are you missing this funding opportunity? the unrealized potential of parkland dedication ordinances...

Are You Missing This Are You Missing This Funding Opportunity?Funding Opportunity?The Unrealized The Unrealized Potential of Parkland Potential of Parkland Dedication Dedication OrdinancesOrdinances

John L. CromptonJohn L. Crompton

Distinguished Professor, Texas A&M Distinguished Professor, Texas A&M UniversityUniversity

Council Member, City of College Council Member, City of College StationStation

NRPA Congress, NRPA Congress,

Las Vegas, Las Vegas,

September 2015September 2015

Long HistoryLong History

On May 17, 1873, Edward Murphy, the On May 17, 1873, Edward Murphy, the donor of Murphy Square, secured the donor of Murphy Square, secured the passage of a resolution that a plat passage of a resolution that a plat should only be accepted by the city if a should only be accepted by the city if a portion of the land so platted be portion of the land so platted be dedicated to park purposes.dedicated to park purposes.

Theodore Wirth (1946): History of the Theodore Wirth (1946): History of the Minneapolis Park System (p. 17)Minneapolis Park System (p. 17)

Long HistoryLong History

Montana 1919: “For the purpose of promoting public Montana 1919: “For the purpose of promoting public comfort, welfare and safety, such plat and survey comfort, welfare and safety, such plat and survey must show that at least one-ninth of the platted must show that at least one-ninth of the platted area, exclusive of streets etc., is forever dedicated area, exclusive of streets etc., is forever dedicated to the public for parks and playgrounds.”to the public for parks and playgrounds.”

Bluefield, West Virginia, 1923: “Not less than five Bluefield, West Virginia, 1923: “Not less than five per cent of the area of all plats shall be dedicated by per cent of the area of all plats shall be dedicated by the owner for parks and playground purposes except the owner for parks and playground purposes except in the case of a very small area.”in the case of a very small area.”

Modern era: post 1960sModern era: post 1960s Accelerated with tax-revolt of late 1970s and 1980sAccelerated with tax-revolt of late 1970s and 1980s

4 Take-Away Principles4 Take-Away Principles

Change the anchor pointChange the anchor point

AnchoringAnchoring

““Different starting points yield Different starting points yield different estimates, which are different estimates, which are biased to the initial values”biased to the initial values”

““People make estimates by People make estimates by starting from an initial value that starting from an initial value that is adjusted to yield the final is adjusted to yield the final answer”.answer”.


Change the anchor pointChange the anchor point Enforce the “rough Enforce the “rough

proportionality” standard required proportionality” standard required by 1994 US Supreme Court Ruling by 1994 US Supreme Court Ruling in Dolan vs City of Tigardin Dolan vs City of Tigard


Change the anchor pointChange the anchor point Enforce the “rough Enforce the “rough

proportionality” standard required proportionality” standard required by 1994 US Supreme Court Ruling by 1994 US Supreme Court Ruling in Dolan vs City of Tigardin Dolan vs City of Tigard

Does Does notnot raise the cost of raise the cost of housinghousing


Change the anchor pointChange the anchor point Enforce the “rough proportionality” Enforce the “rough proportionality”

standard required by 1994 US standard required by 1994 US Supreme Court Ruling in Dolan vs Supreme Court Ruling in Dolan vs City of TigardCity of Tigard

Does Does notnot raise the cost of housing raise the cost of housing A core principle of “fiscal A core principle of “fiscal

conservatism”conservatism”

Core Principle of Fiscal Core Principle of Fiscal ConservatismConservatism Type of user fee.Type of user fee. New development generates a New development generates a

need for additional park amenities. need for additional park amenities. The people responsible for creating The people responsible for creating that need should bear the cost of that need should bear the cost of providing the new amenities.providing the new amenities.

Political imperative: Growth should Political imperative: Growth should pay for itself.pay for itself.

The Political Case for The Political Case for Parkland DedicationParkland Dedication Three options for paying for growthThree options for paying for growth

– Existing residents subsidize new park Existing residents subsidize new park developmentdevelopment

– Lower the level of service (i.e., reduce the Lower the level of service (i.e., reduce the number of parks/quality of life)number of parks/quality of life)

– Require new growth to pay for itself.Require new growth to pay for itself. Tax outcomes are determined by front-end Tax outcomes are determined by front-end

decisions, not back-end decisions. decisions, not back-end decisions. Create infrastructure deficits for future Create infrastructure deficits for future

generations.generations.

