Tag Cloud
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Building industry balks at city's fee proposal
by Kathleen Haley, published on March 1, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Storyline: Development
Loading images
Representatives from the building sector are fighting a proposal from the city to charge developers fees for transportation-related construction.
City staffers said that Sacramento must address how the city’s transportation infrastructure will be affected by population growth. The fees would partly pay for upgrades to infrastructure, according to the plan created by city staffers and consultants.
But developers voiced their opposition to the idea at a Monday meeting of the city’s Development Oversight Commission. The commission examines development in Sacramento and presents its views to the City Council.
“We cannot afford this right now,” said Matt Hedges, public affairs director for the Sacramento Builders’ Exchange. “There’s absolutely no way. We’re going out of business left and right.”
Dennis Rogers, senior vice president of governmental and public affairs for the North State Building Industry Association, said he hoped for a discussion of all cost structures associated with all kinds of development. The transportation fee proposal is being made in a “vacuum,” he said.
Meanwhile, a consultant for the city said the fees proposal is an investment program. Transportation infrastructure supports future economic development, said Robert Spencer, the consultant from the firm Urban Economics. “This is not about stifling growth,” he said.
Developers of single-family homes, apartment buildings and retail stores would pay the fees.
Hotels and motels, offices, industrial buildings, schools and churches would also be covered under the proposed fee plan.
“The purpose of an impact fee is to fund new development’s fair share of additional infrastructure and public facilities,” according to a March 1 report from the city’s Department of Transportation.
City representatives presented a breakdown of how the fees would be calculated for development in many parts of the city, with some exceptions. The fee for a single-family home would be $6,251, according to the presentation from Willdan Financial Services, which is consulting with the city on the fee program.
The fee for each multi-family residence under 10 stories in height would be $3,572.
For retail buildings, developers would pay $8,427 per 1,000 square feet. Constructing an office building would involve a transportation fee of $10,213 per 1,000 square feet.
All parts of the city are covered by these figures with the exceptions of North Natomas, Delta Shores and the River District, the railyards and Downtown, according to the presentation.
A different fee schedule is proposed for North Natomas, Delta Shores and the River District, the railyards and Downtown, Spencer said at the meeting.
Projects built close to light rail stations and affordable housing will qualify for discounted fees, according to the report.
An option that city staffers are placing before the City Council is to increase the fees over a period of three or four years.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Issues such as the actual projects the funds are earmarked for i.e. there are HOV lanes in there, new interchanges etc. ( highway projects traditionally not funded by city funds)
Additionally, there will need to be a phasing in of the new fees as there aren’t any projects being built as there is no money to build anything . Other cities whose fees on paper are higher yet they are scrambling to lower them and add incentives to assist in economic recovery. I heard of attempting to find a matrix or economic indicator to tie the fees to. ( as the economy slowly recovers the fees could be slowly phased in )
Additionally the some of comments from the BIA were valid . Shouldn’t we look at all the fees to determine if they are appropriate as some of the fees were established pre economic melt down and some are outdated . I personally would like to see the percentages adjusted . With less money going to highway funds and more to transit. I asked the question and from DOT got a" they cant be any lower , we are already pushing the percentages now" . But during the presentation there was mention of San Francisco looking to implement such a plan where the percentages were almost reversed nearly 75% going to transit and the balance to highways
just wanted to start the flurry this morning ( the full report is on the city site ( sorry for not attaching it )
And what does "lifestyle" have to do with this in the first place?
Just one of many reasons to be attracted to sprawl: Check out the crime rates in downtown and Midtown Sacramento. If I was going to raise a family, I would need to opt for suburbia. No way I could feel secure letting my kids out of my sight down here. "Lifestyle" in this instance is about the population dense neighborhoods way of life and baggage, (some of which I prefer at this stage of my life, having no young kids).
Note of course that they are proposing a 'fee', so it is not subject to a popular vote. If the city council moves forward with this, then the voters need to amend the earlier proposition that requires taxes to be put to a popular vote to include requiring fee increases to be put to a popular vote.
This nonsense has got to stop...
i do not disagree with funding transportation through development.. however ,lets be sure we are implementing with the return of the economy.. Additionally lets be sure we are funding the right projects(i.e. transit before highways) and not just putting cal trans workers to work
concernin tattoo parlors, marijuana dispenseries or bars . the market determines all that (hell, yogurt shops) the market will determine what survives or doesnt.. please dont attempt to control retail or small business through govt regulation or all small business will disappear
The DOC would do well to find a way to require developers to keep the promises/deals they make at the start of projects.
First in line to pay for transit ought to be Angelides and Tsakapolous and all others (including culpable City officials who let them renege) who developed Natomas and Elk Grove, promising Lite Rail, Transit Hubs and Pedestrian Oriented Development and delivered the exact opposite.
Regional Tranit must begin to incentivize ridership. Offer versatile monthly pass offers for those who use the system and must make multiple transfers from the burbs simply to reach the central city. By continuing to cut services and raise fees, RT is shooting itself in the foot.
I was on an outbound Lite Rail train yesterday with a driver that hit some kids, who ran in front of the train while she laid on the horn without slowing. She kept the doors shut, it took at least 5 minutes for any emergency vehicles to arrive. For about fifteen minutes RT thought it had another fatality on its hands. The driver said "We may have a fatality" the second time she came on the intercom.
The crowd of kids who swarmed the drivers door settled down when she barked at them over the intercom. The trapped riders waited and talked about what various people had seen happen. The people with the best view were up front. They were also two women with a toddler and stroller and packages, who said the driver was rude and yelling at them when they took too long to board the train.
When the officials stopped looking under the train for a body, without any announcement from the driver, the train lurched off.
The point is, we need transit now and in the future as an option. If short sighted developers don't understand that and only care that THEY "are going out of business left and right,” they are part of the problem, not the solution.
As long as RT treats riders like a captive audience and as one rider put it yesterday "like sh#t," they will continue to circle the drain. Some riders who have other options try to use RT to support the system. The exorbitant costs, inconvenient routes/connections/schedules and rude behavior of some of the staff are counterproductive.
It's time for creative and visionary thinking. It's time for developers to be made to keep their promises. That has to be built into whatever shared cost plans are devised.
Regarding the number of kids in midtown and central city (there are 11 of varying ages in one and one quarter blocks of my house). So it depends on the area--even block by block. Crime depends on the area too--sometimes block by block too. Even the definition of criminal behavior has to be explored when trying to compare neighborhood safety.
As Burg says, many suburban areas have far more reported crime than the central city. Some have less. Right now, East Sac is experiencing a rash of house and garage burglaries according to PD reports. Midtown has an increasing number of crimes near off and on-sale alcohol purveyors (DUI is a crime, robbing an inebriated pedestrian is a violent crime, driver hitting a pedestrian is a crime, traffic violations are criminal behavior) .
He is also right in that density does not create crime--there are several other existing conditions that must be factored when concluding an area has a lot of crime.