332 as early as possible to coordinate needed arrangements.
Members:
Jim Sasser, Chair
David Krumwiede
Tom Awai, Vice Chair
David Larcher
Jim Adams
Alisa Lyons
Charles Bowie
Jason Ottman
Diane Brossart
Kevin Ransil
Tim Campbell
Phil Richards
Ed Fox
Emily Ryan
Todd Holzer
Marc Scher
Paul Johnson
Phil Turner
Heidi Kimball
Connie Wilhelm
November 6, 2008
Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee
Item 2
Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee Summary Minutes
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Members Absent
Emily Ryan
David Krumweide
Heidi Kimball
Members Present
Jim Sasser, Chair Paul Johnson
Tom Awai, Vice-Chair Marc Scher
Jim Adams Phil Turner
Charles Bowie Alisa Lyons
Diane Brossart Phil Richards
Tim Campbell Kevin Ransil
Ed Fox David Larcher
Todd Holzer Connie Wilhelm (tele-conference)
Jason Ottman
Staff Present Public Present
David Cavazos Debra Stark Gordon Taylor Amy Malloy
Pat Severence Sarah Dobbins Mike Naber John Stott
Mark Cernetic Tim Tilton
Jim Baughman Jennifer Emerson
Stephanie Lopez Chaun Hill
Tammy Blanar Wylie Bearup
Joel Waggener Gary Kuznia
Boyd Winfrey Dennis Murphy
Patricia Boland Jim Burke
Penny Parrella
1. Call to Order
Chairman Sasser called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. with a quorum present.
2. Review and Approval of the October 14, 2008 Impact Fee Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes
Chairman Sasser asked for motion of approval of the item. Mr. Awai motioned to approve the minutes and Mr. Johnson seconded with amendment to the minutes as noted. The motion passed with noted corrections in bold:
Correction 1
Page 3, #3 of the document: Mr. Turner Scher inquired about neighborhood parks. Mr. Cavazos directed the question to Mr. Boyd Winfrey, Principal Landscape Architect to research the existing parks inventory and identify neighborhood parks with information on amenities, funding source, size and council district.
Correction 2
The following action items related to the discussion would be addressed by appropriate department staff and provided to the committee for review:
Parks and Recreation Department would provide a list of neighborhood parks, amenities for each park, city council district location, size and funding source.
Correction 3
Mr. Akai Awai motioned to approved the minutes and Ms. Lyons Ryan seconded.
Correction 4
Mr. Mark Marc Scher under Member’s Present.
3. Responses to Ad Hoc Committee Questions
Mr. David Cavazos, Deputy City Manager addressed various committee questions.
Mr. Cavazos and Ms. Stark discussed a 2% overage for infrastructure that would be addressed.
Mr. Sasser responded that repayment agreement without 2% overage was the best scenario and asked that City Council take charge of it.
Ms. Debra Stark stated the parcels would need to be identified and added to the infrastructure financing plan. In the interim, the 2% overage would cover the issue, while it was being carefully evaluated.
Mr. Turner and Ms. Stark discussed non-contiguous land and the financing plan.
Mr. Turner stated that he felt there were disproportionate land costs in the financing plan.
Ms. Lyons asked if there was a way to identify types of infrastructure as oversized and Mr. Sasser responded the the 2% was oversizing, but the repayment agreement would supersede it. Mr. Cavazos confirmed and Ms. Hill would research.
Mr. Cavazos stated the repayment agreement was permitted for water/sewer lines, but not for streets. The city would look into the possibility of proposing a change in the state legislation to allow for street repayment agreements, which may be researched by the City of Phoenix Government Relations office.
Mr. Cavazos introduced Mr. James Burke, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director to discuss the Neighborhood Parks document along with a color map of Parks and Facilities that was provided to the committee. A map of Desert Ridge community center with an easement for public access was also provided.
Mr. Scher asked where the additional 25 neighborhood parks were with without amenities and Mr. Burke state City Council districts 7 and 8.
Mr. Cavazos provided a Park Impact Fee Areas document to the committee.
Mr. Turner stated for the record that Desert Ridge was superblock 11 and superblock 1 had superblock designation.
Mr. Sasser asked what the designation meant to a developer and Mr. Tilton, Principal Planner replied that it would be a reduction in impact fees. However, it would be built to city standards and use standard operating hours.
Mr. Sasser stated that the reduction in impact fees would be minor compared to the cost and Mr. Bowie responded that Desert Ridge was a unique situation.
Mr. Adams stated that he was more concerned about land costs.
4. Parks and Recreation Department Funding Outlook
Mr. Rick Naimark, Deputy City Manager introduced the item and Mr. Jim Burke, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director.
Mr. Burke provided a powerpoint presentation and several hard copy handouts of maps and related documents.
Discussion ensued over North Gateway and Desert View areas regarding the size of the areas; level of service and existing development.
Mr. Sasser agreed that it made sense to consolidate and stated that the LOS (Level of Service) was based on what was needed and that he would like to eliminate credits in parks as was done with streets, as they were cumbersome and money left on the table.
Mr. Tilton stated that unused credits can’t be spent and there was no sunset clause on credits.
Mr. Sasser, Mr. Bowie and Mr. Ransil discussed LOS as it related to plan’s standards for the number of EDU’s (Equivalent Dwelling Units).
Mr. Tilton stated that the impact fee was based on the 1990 census, projection of future EDU’s, and the latest MAG (Maricopa Association of Governments) projections from 2006.