The Political Case for The Political Case for Parkland DedicationParkland Dedication Fiscal conservatismFiscal conservatism

– Those who benefit from services Those who benefit from services should pay for them. The “bedrock” should pay for them. The “bedrock” of this philosophy. of this philosophy.

Sources of ExactionsSources of Exactions

““Police Power”Police Power”Promote the health, Promote the health, safety, and welfare of safety, and welfare of residents (i.e., parkland residents (i.e., parkland dedication and dedication and improvements)improvements)

Legislative enabling Legislative enabling authority: Impact authority: Impact FeesFees

Impact FeesImpact Fees

Need state legislative authority beyond Need state legislative authority beyond the health and welfare mandate of the the health and welfare mandate of the city.city.

Much broader than parkland. Embraces Much broader than parkland. Embraces all types of recreation amenities. all types of recreation amenities.

Collected at building permit not platting Collected at building permit not platting stage. stage.

Sources of ExactionsSources of Exactions

““Police Power”Police Power”Promote the health, Promote the health, safety, and welfare of safety, and welfare of residents (i.e., parkland residents (i.e., parkland dedication and dedication and improvements)improvements)

Legislative enabling Legislative enabling authority: Impact authority: Impact FeesFees

The Potential and Actual Scope The Potential and Actual Scope of Exaction Ordinancesof Exaction Ordinances

Neighborhood Parkland Dedication

Fee-in-lieu of Neighborhood Parkland Dedication

Improvements on Neighborhood Parkland

Dedication Beyond the Neighborhood Level

Improvements on Parkland Beyond the Neighborhood Level

55thth Amendment Amendment

““Nor shall private property be Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just taken for public use without just compensation”compensation”

Resolved by the 1970s through Resolved by the 1970s through court casescourt cases

Key questions relate to:Key questions relate to:– Nexus principleNexus principle– How much?How much?

Legal BasisLegal Basis

City of College Station vs. City of College Station vs. Turtle Rock Corporation 1984 Turtle Rock Corporation 1984 established constitutionality of established constitutionality of parkland dedication but required:parkland dedication but required:– ““A reasonable connection between A reasonable connection between

the increased population arising the increased population arising from the subdivision development from the subdivision development and increased park and recreation and increased park and recreation needs in the neighborhood”needs in the neighborhood”

Nollan vs. California Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission Coastal Commission (1987)(1987)

Reaffirmed the “rational nexus” Reaffirmed the “rational nexus” clause (i.e., the need for clause (i.e., the need for dedication zones)dedication zones)

Zone FundsZone Funds

Park Land fees will be deposited in Park Land fees will be deposited in a fund referenced to the park zone a fund referenced to the park zone or community park district or community park district involved. Funds deposited into a involved. Funds deposited into a particular park zone fund or particular park zone fund or community park district may only community park district may only be expended for land or be expended for land or improvements in that zone or improvements in that zone or district.district.

Dolan vs. City of Dolan vs. City of Tigard (1994)Tigard (1994) Must be a “rough proportionality” Must be a “rough proportionality”

between the requirements imposed on between the requirements imposed on a development and the needs for park a development and the needs for park use projected to be forthcoming from use projected to be forthcoming from the developmentthe development

– ““No precise mathematical calculation is No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.”proposed development.”

Legal Basis CodifiedLegal Basis Codified

The Dolan case has been codified The Dolan case has been codified in the Texas statutes which in the Texas statutes which mandate that:mandate that:– ““The developer’s portion of the costs The developer’s portion of the costs

may not exceed the amount may not exceed the amount required for infrastructure required for infrastructure improvements that are roughly improvements that are roughly proportionate to the proposed proportionate to the proposed development”development”

Implications of DolanImplications of Dolan

Prior to the Dolan case, developers challenging a Prior to the Dolan case, developers challenging a community’s park dedication ordinance had to prove it was community’s park dedication ordinance had to prove it was unfair. The Dolan decision shifted the burden of proof to unfair. The Dolan decision shifted the burden of proof to communities, so they must now justify that the ordinance is communities, so they must now justify that the ordinance is fair. Thus, burden of proof of the legitimacy of “rough fair. Thus, burden of proof of the legitimacy of “rough proportionality” is on the city.proportionality” is on the city.

““Rough proportionality” is operationalized as a city’s Rough proportionality” is operationalized as a city’s current level of service.current level of service.

