|
<br />Parks and Miscellaneous Revenues
<br />As has historically been the case, the majority of funding for Parks and Miscellaneous projects
<br />comes from developer fees and CIP General Fund. The amount of developer fees is directly
<br />related to the amount of new fee paying development activity and while the amount of fees
<br />collected previously has been significant, these revenues will most likely decline in the future.
<br />While General Fund revenue can be used on any project, developer fees are restricted as noted
<br />above. A summary of fee projections included in the CIP is listed below.
<br /> PROJECTED CITY DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES
<br />Does not include
<br />Regional Dev Calendar Year Calendar Year Calendar Calendar
<br />Fees 2005 2006 Year 2007 Year 2008 TOTAL
<br />PUBLIC
<br />FACILITY FEE $1,473,667 $839,985 $373,270 $84,940 $2,771,862
<br />PARK
<br />DEDICATION
<br />FEES $1,509,388 $583,420 $485,350 $9,707 $2,585,865
<br />GENERAL
<br />FUND $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $20,000,000
<br />TOTAL $7,983,055 $6,423,405 $5,858,620 $5,094,647 $25,359,727
<br />While current development reviews and potential new development activity such as Staples
<br />Ranch, Hacienda Business Park, and Stoneridge Mall may significantly impact these
<br />projections, their impact will not be long term and staff projects a continued gradual reduction in
<br />developer related revenues that have traditionally funded these parks and miscellaneous projects.
<br />In addition, as indicated in the CIP, General Fund contributions to the CIP may also be impacted
<br />as greater emphasis is placed on providing public services and facility/infrastructure
<br />maintenance to the City's growing public assets,
<br />Regardless of long term revenue projections, the primary issue facing the CIP is that based on
<br />current planning activity, including the development of the Bernal property, project related
<br />expectations will need to be carefully planned consistent with available and projected revenues.
<br />To accomplish this step, staff informed the Council that it would develop a priority system that
<br />could be used to establish CIP funding priorities. A similar approach used for allocating
<br />affordable housing units has been in place for a number of years and has proven to be
<br />successful. Currently, the CIP approval process is based on a number of factors including public
<br />demand, commission and Council priority, available funding, staff identification of need, etc.
<br />While this process has been effective, it is appropriate to explore other alternatives that can
<br />perhaps better meet existing needs.
<br />SR:05:312
<br />page 4
<br />
|