Nonresidential Development Impact Mitigation Fees
for EDH CSD Park Development

Position paper paper #07-08 of the El Dorado Hills Citizens Alliance
Initial draft copy, 5/16/2007

Summary

El Dorado County Ordinance 13.30.050 exempts all nonresidential development from payment of development impact fees to community service districts. This is unfair to homeowners and adversely impacts the ability of the El Dorado Hills Community Service District to adequately fund needed park development.

Ordinance 13.30.050 should be amended to eliminate this exemption.  Future nonresidential development should pay its fair share of park development costs.


Discussion

Nonresidential development imposes well recognized needs for parks and recreational services. Almost all municipalities the size of El Dorado Hills in the SACOG region charge park development impact fees for new nonresedential construction. Fees vary according to local circumstances: A recent check shows typical settings generally around $.35 to $.45 per square foot for offices, $.20 to $.25 for retail and other commercial use, $.15 for industrial use. The highest fees noted in a recent check were for the City of West Sacramento, whose top rate was set at $1.61 per square foot of new office space.

Total funding for park development in most municipalities also involves development impact fees on new residential construction. In many cases italso  includes Quimby Act revenue and development fees negotiated separately for Development Agreements in Specific Plan areas.

Nonresidential use of parks and recreation in El Dorado Hills can be significant. A recent EIR for a General Plan amendment cited potential for EDH to ultimately host 81,501 jobs. Nonresident employees and the nonresident public who come to El Dorado Hills for shopping, dining, and entertainment contribute to the need for parks and recreation programs.

The County's ordinance is arbitrary and unfair to the EDH CSD's ability to support our future needs for parks and recreation. Development fees are required by law to be substantially fair in the sense that (for example) homeowners as a group only pay for the impacts that new construction creates. Without nonresidential impact fees this leaves a very significant revenue shortfall for supporting park development for all park users, and that shortfall affects homeowners as well as nonresidential park users.

This particular problem in funding parks and recreation can be eliminated by repealing the nonresidential development exemption in County Ordinance 13.30.050 and assessing appopriate nonresidential fees.