Must be “individualized”. Cannot be an arbitrary amount Must be “individualized”. Cannot be an arbitrary amount imposed simply because it is comparable to another city.imposed simply because it is comparable to another city.– National “standards” or comparables are irrelevant.National “standards” or comparables are irrelevant.

Cannot request disproportionate amounts from developers.Cannot request disproportionate amounts from developers.

Accommodate different densities of development.Accommodate different densities of development.

The Potential and Actual Scope The Potential and Actual Scope of Exaction Ordinancesof Exaction Ordinances

Neighborhood Parkland Dedication

Fee-in-lieu of Neighborhood Parkland Dedication

Improvements on Neighborhood Parkland

Dedication Beyond the Neighborhood Level

Improvements on Parkland Beyond the Neighborhood Level

Scopes of OrdinancesScopes of Ordinances

New Braunfels:New Braunfels:““To provide adequate recreation areas and amenities in To provide adequate recreation areas and amenities in

the form of neighborhood parks”the form of neighborhood parks”

Arlington:Arlington:““To provide linear parks and neighborhood parks”To provide linear parks and neighborhood parks”

Bryan:Bryan:““To provide recreational areas in the form of community To provide recreational areas in the form of community

parks. Community parks typically serve an area with a parks. Community parks typically serve an area with a radius of one mile, and most of these also serve as radius of one mile, and most of these also serve as neighborhood parks”neighborhood parks”

Scopes of OrdinancesScopes of Ordinances

League City:League City:““To provide park and recreation areas in the form of To provide park and recreation areas in the form of

neighborhood parks, recreational parks, regional neighborhood parks, recreational parks, regional parks, and connecting trails as a function of residential parks, and connecting trails as a function of residential developments”developments”

Colleyville:Colleyville:““To provide adequate land for parks, recreation, and To provide adequate land for parks, recreation, and

open space…to meet the demand and need of the open space…to meet the demand and need of the future residents for open space and parks”future residents for open space and parks”

Non-residential Non-residential Dedications?Dedications? Although non-residential development does not Although non-residential development does not

generate residential occupancies per se, it does generate residential occupancies per se, it does create environmental impacts, which may negatively create environmental impacts, which may negatively affect the living environment of the community. affect the living environment of the community. These impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by These impacts may be ameliorated or eliminated by providing park or open space areas which buffer providing park or open space areas which buffer adjoining land uses, prevent undue concentration of adjoining land uses, prevent undue concentration of paved areas, allow for the reasonable dissipation of paved areas, allow for the reasonable dissipation of automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural buffers to automotive exhaust fumes, provide natural buffers to the spread of fire or explosion, and provide the spread of fire or explosion, and provide separation of lighting, waste disposal, and noise by-separation of lighting, waste disposal, and noise by-products of non-residential operations and activities products of non-residential operations and activities from adjacent residential areas. from adjacent residential areas.

Non-residential Non-residential Dedications? cont.Dedications? cont. The city has therefore determined that non-The city has therefore determined that non-

residential developments must provide dedicated residential developments must provide dedicated parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of parks and/or reserved open space at a ratio of one acre of parkland for every fifty-six non-one acre of parkland for every fifty-six non-residential gross acres of development or residential gross acres of development or prorated portion thereof.prorated portion thereof.

Colleyville; SouthlakeColleyville; Southlake

3 Elements in the Calculation of 3 Elements in the Calculation of the Amount of Park Dedication the Amount of Park Dedication RequirementsRequirements

1.1. A land requirementA land requirement

2.2. A fee-in-lieu alternative to the A fee-in-lieu alternative to the land requirementland requirement

3.3. A park development feeA park development fee

Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Requirements for Single Requirements for Single Family HomesFamily Homes

I.I. Land Requirements for Neighborhood ParksLand Requirements for Neighborhood Parks

– City has 280 acres of neighborhood parksCity has 280 acres of neighborhood parks– 2006 Total Population – 77,2612006 Total Population – 77,261– The current level of service is one (1) acre per 276 peopleThe current level of service is one (1) acre per 276 people– 2.80 Persons per Household (PPH) for Single Family based 2.80 Persons per Household (PPH) for Single Family based

on Census information.on Census information.