Mr. Ransil shared his concern regarding the 3,500 EDU increases for an area that was 80% built-out and there was a need for demarcation. Mr. Tilton responded that parks would have a much larger service radius.
Mr. Sasser, Mr. Turner, Mr. Tilton and Mr. Stott, discussed the total EDU’s for Desert Ridge and North Gateway, which were 64,000 and 42,000 respectively and existing 16,000 and 8,400. Mr. Turner stated that the new method of LOS calculations with the plan established a bottom default and wanted to use the cost of the land as the principal value. The bottom default was high; methodology could be unfair.
Mr. Turner presented information from a real estate summary report demonstrating diminished land values at that time.
Mr. Cavazos suggested reviewing the decision matrix, its process and discussion on fees and cost components. He cautioned the committee on comparing council policy to other cities and that there was never enough money and if we lower cost for land we won’t collect enough funds to provide LOS.
Mr. Naimark reviewed the City of Phoenix Proposed 2006 Impact Fee Update (provided as a hand-out) with the committee.
Mr. Sasser stated that his concern was the low density areas (Laveen and North Gateway) and neighborhood parks. Suggested to move up to 7,000 population and it would work.
Mr. Richards stated that Phoenix Parks Preserve Initiative (PPPI) was based on the amenities that it funded. Comments made to Parks Board that there weren’t enough parks. Parks were a quality of life issue.
Mr. Bowie stated as a developer and user of parks that they were essential to the community. He referenced difference between specialty and neighborhood parks and that as a developer homebuyers wanted a park.
Ms. Brossart agreed with the quality of life comment by Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Johnson agreed that there was a demand for parks, but questioned if a development fee was the way to pay for those services.
Mr. Ransil commented that Ms. Ryan couldn’t be present. He discussed the multi-family contribution to recreation and that the burden to the area was decreased due to the amenities the builder provided on site and if the developer could get a credit. Mr. Naimark responded with a comment about Mountain Park Ranch and Ahwatukee’s LOS.
Ms. Wilhelm also stated that she would submit comments in writing.
Ms. Wilhelm asked for LOS issue to be reviewed citywide vs Laveen, Ahwatukee and the North Gateway area, which was not addressed. Mr. Burke stated that he was not aware of the request and would get with the Planning Department.
Mr. Johnson asked what homebuilders think the price of impact fees would do to the total price of homes and Ms. Wilhelm said she didn’t have the numbers, but could get them.
Mr. Turner stated that land values and fees determined the cost of the house and whether to build or not.
Mr. Johnson stated that for a master planned community the infrastructure costs are 50%.
Mr. Sasser asked the homebuilders to state the end price on the house, and what portion was from impact fees. Mr. Bowie stated that 100% of impact fee goes to the buyer less the credits we get back. Mr. Turner said that a home price worksheet was used then added fees. Ms. Wilhelm said some homebuilders use what the market would bear.
Mr. Ransil quoted some costs for multi-family housing and referenced San Jose, California as $60,000 a door. He wanted consistency and predictability on the impact fees.
Mr. Johnson stated that he felt the City Council would want to know EDU’s and understand the impact fees. He stated that we needed to prioritize and need streets to get to the parks.
Mr. Adams said that would be more difficult now that we took the credits out for roads.
Mr. Sasser commented that these were quality of life issues and the committee had a responsibility to the citizens.
5. Parks and Recreation Department Impact Fee Presentation
Chairman Jim Sasser introduced the item and Mr. Tim Tilton, Principal Planner.
Mr. Tilton provided a powerpoint presentation on the item and reviewed the impact fee structure and the calculations in regards to LOS.
6. Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Decision-Making Matrix
Mr. David Cavazos, Deputy City Manager introduced the item and provided a hard copy of the matrix to the members.
Mr. Cavazos asked committee to decide on parks, community centers, aquatic centers and open spaces.
Mr. Adams stated that he was just presented the information and hadn’t read it. Mr. Sasser added that last week the committee had information prior to the meeting. He suggested that due to the committee just receiving that information to consider scheduling another meeting to discuss the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Decision Matrix.
Mr. Johnson wanted a chart that would show the EDU, how much land we need and what we’re buying for that impact fee dollar amount. Discussion ensued over the cost of land.
Mr. Turner questioned the November 19th Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting as a goal for the group to present a consensus. Mr. Cavazos responded that the Impact Fee Ad-Hoc committee sunsets on December 19th and a decision would need to be made accordingly.
Mr. Johnson asked who reviewed the acreage to make sure numbers were correct and Mr. Stott responded that the LOS was derived from the Parks department, and the General Plan. Mr. Johnson said that he didn’t want to argue the LOS, because the Parks Board and others had studied that issue.
Mr. Adams and Mr. Fox expressed concern with the calculations. Mr. Sasser agreed.
Mr. Sasser asked if we could agree on service levels for Parks and discuss costs in more detail. Mr. Johnson made a motion.
Mr. Johnson motioned that staff determination on the amount of land needed for LOS and LOS was acceptable; however additional information on the cost per acre or how it should be paid for was still needed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Brossart and was passed by the committee.
Mr. Sasser asked staff from the Planning Department and Streets Department to set up a meeting with the Arizona State Land Department to discuss land and arterial street issues.
Mr. Sasser thanked the group and stated that due to the continuation of additional questions regarding the item that another meeting on November 12th would be held to address the issues and then continue with the matrix and voting process on the item.
7. Future Agenda Items
Noted in the minutes.
8. Call to the Public
None.
9. Adjournment
Chairman Sasser announced that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 and he adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephanie Lopez and Jennifer Emerson
Management Assistant II