The question was asked "What does raising fees on new development--so that future residents pay a larger share of the cost of building future streets, parks and schools--have to do with easing regulations and taxes on local businesses?"
There are several facets of this problem that I will address over the next few days to connect the dots in my logic and to properly answer the question.
The first facet is the main question that we should always be asking: Do we need to spend money on this right now? The City of Duvall has passed a parks and open space plan that includes $27 million in new parks and open spaces. This does not include maintenance and upkeep of these areas. In the next 6 years the current residents are responsible for $1.8 million of this.
I am in favor of new development paying for itself and the impact it causes, but the real issue is do we need to add additional parks and open spaces or can this new development be accommodated in the existing parks? If we have room to accommodate additional citizens into our park system without harming our quality of life then we do not need to add additional parks right now and thus we do not need to raise the fees to pay for them.
We really need to decide if we need to spend the money and then decide how to pay for it not the other way around.
EXCUSE ME...but didn't the Duvall City Council pass an updated Parks & Trails Plan by a 7-0 vote last February? So the IF was decided unanimously. All Council-members apparently agreed that Duvall did in fact need to add additional parks and open spaces to accommodate a growing population. Continuing to argue this point is, well, pointless.
ReplyDeleteIn March, when the time came to decide how to pay for future parks, an impact fee increase on new development--sufficient to pay for the cost of land acquisition for future parks--was supported by a 5-2 Council vote. Since the blog writer states that (s)he is "in favor of new development paying for itself and the impact it causes," then the blog writer should be satisfied with the Council's March vote. What one would expect this blog to be questioning is: Why two Council members--Vicki Edwards and Anne Laughlin--chose to vote against "new development paying for itself" and thus in favor of dumping the cost of future parks on the current residents whose interest they were elected to represent. It seems to me that failing to act in the best interest of her constituents contributed to Anne Laughlin's defeat in the recent election.
gonemoderate
You are excused.
ReplyDeleteI am stating my opinion that the approval of this plan was not in the best interest of the city. It is the responsibility of every citizen to question their government and I plan to fully excercise this right.
My reasons for not being satisfied with the vote on the impact fees will be made clear in the next few postings. I encourage you to continue reading them and examine the entire discussion.
I can tell that you are very passionate about this particular issue and I applaud you for getting involved. I only wish more of our citizens had the desire to be more informed about these issues.
The question of "if" we need the money is resolved in the planning of the parks system and the development / adoption of a plan which is integrated into the overall comprehensive plan. Just as the GMA mandates development and growth, it also mandates open spaces. A push for additional green requirements (mandating the number of trees in a neighborhood, for instance) is being pursued at the state regulatory level, and being implemented early by a number of agencies that are gate-keepers for money that the City receives.
ReplyDeleteMoral of the story: Open space is required, and the city did adopt a plan. They are required to fund it.
Those plans are adopted on a multi-year schedule so that cost planning can be done. Future development impact on parks, along with ongoing costs for maintenance, are included in addition to the improvements you suggest need not be made. If you let the cost increase slide, then you will eventually catch it up on the heads of someone else whether you delay improvements or not. That is an oft-used tactic by politicians seeking to pass the bad publicity of increased cost onto their future successors.
Second moral to the story: You can applaud those who refuse to actually fund the mandated improvements they voted for (Thank you, Edwards and Laughlin), but you are just deferring a righteous wrath for the poor result onto the person who replaces them.
-Politicalinclin
I have severl comments about the last posting.
ReplyDelete1st The "if" was not about paying for the project but rather if we should even be planning the project in the first place.
2nd While there is some requirements for open space in the GMA there is no specific description of how to decide how much space is required. This is left up to each jurisdiction and Duvall agreed to a massive wish list that is well beyond what is a "sufficient suply of...open spaces". (my opinion)
3rd The city passed this plan and the funding for it in 2009. No projects were started in 2009 and no projects are slated to be completed in 2010 either because of budget restrictions. If there was a certian level required we would need to be taking action on this.
4th The part that we are not discussing is that in this park plan the city is counting on $1.8 million in the next 6 years from the current residents. Where is this money coming from? How are we funding this portion?
While some may say that this issue is settled and it would be pointless to talk about it, I think it is vital to keep discussing and reviewing what the city is doing so that we can made the right decisions in the future.
All good questions.
ReplyDeleteThe question about the city being "required" when they are not budgeting action for this year or next is fair.
To answer it: There are no “brightline” regulations about the number of acres per household, etc. There are guidelines, and considerations for priority when seeking funding sources for any number of city-related projects (even those that do not have a parks element). A city may elect to defer certain action adopted in their plans for a time, but if too long, they will be found to be out of compliance (either by the regulatory agency they are seeking funds from, or through a GMB challenge or even a lawsuit for failing to plan and execute appropriately under the GMA - trust me they are far more common than you realize). Once you are out of compliance, you cannot access money. Property taxes and impact fees are only a small portion of the budget revenue.
One interesting point: If impact fees are not used within 7 years after receipt for the purpose collected, they must be returned to the payor. As you note, the City will have to pay a significant portion of the costs. This creates incentive to 1) not let the projects become larger than what you can manage; and 2) not collect fees arbitrarily.
You also forget that transportation impact fees far outstrip the conversation about park impact fees.
Where will the money come from? If advocates for reduction in impact fees and directly-related revenue are successful, then the citizens and small business district themselves.
- Politicalinclin
You make a good point about being out of compliance. I addressed this issue with a county policy analyst today and his understanding is that as long as the city has a plan to appropriately place and use open space then they would be in compliance with the GMA. The state specifically left this vague because of the vast differences between each jurisdiction. A blanket requirement would be unenforceable and impractical.
ReplyDeleteYou are also correct about the transportation impact fees. I was focusing on the park plan because that was what the original post was addressing but the discussion applies to both.
While impact fees must be used within seven years the real question is are we even collecting them. The last time I looked the city has collected $84,000 in impact fees this year. In order to collect enough to cover what we have planned we need to collect approx. $350,000 per year.
You mentioned that the time limit on collecting fees would create an incentive to not let projects get too big. In your opinion is $27,000,000 to big of a plan for Duvall?