276 people /2.80 PPH = 98 DUs276 people /2.80 PPH = 98 DUs1 Acre per 98 DUs1 Acre per 98 DUs


II.II. Neighborhood Park Acquisition Costs Neighborhood Park Acquisition Costs (Determines Fee in Lieu of Land)(Determines Fee in Lieu of Land)

– One (1) acre costs $24,000 to purchase One (1) acre costs $24,000 to purchase

Single FamilySingle Family

$24,000 / 98 DUs = $24,000 / 98 DUs = $245 per DU$245 per DU

Neighborhood Park Cost EstimateNeighborhood Park Cost Estimate

TotalTotal $516,450 $516,450


III.III. Neighborhood Park Development Costs (Determines Neighborhood Park Development Costs (Determines Fee for Development)Fee for Development)

– The cost of improvements in an average Neighborhood The cost of improvements in an average Neighborhood Park is $516,450.Park is $516,450.

– One Neighborhood Park serves 2,207 people, based on a One Neighborhood Park serves 2,207 people, based on a total city population of 77,261 being served by 35 parks total city population of 77,261 being served by 35 parks (count includes neighborhood parks and 6 mini parks).(count includes neighborhood parks and 6 mini parks).

– It costs $234 per person to develop an average It costs $234 per person to develop an average intergenerational park.intergenerational park.

$234 x 2.80 PPH = $234 x 2.80 PPH = $655 per DU$655 per DU


IV.IV. Total Neighborhood Park FeeTotal Neighborhood Park Fee

Single FamilySingle Family$245 + $655 = $900$245 + $655 = $900

Community Park Requirement Community Park Requirement for Single Family Homesfor Single Family Homes

1.1. Land Requirement for Land Requirement for Community ParksCommunity Parks

– Current level of service is 1 Current level of service is 1 acre per 294 peopleacre per 294 people

– 2.80 PPH = 105 Dus2.80 PPH = 105 Dus

Requirement =1 acre per 105 Requirement =1 acre per 105 DUSDUS


2. Community Park Acquisition 2. Community Park Acquisition Costs (Determines Fee in Lieu of Costs (Determines Fee in Lieu of Land)Land)

–One acre of raw land costs One acre of raw land costs $32,000$32,000–$32,000/105 DUs = $305 per DU$32,000/105 DUs = $305 per DU

Community Park Development Community Park Development Cost of “Basic Infrastructure”Cost of “Basic Infrastructure”

• Playground areas with shade covers$120,000

• Group picnic pavilion with restrooms$750,000

• Concrete walking trails, lights, benches, fountains $500,000

• Picnic tables, trash receptacles, and furnishings $ 50,000• Lighted tennis courts (2) $140,000• Lighted basketball court $ 50,000• Roads and parking (200 spaces) $500,000• Landscape improvements $250,000• Design fees $140,000• Total cost estimateTotal cost estimate

$2,500,000 $2,500,000


3. Development Cost Per Dwelling Unit3. Development Cost Per Dwelling Unit

–8 Community parks for a populations of 8 Community parks for a populations of 87,75887,758

soso

–A Community Park serves 10,970A Community Park serves 10,970–$2,500,000/10,970 = $228 per person$2,500,000/10,970 = $228 per person–$228 x 2.8 PPH = $638 per DU$228 x 2.8 PPH = $638 per DU


Total Community Park Fee for a Total Community Park Fee for a Single Family HomeSingle Family Home

Land Cost Land Cost $305$305

Development cost Development cost $638 $638

Total CostTotal Cost $943 per $943 per DUDU

Quadrant 4

$4,135

Quadrant 1

$6,217

Quadrant 3

$3,368

Quadrant 2

$3,605

Park Dedication Fees Per DU

Leverage Potential of Leverage Potential of Early Investment in Early Investment in ParksParks Implication of “leverage” – Implication of “leverage” –

especially in relatively small especially in relatively small communities projected to grow.communities projected to grow.

Leverage Potential of Leverage Potential of Early Investment in Early Investment in ParksParksScenario:Scenario:

(i)(i) Cities A and B both have a Cities A and B both have a population of 10,000 (i.e. 4,000 population of 10,000 (i.e. 4,000 dwelling units).dwelling units).

(ii)(ii) Both cities will increase to 25,000 Both cities will increase to 25,000 population (i.e. 10,000 dwelling units) population (i.e. 10,000 dwelling units) in the next 10 years.in the next 10 years.

Leverage Potential of Leverage Potential of Early Investment in Early Investment in ParksParks

(iii) (iii) City A has invested in 200 acres of public City A has invested in 200 acres of public parkland, while City B has invested in 20 acres of parkland, while City B has invested in 20 acres of public parkland. Thus, public parkland. Thus, the existing levels of the existing levels of service are:service are:

City A:City A: 1 acre per 20 Dwelling Units 1 acre per 20 Dwelling Units (4000/200)(4000/200)

City B:City B: 1 acre per 200 DUs (4000/20)1 acre per 200 DUs (4000/20)

(iv)(iv) Land costs in both cities are $30,000 per Land costs in both cities are $30,000 per acreacre

(v)(v) Park development costs in both cities are Park development costs in both cities are $50,000 per acre$50,000 per acre

Leverage Potential Leverage Potential cont.cont.Initial Investment in Parks with G.O. Bonds:Initial Investment in Parks with G.O. Bonds:

Private Investment Required by a Parkland Dedication Private Investment Required by a Parkland Dedication OrdinanceOrdinance

City A City B

Cost of Land 200 acres @ $30,000 = $6M

20 acres @ $30,000 = $600,000

Parkland Development Costs

200 acres @ $50,000 = $10M

20 acres @ $50,000 = $1M

Total Initial Investment $16M $1.6M

City A City B

Potential Dedication Requirement over the 10 year period

10,000 /20 DUs = 500 acres

10,000 /200 DUs = 50 acres

Value of land dedicated 500 acres @ $30,000 = $15M

50 acres @ $30,000 = $1.5M

Parkland development costs dedicated

500 acres @ $50,000 = $25M

50 acres @ $50,000 = $2.5M

Total Private Dedication $40M $4M

Leverage Potential Leverage Potential cont.cont.

ConclusionConclusion At the end of 10 years growth, City B would At the end of 10 years growth, City B would

have to issue an additional $36 million in G.O. have to issue an additional $36 million in G.O. bonds ($40 million - $4 million) to catch up bonds ($40 million - $4 million) to catch up with the amount of parkland it had failed to with the amount of parkland it had failed to accrue from dedication in that 10 year period.accrue from dedication in that 10 year period.

Thus, the total investment of taxes for Thus, the total investment of taxes for providing equal provision of parkland would be providing equal provision of parkland would be $16 million in City A and $37.6 million ($36 $16 million in City A and $37.6 million ($36 million + $1.6 million) in City B.million + $1.6 million) in City B.

Credit for Private Credit for Private AmenitiesAmenities 27 of 48 Texas’ ordinances made no 27 of 48 Texas’ ordinances made no

provision for this.provision for this. Up to 50% was most common Up to 50% was most common

authorization:authorization:– Up to 50% of the park dedication requirement may Up to 50% of the park dedication requirement may

at the discretion of the City, be fulfilled by privately at the discretion of the City, be fulfilled by privately owned and maintained park and recreation owned and maintained park and recreation facilities. Credit for private parkland must meet the facilities. Credit for private parkland must meet the standards of the Parkland Dedication Guidelines standards of the Parkland Dedication Guidelines concerning adequate size, character and location.concerning adequate size, character and location.

Corpus ChristiCorpus Christi

Credit for Private Credit for Private Amenities cont.Amenities cont. If higher than 50%, then must be If higher than 50%, then must be

accessible to general public.accessible to general public.

Reimbursement Reimbursement ProvisionProvision Limitation of fees in lieuLimitation of fees in lieu

– ““If the City does acquire park land in If the City does acquire park land in a park zone, the City may require a park zone, the City may require subsequent parkland dedications for subsequent parkland dedications for that zone to be fee-in-lieu-of-land that zone to be fee-in-lieu-of-land only. This will reimburse the City of only. This will reimburse the City of the cost of acquisition.”the cost of acquisition.”

Revolving fund?Revolving fund?

Time Limitation for Time Limitation for Spending FeesSpending Fees 16 of 48 cities failed to specify a 16 of 48 cities failed to specify a

time.time. 13 specified 10 years; 9 specified 13 specified 10 years; 9 specified

5 years.5 years. Governed by a city’s growth rate.Governed by a city’s growth rate.

Refund WordingRefund Wording

Funds shall be considered to be spent on Funds shall be considered to be spent on a first-in, first-out basis. If not so a first-in, first-out basis. If not so expended, the landowners of the property expended, the landowners of the property on the expiration of such period shall be on the expiration of such period shall be entitled to a prorated refund of such sum, entitled to a prorated refund of such sum, computed on a square footage of area computed on a square footage of area basis. The owners of such property must basis. The owners of such property must request such refund within one year of request such refund within one year of entitlement, in writing, or such right shall entitlement, in writing, or such right shall be barred.be barred.

Floodplain Land?Floodplain Land?

At the city’s discretion BUT:At the city’s discretion BUT: Usual limitation: No more than Usual limitation: No more than

50% of the total dedication 50% of the total dedication

ANDAND A ratio of either 2:1 or 3:1, A ratio of either 2:1 or 3:1,

floodplain to non-floodplain landfloodplain to non-floodplain land

Challenges in Existing OrdinancesChallenges in Existing Ordinances

Scope of many ordinances is restricted Scope of many ordinances is restricted to only a sub-set of parks.to only a sub-set of parks.

Failure to extend the ordinance into Failure to extend the ordinance into the ETJ area. (Only 7 of 48 do this)the ETJ area. (Only 7 of 48 do this)

Dedications fail to follow the US Dedications fail to follow the US Supreme Court criterion of “rough Supreme Court criterion of “rough proportionality.” They are fixed at proportionality.” They are fixed at levels far below the cost of acquiring levels far below the cost of acquiring and developing parks.and developing parks.

Challenges in Existing Texas Challenges in Existing Texas OrdinancesOrdinances

Use arbitrary numbers not empirical Use arbitrary numbers not empirical procedures to identify levels of services and procedures to identify levels of services and costs.costs.

Only 10 of 48 cities charge a park Only 10 of 48 cities charge a park development fee. Some of those 10 derive development fee. Some of those 10 derive it arbitrarily rather than empirically.it arbitrarily rather than empirically.

Wide varieties in determination of fair Wide varieties in determination of fair market value of land (basis for fee-in-lieu).market value of land (basis for fee-in-lieu).

Challenges in Existing Texas Challenges in Existing Texas OrdinancesOrdinances

27 of the 48 ordinances did not authorize 27 of the 48 ordinances did not authorize any credit for private amenities.any credit for private amenities.

Courts require fees-in-lieu to be expended Courts require fees-in-lieu to be expended in a reasonable time period – 16 of the 48 in a reasonable time period – 16 of the 48 cities failed to specify a timeframe.cities failed to specify a timeframe.

3 cities extended their ordinance to non-3 cities extended their ordinance to non-residential property.residential property.

Only 11 of the 48 ordinances had a Only 11 of the 48 ordinances had a timeframe for regularly reviewing them.timeframe for regularly reviewing them.

The Notion of The Notion of Opportunity CostOpportunity Cost

Cost to Residents of Not Maximizing the Cost to Residents of Not Maximizing the Potential of a Parkland Dedication Potential of a Parkland Dedication

OrdinanceOrdinance

Estimate of 20 year capital cost Estimate of 20 year capital cost requirements for neighborhood and requirements for neighborhood and

community parks based on a projected community parks based on a projected increase of 40,000 population in the next increase of 40,000 population in the next

20 years while maintaining current levels of 20 years while maintaining current levels of serviceservice

New Neighborhood ParksNew Neighborhood Parks– Current level of service = 1 acre per 276 Current level of service = 1 acre per 276

peoplepeople– Additional land needed to retain current level Additional land needed to retain current level

of service: 40,000/276 = 145 acresof service: 40,000/276 = 145 acres– Cost of additional land: 145 acres @ Cost of additional land: 145 acres @ – $20,000 per acre = $20,000 per acre = $2,900,000$2,900,000– Average park size of 8 acres means Average park size of 8 acres means

18 new parks, with park development costs 18 new parks, with park development costs

@ $576,000 = @ $576,000 = $10,368,000 $10,368,000– Total Total

$13,268,000$13,268,000

New Neighborhood ParksNew Neighborhood Parks– Current level of service = 1 acre per 276 peopleCurrent level of service = 1 acre per 276 people– Additional land needed to retain current level of Additional land needed to retain current level of

service: 40,000/276 = 145 acresservice: 40,000/276 = 145 acres– Cost of additional land: 145 acres @ Cost of additional land: 145 acres @ – $20,000 per acre = $20,000 per acre = $2,900,000$2,900,000– Average park size of 8 acres means Average park size of 8 acres means


@ $576,000 = @ $576,000 = $10,368,000 $10,368,000– Total Total $13,268,000 $13,268,000

New Community ParksNew Community Parks

$12,068,000$12,068,000

New Neighborhood ParksNew Neighborhood Parks– Current level of service = 1 acre per 276 peopleCurrent level of service = 1 acre per 276 people– Additional land needed to retain current level of Additional land needed to retain current level of

service: 40,000/276 = 145 acresservice: 40,000/276 = 145 acres– Cost of additional land: 145 acres @ Cost of additional land: 145 acres @ – $20,000 per acre = $20,000 per acre = $2,900,000$2,900,000– Average park size of 8 acres means Average park size of 8 acres means


@ $576,000 = @ $576,000 = $10,368,000 $10,368,000– Total Total $13,268,000 $13,268,000

New Community ParksNew Community Parks

$12,068,000$12,068,000 Total estimated costTotal estimated cost $26,068,000$26,068,000

Revenue projections from land Revenue projections from land dedication ordinance based upon dedication ordinance based upon 40,000 additional population with equal 40,000 additional population with equal number of single family & multi-family number of single family & multi-family unitsunits Existing ordinance requirementsExisting ordinance requirements

–$7,979,000$7,979,000Proposed new ordinance requirementsProposed new ordinance requirements

–$25,605,000$25,605,000

ConclusionConclusion10 year capital cost to retain existing level of 10 year capital cost to retain existing level of

serviceservice(Current $s)(Current $s)

Neighborhood ParksNeighborhood Parks $13.2 million$13.2 million

Community ParksCommunity Parks $12.8 million$12.8 million

Total CostTotal Cost $26.0 million$26.0 million

Existing Ordinance RevenuesExisting Ordinance Revenues $8 million$8 million

New Ordinance RevenuesNew Ordinance Revenues $26 million$26 million

If new ordinance is not implemented, residents If new ordinance is not implemented, residents will have to be will have to be taxed taxed an additional an additional $18 million$18 million to maintain the to maintain the currentcurrent levels of park service. levels of park service.


Change the anchor pointChange the anchor point Enforce the “rough proportionality” Enforce the “rough proportionality”

standard required by 1994 US standard required by 1994 US Supreme Court Ruling in Dolan vs Supreme Court Ruling in Dolan vs City of TigardCity of Tigard

Does Does notnot raise the cost of housing raise the cost of housing A core principle of “fiscal A core principle of “fiscal

conservatism”conservatism”

If a $2,000 exaction is imposed (fee in lieu and/or If a $2,000 exaction is imposed (fee in lieu and/or impact fee), there are four possible options for impact fee), there are four possible options for absorbing this cost:absorbing this cost:

Homeowners pay more. A $200,000 home is Homeowners pay more. A $200,000 home is priced at $202,000 priced at $202,000

Homeowners get less space. Instead of 2,000 sq Homeowners get less space. Instead of 2,000 sq ft, they get 1,980 sq ft (at $100 per sq ft)ft, they get 1,980 sq ft (at $100 per sq ft)

Engage in “value engineering”Engage in “value engineering” Passed back to the land seller who receives a Passed back to the land seller who receives a

lower price for the land (long term; market forces)lower price for the land (long term; market forces)

Who Pays?Who Pays?

Impact on Land SellersImpact on Land Sellers

Assume an increased dedication fee of Assume an increased dedication fee of

$1,000$1,000– Before exaction:Before exaction:

100 units sold @ $150,000; paid $2 100 units sold @ $150,000; paid $2 million for landmillion for land

– After exaction:After exaction:Cannot sell at $151,000 per unit so Cannot sell at $151,000 per unit so developer pays $1.9 million for the land developer pays $1.9 million for the land to preserve profit marginto preserve profit margin

Are You Missing This Are You Missing This Funding Opportunity?Funding Opportunity?

1.1. Google John Crompton TAMU Google John Crompton TAMU

2.2. Scroll to “Selected Books”Scroll to “Selected Books”

3.3. Download “Parkland Dedication Download “Parkland Dedication Ordinances in Texas : A Missed Ordinances in Texas : A Missed Opportunity?”Opportunity?”

are you missing this funding opportunity? the unrealized potential of parkland dedication ordinances...

Documents

away principleschange

new park

dolan vs city of tigarddoes

anchor pointenforce

welfare of residents

new amenities

dolan vs city of tigard4

us supreme court ruling